Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 2. (Read 80461 times)

Feminist Blog Suspends New Content After Running Out of Kickstarter Funds in Less Than a Year






Feminist blog Femsplain has announced that they will cease publishing new content after running out of funds from their Kickstarter campaign in 2015.

Femsplain promised “feminism full time” in their successfully funded Kickstarter last March, raising over $30,000.


Among certain promises, the campaign blamed the online consumer-revolt movement #GamerGate of “going out of their way to make women feel unsafe,” and their team included a former creative strategist for Tumblr, a Rutgers graduate, and various others. Despite publicly describing themselves as a “diverse collective,” no males were involved in the project out of a team of 15.

In a blog post published on Saturday, founder of Femsplain Amber Gordon wrote:

    When we brought Femsplain into the world, we never thought it would become as big as it is today. I never dreamed I’d be running a company at 24, but we did it because someone had to and we really believe in what we’re doing.

    With that, it’s important that we be transparent on where we’re at as a company and what we need to be doing in order to succeed. Starting next month, Femsplain will be taking a break from publishing new content. This by no means implies we’re going anywhere, but rather in the meantime Gabriela and I will be focusing efforts toward expanding our future vision while dedicating more time to our daily newsletter, Femsplainer. We’ll also continue to update our social accounts with older stories and inspiration, organize events and meet-ups, be on slack, etc. We just won’t be publishing new content.

    As you know, Femsplain is mostly self-funded and our Kickstarter funds are nearing the end. We pride ourselves on being able to pay our writers, and unfortunately it’s something we can’t continue doing without proper funding.

Gordon then finished the post with a plea for more money: “It would mean so much if you could continue supporting us during this time and we hope to emerge even better soon enough! Only if you can, if you have an extra few dollars and want to help us out, you can do so monthly through Patreon or one time through PayPal.”

Pleading for more donations is not a new tactic among feminist outlets and organisations. Most writers tend to have Patreon accounts where they digitally beg for money, and feminist video series Feminist Frequency serves their name true by frequently asking for donations despite raising $158,000 through Kickstarter in 2012 and charging $10,000 for public appearances.

Users on Twitter both defended and criticised Femsplain’s sudden decision to stop publishing new content, with Business Insider’s Technology Editor James Cook set upon by a mob of Femsplain supporters for his criticism.

    Weird that Femsplain is stopping publishing. Did they not realise they would get through all of their money?

    — James Cook (@JamesLiamCook) February 20, 2016

    @Nero "I never thought I'd be running a company at 24."

    Apparently, you were right.

    — Jacob Ritter (@Mornscreek) February 21, 2016

    @JamesLiamCook I'M SAYING YOU SOUND LIKE A SHELTERED LITTLE BITCHBOY

    — CLAUDIA (@literalporn) February 21, 2016

    WHITE GUYS TRY TO CONDESCEND WHEN THEY FEEL DUMB LOL

    — CLAUDIA (@literalporn) February 21, 2016


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/22/feminist-blog-suspends-new-content-after-running-out-of-kickstarter-funds-in-less-than-a-year/

The Devastating Silence From Labour ‘Feminists’ On Cologne







On the night of the Oldham West and Royton by-election result I accused the Labour Party of engaging in “dangerous identity politics.” The result of me uttering this sentence on TV was that the political journalists both local and national went into a spin. Labour politicians were also horrified and tried to suggest I was being racist, which of course I wasn’t, and they knew it. Indeed, calling someone is a “racist” is the fall back tactic for Labour politicians when they know they’ve been rumbled.



By “dangerous identity politics”, I meant ditching one’s own values and pandering to the prejudices of others. And the Labour Party is doing this on an increasingly regular basis, which I maintain is dangerous politics.

They did this on a minor scale in Oldham when Labour politicians (both Oldham MPs and local councillors) attended a meeting that was segregated on the basis of gender.

This meeting was organised by the Labour Friends of Bangladesh and was a political meeting, not a religious one. Labour of course denied the meeting was gender segregated, but it was obvious to anyone who saw the photos that men and women were sitting on opposite sides of the room. More evidence then came to light that the Labour leader, hard left London luvvie Jeremy Corbyn, had also been addressing gender segregated meetings.

Now one would think such gatherings would vex Labour feminists like Harriet Harman, but she has never publicly said a thing. Maybe this was because her husband, Labour MP Jack Dromey, was also caught addressing a gender segregated rally in Birmingham last year.

The question surely must be: Why do Labour politicians agree to address such meetings? The answer is simple: votes.

They cast aside their so-called profoundly long held beliefs and values to appeal to the Muslim community in areas like Oldham and Birmingham because they are reliant on their votes.

They need the community leaders to sign people up in large numbers to postal votes and they need the Imams to tell those who attend the mosques to vote Labour. It is an unholy alliance of the Left and Muslim community, but interestingly it is only the Left that panders, making it an uneven relationship.

