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, have mothers, 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 with a body count/ or people who turn sex into a social resume' 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 we have to assume, hypothetically, that 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? or #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. Bitter, some of them virgins too.

• 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 and 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.

Most importantly, Feminists sticking to legal matters to liberate oppressed women as intended abd stop tellibg women in first world countries how to livw their, lives. Especially when feminism doesnt know what a man or masculinity is, and Feminism is not held accountable for the damage its done to sex relations.

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, academia & 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. Women need to tell Feminists to "shut the fuck up".

There's a lot more to this than women just shutting the "fuck up" when it forgets its place, its about women policing their movements. And men AND women policing feminism. All of feminism. Because while we like to blame women, feminism only got this far because men, falsely presuming feminisms "moral superiority" (air quotes) didnt check it along the way. Thats how you got here.

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.

Gillette Lost $9 Billion Trying to Fix Men "A price worth paying" -- there is no "toxic masculinity"

“"A price worth paying"”

There is no "toxic masculinity", there's bad behavior and bad behavior isn't gendered. 

The whole point of the term is to make certain bad behavior a male phenomenon or a male glitch to be chastised until fixed, another dehumanization op to join the ranks of "mansplain", "mankeep", "manspread", like we're addressing naughty pets or a faulty robots than people.

A gaslight than a genuine call for accountability. And when its all said & done, it's not a razor company's job to tell people how to act. That's the parents job, a brand is not a parent. This is the problem.

Asking a woman for her number isn't harassment, it's inconvenient. Persistence, ignoring context clues of visible disinterest is harassment.

• Because hypothetically: she dropped her wallet or something, would inconveniencing her in the street then be harassment because interacting with a woman AT ALL is now harassment?  "Why aren't men approaching women anymore?"
• Or is simply wanting to talk to her on the basis of sexual pursuit specifically the problem? So what happens when women approach men? (And more are doing so, as I’ve personally seen)

Specifically it's inconvenient if the timing is inconvenient.

There was a woman in a NYT thread responding to a man who recused the term, and the best she could come up with (paraphrasing): 'It's a very real phenomenon to every woman who's be on the receiving end.'

At first I went, 'fair enough', left the comment be-- then my brain started working.

That's an appeal to emotion, not an argument #1 and then that doesn't validate anything, the bad behavior of domestic abuse was done by a man to a woman in that instance but lesbians suffer the same domestic struggles. Ergo, while the frequency differs, it's not a male specific phenomenon, is the point; hence the gaslight.

Because what is "toxic masculininity" but an emotional attack? Think about this whenever the next time we get a new "man-"sult of the year: 'Are the people inventing these labels ever trying to help bonding between men and women or is the precise/ fixed-point to ensure the fighting, orchestrated resentment, and decline continues' ? 

The word is : Agenda.

TL;DR Women's bad experienced with men needing a label to justify their trauma. which is not valid study, your misfortune is not a reality of maleness.  Just like all women aren't B's, disloyal, whores or the like because enough men got in a thread and complained about what their bad experiences entailed.

If they're wrong, then so is this.

Humans make the simplest human interactions as harassment, then women wonder why no one approaches anymore: “what happened to men?” becomes the next gaslight. Because men are so afraid of rejection they won't gamble with everything they have to their names, even their good name itself.

• When women silently want to be approached as if men are dogs to perform on psychic command,  but should stay away when she doesn’t want to be bothered, that’s not how that shit works. At that point just wear a neon sign that says “approach” or “piss off”.
•  Reality is Women haven't approached as they should have since the 70s because they are the ones who are afraid.

Toxic Masculinity perpetuating divisionary propagandist / bigoted language posing as academic verbage.

Furthermore, Women are some of the best bullies i've ever seen, as with female PDF’s: They’re not rare, they’re just better at it & way more subtle: Which btw--- is leagues more terrifying and disgusting. 

Many of which with this bad behavior are mothers, sisters, co-workers, & wives.... so basically women are human beings because to error is human, "toxic masculinity" is bullshit BECAUSE women exhibit the exact  same tendencies, because they did not come out the womb perfect.

Women are excellent at cutting people off; this narrative of fickle women with their heads hung low in the office is hilarious, especially when you’ve worked under female tyrants (co-worker or boss) who were untouchable because they could weaponize their womanhood against the bureaucracy:

But you’ll never see that reality in an ad. 

 I've had to rewrite how I speak to people when starting a few jobs because the women I spoke to were so overbearing and toxic. I've had to adopt more controlled domineering composure in the past decade just to get women to respect boundaries. Many of these women had positions of power, most did not & shared the same bad behavior but had the "pussy pass" which is more than enough power. 

Is that women being toxic masculine? Or are those specific women just rude or genuinely dense to their own behavior & cut people off as a tick. It happens.

Is it really toxic femininity? because they did the exact same thing, but their sex gave them passes, even other women hesitated to say anything. Or are they just women with no house training, exuding bad behavior?

And not all the women I've talked to did this, but so many did I had to legitimately rework my social methodology & not just American women.

And sexual harassment: women do in spades, mainly verbally, touching arms, blocking doorways, groping. The difference is they get away with it AND without controversy or an article, & they didn't have to know the right people to get off. They were women, that's all it took.

"Girls will be girls" We saying this when another white woman is caught sleeping with another 12 yr old child & doesn't get 20 to life in prison?

So is a tampon company supposed to press women about what women with bad behavior do? 

See how stupid this is? Lmfao, you see the manipulation? The entire point isn't to hold criminal men accountable for toxicity, because you'll have cutting a woman off in conversation labeled as "toxic masculinity" or a man's trauma is trivialized as "internalized toxic masculinity", pure dehumanization and it's pathetic.

