Current Events > Conservative MAN buys a Ticket to a WOMEN'S ONLY event for Wonder Woman!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kineth posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

He could just see the movie at literally any other showing instead of being a bitch.

---

I used it to make a point. If you're gonna harp on the that instead of what we're actually talking about then sure you can go that route.
---

MLGSerperior111 posted...

Kineth posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

He could just buy a cake at literally any other bakery instead of being a bitch.

---

Kineth posted...

There's no discrimination happening since there are showings that aren't women only at the same establishment.

https://fortworthcivilrights.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/drinking-fountains-1.jpg

"There's no discrimination happening since there's a fountain that isn't white-only at the same establishment."
---

Imagine how much of a fuckboy you have to be to try and crash an all girls screening
---

Mal_Fet posted...

MLGSerperior111 posted...

Kineth posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

He could just buy a cake at literally any other bakery instead of being a bitch.

Just like that gay couple trying to buy a wedding cake at that CHRISTIAN bakery, hmm...
---

Kineth posted...

And also, in case you don't realize, it's not an apt comparison to compare a minority only event to a majority only event. "OH WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR WHITE MEN" How do you people dress yourselves.

From one minority to another, when are you going to stop being a racist?
---

While I agree that a business should be allowed to serve who it wants, this is still segregation and discrimination based on sex and you know the lefties in here defending it never would if this was the other way around.
---

When I see situations like this, I think the real problem is a concern about double-standards.

Here we have a film about a female superhero. Wonder Woman is likely designed more for female audiences but there are still plenty of males who like her stories and want to see it. Even if there are other theaters who aren't barring men, there are still a few that are. And any man who tries to speak out against it is being labeled a sexist and/or a misogynist.

Now let's say the reverse situation happened. Some theaters decided to have a showing of a movie like Dirty Harry or something similar, a film that's typically considered a "guy's film" but may also have some female fans that would like to attend. Only because the movie is a guy's film they decided to make the special showings to be for men only. If this happened I would have no trouble believing it if I heard a number of women were causing an uproar about it, claiming that this men-only showing is sexist and wrong and that women should be allowed to attend as well. And you know what? No one would dare label these women sexist.

For decades people have been fighting to end racism, sexism and segregation in all its forms. But now it seems that more and more segregation is being brought back but by the same people who have fought to end it. In this case, sexism and segregation can never disappear if bullshit like this keeps happening. It may dressed up differently but it's still the same evil that people have been fighting to end.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Kineth posted...

And also, in case you don't realize, it's not an apt comparison to compare a minority only event to a majority only event. "OH WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR WHITE MEN" How do you people dress yourselves.

From one minority to another, when are you going to stop being a racist?

From one minority to another, how in the fuck do you interpret that as racist?
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

There's a big difference between hosting an event for a certain group of people and categorically refusing service to said group as part of business policy.

---

I kind of want a theater to be ballsy enough to do an all black screening for Black Panther. Trigger racists and that ish would be lit?! Win-win
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Kineth posted...

And also, in case you don't realize, it's not an apt comparison to compare a minority only event to a majority only event. "OH WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR WHITE MEN" How do you people dress yourselves.

From one minority to another, when are you going to stop being a racist?

From one minority to another, how in the fuck do you interpret that as racist?

It's not just that one post. Kineth's posting history is filled with race-baiting statements.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Kineth posted...

And also, in case you don't realize, it's not an apt comparison to compare a minority only event to a majority only event. "OH WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR WHITE MEN" How do you people dress yourselves.

From one minority to another, when are you going to stop being a racist?

From one minority to another, how in the fuck do you interpret that as racist?

It's not just that one post. Kineth's posting history is filled with race-baiting statements.

From one minority to another, how about you answer his fucking question?

It's hilarious that my post went over your head. Hello, the 2 majorities (as there is ONLY one majority as opposed to many minorities in a category) are. Wait for it. Whites, and males, and this is majority by amount of power, not sheer numbers, so please, try and keep up instead of stopping there to miss the point. So to call it race baiting means you have no idea about anything about this fucking country when I'm saying 2 majority entities as the point of why the argument is bullshit.

So I must have worn out all the options that these people had for arguments because all I'm seeing now are old, low post accounts trying to discredit me as a person as opposed to address what I said and they're lying to boot. Pretty fucking desperate.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

There's a big difference between hosting an event for a certain group of people and categorically refusing service to said group as part of business policy.