But gender segregated meetings in Oldham are only the thin end of wedge of “identity politics”.

We’ve already witnessed the thick end in towns like Rotherham where a Labour-run council turned a blind eye to the rape and molestation of up to 1,400 girls (some as young as 12) by men from within the Pakistani community. And why did the council and the police ignore what was going on? Because they did not want to “rock the boat” and upset “community cohesion”

And one does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the Muslim votes mattered too to the local Labour Party. It is disgusting and embarrassing to think that things like this happen in 21st century Britain.

We heard very little from the Labour feminists regarding the Rotherham grooming scandal, but we should not be surprised as they have form for this. Note their lack of condemnation of polygamy, forced marriage, the oppressive burqa and female genital mutilation. Their silence on these subjects has been deafening for years. Barbara Castle would be turning in her grave.         

And now they have done it again in 2016. Last week I decided to look at the social media accounts of the self-professed Labour feminists to see what their reaction was to the New Year’s Eve sexual attacks in Cologne. Let’s not forget that up to 250 women were sexually assaulted so you would think that the Labour feminists would be up in arms speaking up on behalf of their beleaguered German sisters. But no, not a peep.

I scoured through the social media accounts of London Labour MPs Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry and leader Jeremy Corbyn and there was not even a mention of these grotesque assaults.

Now, I wonder why the Left wing feminists have refused to say anything? Perhaps it’s because the attacks were committed by more than one thousand men of “Arabic or North African” appearance who were undoubtedly Muslim “refugees”? It’s just a hunch. I also have a sneaky suspicion that these same people would have been at the forefront of the condemnation if these attacks were committed by white, Christian, German men.

This is just another in a long line of examples of Labour politicians turning a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour because it is coming from a certain section of the community. This is what I meant when I accused the Labour Party of engaging in “dangerous identity politics” and I can assure you now, it will only get worse.   


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/18/where-are-labours-feminists-on-cologne/

completely untrue. conserving the environment and attaining equal (emphasis on equal) rights for both sexes has nothing even resembling a negative stigma attached to them. both are reasonable and pretty good things to support. however, it is the manner in which the extremist supporters of these views act on advancing their respective agendas that the environmentalist / feminist movement gets put in a bad light. and 'makes them illogical human beings?' what? stop spamming.

that aside, there are perfectly reasonable methods in which the activists of said movements could further their agendas, but they typically get labelled as 'tree huggers, environmental terrorists, feminazis,' etc. and for good reason, some of the extremist supporters of these movements are completely insane.

environmentalists and feminists  has negative connotation  on people's mind because of their lunatic behaviours on subjects which they support . that makes them illogical human beings.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-some-peoples-outrage-over-the-cologne-attacks-is-racist-20160107-gm1ayd.html

https://twitter.com/PPact/status/679840181193605121/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc

Who are the true nature lovers?

 

Governments definitely hate Environmentalists bez they think they are roadblocks to the development projects. Govts dont want to be answerable to anyone. Deforestation is taking place in the name of development.   

It's mainly just Wilkinson copy pasting the same crap

Notice how my posts pack more information in less than three sentences

You should read the first post. Better yet go to the link on the first post. This thread is about why a very open liberal website had such title and why they were right about it.

I've looked at the title of this thread for months but never opened it until now. It just seems like a provocation... a hot-button topic. an argument for the sake of arguing.

today i opened it up... FORTY ONE PAGES! almost every post is hundreds of words long! damn people sure  get riled about this stuff!

well here's my take; I dont think everybody hates environmentalists and feminists. I dont even think many people hate either group. certainly no one sane and good hearted does. I love women and EXPECT every one to be a feminist. I dont respect women who aren't intelligent and strong. who would?

and the environment is in dire straits, we should all be environmental, if you aren't you are akin to committing crimes against humanity. isn't it obvious how polluted the world is? isn't it obvious we need to take better care of the planet?

there are people who resent both groups, but they are a very loud minority. the best defense against these fools is to ignore them. they're just mad because they never get laid (unless they pay for it)

Yep.

If you believe in equal rights for both sexes that just makes you a normal person. You dont need a label for that. That's pretty much a description of almost everyone. Atleast in the west. Modern feminists aren't about rights, they are about enforcing equality of outcome which requires different people to have different rights. So for example if men and woman having equal rights leads to men making slightly higher wages on average than females, than feminists are not satisfied with this and will seek to enforce equality of outcome by giving woman special rights that men don't have.

I identify as a childfree woman, one of a growing demographic of young people for whom having children is not only not in their present, but not in their future, either, entirely by choice. (Syntactically, the childfree are distinguished from the childless—those who want children but cannot or do not have them—because the latter term implies that one is “less” something for not having offspring.) For many, the decision to be childfree is a matter of practicalities: a baby would not fit in with their career and lifestyle, or they aren’t financially secure, or they haven’t yet found The One. While all those things are true in my case, the main reason is much simpler: I basely, emphatically, viscerally hate children.