• Despite what I’ve said in the past, this really isn’t all about misandry: it is to a point, but it’s more so about a gaslight posing as accountability.

As i said. It's not toxic masculinity, it's bad behavior being universally unacceptable. 

I repeat: The point of making "masculinity"+ toxic is try to make a bad variant to "healthy" masculinity when there is no spectrum of masculinity. You either exhibit bad behavior or good behavior, there is not toxic anything because if it was "masculinity" as intended, the evil would not have a happened through the understand that masculinity is responsibility, duty, service. 

That's why despite how often the west demoralizes it's men, somehow men get the nerve to go to work & prevent civilization from collapsing for another week. Maybe try being grateful for that.

Masculinity being toxic because a man is behaving bad at the time is to make those specific bad behaviors an association to maleness as an existence. So then maleness is something to be “fixed” because it has rough edges, which makes no sense when the same tendencies happens in women.

So is it toxic masculinity or toxic humanity? But the point is box men, isolate them doing so that the act becomes isolated to men.

Even a "pussy pass" both has merit and is a problem, because that implies men don't get passes, not true. Women get heaps more (relatively, because if you have liberal leaders sometimes racial or gender identity politics take priority over womens well being) due to the very real biological bias but a "pussy pass" should be "pretty pass" which can apply to men. Because an unattractive woman couldn't pull off what a Margot Robbie clone could.

Toxic Masculinity is a cultural gaslighting OP/ operation and many people have taken the bait, even Artificial Intelligence prompts repeats this disgusting, dehumanizing term. 

Because that was the goddamn point, these labels are scientifically constructed to an intended affect. And no- the agenda is not actually helping men or women.

That's why the ad didn't work, it's making behavior women do in droves into a male specific issue. 

•  women didn't ask for this, women are not the scapegoat here either.  Women with priorities aren't in their basements congregating and writing on charts inventing a new mansult to make finding love more difficult for their daughters after them
• Women don't do this, they're left with ruin and decline as a legacy by the same people feeding them these labels, those are they people they trust: The same system that's screwing their best interest.

And no, it's not a price worth paying, because these companies aren't paying for it. Civilization is. Those agents are trying to sell a product and thought men were whipped & broken enough to take yet another display of abuse, misdirection, & disrespect as an invitation. They thought wrong.

• Women's education delays having children, but men retreating, resentment, regression, frustration: DEMORALIZATION, guarantees babies/ family making doesn't happen, period.
• If boys remain boys, glued to fetishes & fantasy to run away from predatory society. Why would those men ever want to serve that society? Let alone the group it's whispering to--- women.  Fertility rates become a statistical redundance. 
• Most Women aren’t studying to become astronauts, so education slows birthrates but it doesn't drop birthrates. So when studies & Ai chat mentions "education" take it with a grain of salt because those same sources will never admit that propagandizing American/Western women into thinking independence means isolation or being undesirable was a result of education vs an unacceptable inflation of self-worship --- is actually what killed birthrates.
• Not women doing better vs the universal quality of woman tanking dramatically-- and because the women have tanked, the bar or length men go to to be decent also drops. And yes, women do that have that effect and stake on men, as men do to the women. 
• If the quality you attract is lower than you expect, water seeks it's own level. And that's on society.

The entire problem is we've told women that making a living makes men unnecessary, and so women think making money makes them sufficient without men and men are taking the bait thinking a woman making more means he's less than. 

The entire point is to make women into something they're not: "Independent", because autonomy (woman finds herself first) became Self-worship (woman lives for herself for better and for worse) which becomes Isolation, Loneliness or frustration all and or worse.

• Shit like this for 30+ years is what drops birthrates & demoralizes men AND women from trying. When people give up, when men give up, it’s game over.  

That shit you won't see in a big brand article.

• Because if the women opt out and men still try, there's hope, men are persistent if they're allowed to be.
•  When the men opt to be boys forever while the women are still trying, multitudes of women in public places, available and waiting, nothing happens because the women have no game, or wanting to give men a chance: same men who were told to stay away; and all the males are either passing it up for their own safety or masturbating to goddesses, waifus, any stupid shit they can invent to replace women.
• Or hooking up which means less than nothing Or running away to other countries because their homeland ruined men & women's future for the sake of female "self-actualization" Or "accountability" which means "Men on trial". And running abroad to these women is no solution, because we all have highs and low, & low quality american woman often means also low quality american man. 
• Don't run away from your women.
• You have no enemies. 

So no: It WAS NOT WORTH IT.

Some behaviors are divided in disproportion (violent crime), however this is why I bring up female PDF’s, because you don’t see them doing it or it's not reported as much, is not admission of the absence of it happening. 

Women being better at bad behavior, more subtle at toxicity to the point it’s an artform vs the male tendency to use bad behavior as a louder statement of status, testosterone makes them less cognizant of consequence, thus they’re the mascots of it- 

doesn’t omit women as a participant in said behavior despite being majority of the species. To some degree, that is statistically improbable.

And it's not right to the cause of accountability, because you’re intentionally making it seem as if femaleness is an outlier to bad behavior. 

“Toxic Masculinity” The label is clinically by design manipulative & literally nonsensical, disingenuous on purpose.

Anime Overview: Eureka Seven

I used to love it, but the lore & story is weak. I could never re-watch it since my second rewatch yeeeeeeeears ago. And AO was a disappointment, it made the main series' issues more apparent. The main couple growing up as young adults was the best part about it for me but the story relied on that & didn't lean into it enough at the same time. You can get the same story but with more focus, better pacing, better male lead, less distraction & better writing out of After War X Gundam, I shit you not.