So if the bakery were like "Sorry, we don't serve the gays on Sundays" you'd be cool with it?

FrisbeeDude posted...

I kind of want a theater to be ballsy enough to do an all black screening for Black Panther. Trigger racists and that ish would be lit?! Win-win

Sounds like the only racists in that scenario would be the people supporting racial segregation
---

What if he has a feminine penis? Such bigotry.
---

Everyone should be allowed to pay to watch whatever movie they want, in whatever theater they want.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

So if the bakery were like "Sorry, we don't serve the gays on Sundays" you'd be cool with it?

I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, a special event done for a group. Not a weekly event done against a group. But, if nothing else, I would have less of a problem with that scenario than I would if they just refused service entirely. Of course, thanks to the former, the question of its acceptability is still up in the air.

I mean, that's a really odd decision on their part, since refusing service on a particular day implies they don't want to serve them. And yet, by virtue of them doing that, they then have to serve them on the other days. So they still have to serve people they don't like on literally every other day other than this one particular day out of the week.

Now are you done fishing for an ultimately irrelevant claim to hypocrisy? Or are you actually going to defend the idea that a business permanently refusing service to a group in their entirety is somehow comparable to a a business hosting a one-time special event (not even an all-day event, or even a half-day event) for a certain group?
---

Kineth posted...

It's hilarious that my post went over your head. Hello, the 2 majorities (as there is ONLY one majority as opposed to many minorities in a category) are. Wait for it. Whites, and males, and this is majority by amount of power, not sheer numbers, so please, try and keep up instead of stopping there to miss the point. So to call it race baiting means you have no idea about anything about this fucking country when I'm saying 2 majority entities as the point of why the argument is bullshit.

That's a bullshit explanation that relies on the double standard of we can't be racist, sexist, and every other ist because we are not the majority (whether it's by number or power). I'm sick and tired of seeing that hypocritical nonsense. It's how we keep getting those lame oh, won't someone think of the men, won't someone think of whites, won't someone think of the Christians... type remarks.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So if the bakery were like "Sorry, we don't serve the gays on Sundays" you'd be cool with it?

I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, a special event done for a group. Not a weekly event done against a group. But, if nothing else, I would have less of a problem with that scenario than I would if they just refused service entirely. Of course, thanks to the former, the question of its acceptability is still up in the air.

I mean, that's a really odd decision on their part, since refusing service on a particular day implies they don't want to serve them. And yet, by virtue of them doing that, they then have to serve them on the other days. So they still have to serve people they don't like on literally every other day other than this one particular day out of the week.

Now are you done fishing for an ultimately irrelevant claim to hypocrisy? Or are you actually going to defend the idea that a business permanently refusing service to a group in their entirety is somehow comparable to a a business hosting a one-time special event (not even an all-day event, or even a half-day event) for a certain group?

Just to be clear, you would be ok with discrimination against gay people as long as it's only for occasional events?
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Kineth posted...

It's hilarious that my post went over your head. Hello, the 2 majorities (as there is ONLY one majority as opposed to many minorities in a category) are. Wait for it. Whites, and males, and this is majority by amount of power, not sheer numbers, so please, try and keep up instead of stopping there to miss the point. So to call it race baiting means you have no idea about anything about this fucking country when I'm saying 2 majority entities as the point of why the argument is bullshit.

That's a bullshit explanation that relies on the double standard of we can't be racist, sexist, and every other ist because we are not the majority (whether it's by number or power). I'm sick and tired of seeing that hypocritical nonsense. It's how we keep getting those lame oh, won't someone think of the men, won't someone think of whites, won't someone think of the Christians... type remarks.

It also has the implication that if a white guy moved to China, it would be ok for him to discriminate against asians since he's not in the majority.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So if the bakery were like "Sorry, we don't serve the gays on Sundays" you'd be cool with it?

I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, a special event done for a group. Not a weekly event done against a group. But, if nothing else, I would have less of a problem with that scenario than I would if they just refused service entirely. Of course, thanks to the former, the question of its acceptability is still up in the air.