I can’t remember a time when I felt anything more positive than contempt for children, even when I was a child myself. From (quite literally) the time I could talk, I announced my intent that I never wanted children, and as a little girl, I never had even the slightest inclination towards baby dolls. As an only child of older parents, I spent much of my time around middle-aged adults, and found I far preferred their company to that of my agemates. As an adult, my dislike seems to be rooted in my nature, stemming from the same sort of inborn, primal (if opposite) urge as those who desperately want them. I think of myself as “not a kid person” much in the same way that someone else might feel they’re “not a cat person” or “not a dog person”; it is not a conscious choice, but a natural state of being. But whereas cat- and dog-haters get a pass from society, there is something singularly off-putting to others about having an aversion the young of one’s own species.

Other childfree women have felt this resultant animosity, and have tried to preempt others’ judgment. From data-driven news stories to personal essays—including those in the excellent new collection “Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Children,” edited by Meghan Daum—almost each story by and about childfree women seems to include apologetic, vehement protestations that such women are not baby-haters. (“We do not hate kids,” Daum writes in her introduction, “and it still amazes me that this notion is given any credence.”) Nearly every woman-authored piece on the topic, both in Daum’s collection and elsewhere, is defensive about an implied dislike of children, and those that aren’t are instead evasive of it. (Notably but perhaps unsurprisingly, men who dislike children are more outspoken about it, and far less stigmatized.) Childfree women are often characterized as doting and dedicated aunts, godmothers, professionals or community volunteers whose lives are full of children they love, even if they ultimately—some pined for children in the past—do not want any of their own. I have no doubt that such characterizations are true, and that many childfree people do in fact love children; that is their reality. But by failing to account for the possibility that there are baby-haters among us, by attempting to subvert the ugly stereotype before it even arises, such authors negate the experiences of—and even the existence of—those of us for whom our reality is in fact one of baby-hating. And by denying that we exist—especially for women, society’s designated nurturers, who feel this stereotype especially acutely—we are denied the chance to prove that, contrary to what one may instinctively characterize us as, this particular facet of our personalities, our identities as baby-haters, does not make us bad people.

I firmly believe that some of us were simply born without the nurturing gene and with biological clocks that nature neglected to wind. My baby-hating doesn’t come from a place of malice. I don’t wish children ill; I just want them to stay the hell away from me. I’m not a situational baby-hater, either; though a child behaving badly might cause me to shoot some side-eye or make a snarky comment, my inherent dislike of children does not significantly lessen when a kid behaves well, even if I do find them slightly more tolerable. (As Kate Christensen writes of her boyfriend in her essay in “Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed” and which I can wholeheartedly relate to, “Seeing other people with their kids, no matter how cute they are, only reinforces his knowledge that he doesn’t want them.”) I can count on one hand all the children I’ve seen in my life that have struck me as cute. On the subway, if I see even a well-behaved child heading for the empty seat next to mine, I will move across the train car, all the while raising the volume on my music. On a recent outing to the Bronx Zoo, a small child mistakenly grabbed my hand instead of her mother’s, and I instinctively recoiled as if the toddler’s touch had sent 10,000 volts of electricity coursing through my body.

I’m not the only baby-hater out there. While I am fairly open about my views, other women have confessed to me in hushed tones their dislike—even hatred—of children or doubt over whether they might ever want any. In fact, even as the stigma against baby-haters persists, science shows that there’s probably a little baby-hater in all of us: new research demonstrates that nothing kills happiness quite like having a baby does.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/im_a_baby_hater_and_im_not_sorry/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


-----------------------------------------
Alanna weissman, from ?
http://www.parentguidenews.com/Authors/AlannaWeissman

You know what's really "wrong"? Forcing people to undergo brain transplants, or even suggesting they need them. Who are we to decide on that really?

And yes, like every other corrupt entity out there, I do heavily oppose the socialized health care systems throughout the world

I don't see anything wrong with these two half naked women on stage except they need brain transplants.

This is interesting. I'll be sure to check out the video, thanks for sharing.

On Saturday, I was ejected by the LAPD from the Amber Rose Slut Walk in Los Angeles. Here’s the footage.‎

Read my thoughts on why feminists call the cops on reporters when you’ve seen the video, and check out how slippery and devious some feminist journalists have been in covering up the dismal turnout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdBkPFoOwQ


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/06/video-milo-gets-kicked-out-of-a-slut-walk-warning-graphic-content/


------------------------------------------
I can see why the lgbtq won't support the rights of Milo Yiannopoulos' free speech: not gay (leftist) enough.

Argumentum Ad Populum. Fallacy of anecdotal evidence.