I mean, that's a really odd decision on their part, since refusing service on a particular day implies they don't want to serve them. And yet, by virtue of them doing that, they then have to serve them on the other days. So they still have to serve people they don't like on literally every other day other than this one particular day out of the week.

Now are you done fishing for an ultimately irrelevant claim to hypocrisy? Or are you actually going to defend the idea that a business permanently refusing service to a group in their entirety is somehow comparable to a a business hosting a one-time special event (not even an all-day event, or even a half-day event) for a certain group?

Just to be clear, you would be ok with discrimination against gay people as long as it's only for occasional events?

I'm okay with businesses holding events for specific groups, whoever that group may be. If you want to spin that as me being "ok with discrimination against gay people," that's your prerogative. It'll be wildly inaccurate, but it would be your prerogative.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

It also has the implication that if a white guy moved to China, it would be ok for him to discriminate against asians since he's not in the majority.

Well, now that you pointed out what should be an obvious analogy, it'll be automatically dismissed by the usual suspects.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Kineth posted...

It's hilarious that my post went over your head. Hello, the 2 majorities (as there is ONLY one majority as opposed to many minorities in a category) are. Wait for it. Whites, and males, and this is majority by amount of power, not sheer numbers, so please, try and keep up instead of stopping there to miss the point. So to call it race baiting means you have no idea about anything about this fucking country when I'm saying 2 majority entities as the point of why the argument is bullshit.

That's a bullshit explanation that relies on the double standard of we can't be racist, sexist, and every other ist because we are not the majority (whether it's by number or power). I'm sick and tired of seeing that hypocritical nonsense.

Your bias is really fucking this up. You think I say shit to be racist so instead of reading it like I'm possibly, making a valid point, you cling to your bias and assume I mean the worst. It is now not so funny that you literally don't get the purpose of putting race in that post, especially considering all the other people in this topic that did it first without an actual point they were supporting.

Honestly, if you have nothing bad at all to say about Mal_Fet, I think you should just back on out of here. Clearly my shit is too highbrow for you.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I'm okay with businesses holding events for specific groups, whoever that group may be. If you want to spin that as me being "ok with discrimination against gay people," that's your prerogative.

You literally advocated it in your first sentence in this post. You're just too squeamish to say that you're ok with discrimination against homosexuals.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

It also has the implication that if a white guy moved to China, it would be ok for him to discriminate against asians since he's not in the majority.

Well, now that you pointed out what should be an obvious analogy, it'll be automatically dismissed by the usual suspects.

It sucks that you wanna cheerlead and yet haven't had the sack to argue my points.
---

Kineth posted...

It sucks that you wanna cheerlead and yet haven't had the sack to argue my points.

Kineth posted...

"OH WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR WHITE MEN"

I got your point the first time.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I'm okay with businesses holding events for specific groups, whoever that group may be. If you want to spin that as me being "ok with discrimination against gay people," that's your prerogative.

You literally advocated it in your first sentence in this post. You're just too squeamish to say that you're ok with discrimination against homosexuals.

I see you've decided to go with "wildly inaccurate."
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

jfc are you serious with this bullshit? I have a lot of posts in this topic and you choose to cherry pick one post to support your point? That is the definition of bias.

I was kidding, at first, about my posts being too highbrow, but those research skills and analytical ability? Really? I sure hope you're someone's alt.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I'm okay with businesses holding events for specific groups, whoever that group may be. If you want to spin that as me being "ok with discrimination against gay people," that's your prerogative.

You literally advocated it in your first sentence in this post. You're just too squeamish to say that you're ok with discrimination against homosexuals.

I see you've decided to go with "wildly inaccurate."

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of how limited the period you do it in is.

So you're ok with discrimination against gay people, then?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I'm okay with businesses holding events for specific groups, whoever that group may be. If you want to spin that as me being "ok with discrimination against gay people," that's your prerogative.

You literally advocated it in your first sentence in this post. You're just too squeamish to say that you're ok with discrimination against homosexuals.

I see you've decided to go with "wildly inaccurate."

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of how limited the period you do it in is.

So you're ok with discrimination against gay people, then?

Define what you mean by descrimination, and I'll see if I agree with that statement. Until then, the only statement that I will make is the one you're desperately trying to twist. Now, are you honestly telling me that these two situations are comparable?

Company A holds an event for white people.

Company B refuses service to white people.

Supposing those were two generic headlines, you would think they were describing the same situation?
---

The dude is a little bitch with a baby dick and anyone defending him is embarrassingly pathetic.

Imagine being anti SJW and then acting like one by manufacturing controversy and crying over it. I don't know how a person like that could look themselves in the mirror.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Define what you mean by descrimination, and I'll see if I agree with that statement.

Refusing service to someone because of an immutable characteristic, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. That's a clear example of discrimination.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Company A holds an event for white people.

Company B refuses service to white people.

Supposing those were two generic headlines, you would think they were describing the same situation?

There is no relevant difference. Both are examples of racial discrimination, and last I checked, that was illegal.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Define what you mean by descrimination, and I'll see if I agree with that statement.

Refusing service to someone because of an immutable characteristic, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. That's a clear example of discrimination.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Company A holds an event for white people.

Company B refuses service to white people.

Supposing those were two generic headlines, you would think they were describing the same situation?

There is no relevant difference. Both are examples of racial discrimination, and last I checked, that was illegal.

What does that have to do with a handful of screenings of a movie? Do you actually even give a shit, Mal? Are you seriously bothered by Ladies Nights? Or are you just crying about SJW hypocrisy? Either way, you are so triggered.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

What does that have to do with a handful of screenings of a movie? Do you actually even give a shit, Mal? Are you seriously bothered by Ladies Nights? Or are you just crying about SJW hypocrisy? Either way, you are so triggered.

What bothers me isn't not being able to see a movie I probably won't see in theaters anyway in a city I've never been to.

My problem is that the people defending discrimination are the same exact people who flip out in every other case of discrimination. Isn't that a little weird to you? If someone were really against sexism down to the relative prices of toothbrushes, why would they defend a clear-cut case of sexism here? Why do they sneer at the idea of someone having a problem with discrimination when it comes to men but would be horrified at the same treatment of women?

Makes you wonder if these people really care about discrimination at all, huh?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What does that have to do with a handful of screenings of a movie? Do you actually even give a shit, Mal? Are you seriously bothered by Ladies Nights? Or are you just crying about SJW hypocrisy? Either way, you are so triggered.

What bothers me isn't not being able to see a movie I probably won't see in theaters anyway in a city I've never been to.

My problem is that the people defending discrimination are the same exact people who flip out in every other case of discrimination.

Our problem is that the people decrying this practice defend discrimination in every other instance. Literally decrying the weakest example of discrimination, but will easily turn around and defend blatant, impacting examples of discrimination.
---

Kineth posted...

Our problem is that the people decrying this practice defend discrimination in every other instance.

If the law is in effect then it should be applied equally. Doesn't matter if we agree with the law or not. There's a difference between saying "It would be better if anti-discrimination laws didn't exist" and "It is illegal to discriminate against people, unless they're jews."

I hope you can see the difference too.
---

The law isn't being violated. Now, address the hypocrisy of yours I pointed out.
---

Kineth posted...

The law isn't being violated. Now, address the hypocrisy of yours I pointed out.

As a public accommodation that is supposed to be open to the everyone, yes, a case can easily be made against this as it has been for women-only health clubs in the past. That's why you can kick someone out of your house for whatever reason you want, but you aren't allowed to have a "colored people only" bathroom in your restaurant.

And therefore,

Mal_Fet posted...

There's a difference between saying "It would be better if anti-discrimination laws didn't exist" and "It is illegal to discriminate against people, unless they're jews."

I hope you can see the difference too.

---

Mal_Fet posted...

Kineth posted...

The law isn't being violated. Now, address the hypocrisy of yours I pointed out.

As a public accomodation that is supposed to be open to the public, yes, a case can easily be made against this as it has been for women-only health clubs in the past.

And therefore,

Hold up. An entire facility excluding business isn't the same as part of the facility being used for a special event. Once again, it doesn't violate the law. Wording is very important in law and it makes complete sense that you don't get it given your previous examples of reading failure. Anyway, I guess I'll just adhere to my sig.
---

And here comes Mal_Fet, striking himself out with some hilariously awful analogies!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What does that have to do with a handful of screenings of a movie? Do you actually even give a shit, Mal? Are you seriously bothered by Ladies Nights? Or are you just crying about SJW hypocrisy? Either way, you are so triggered.

What bothers me isn't not being able to see a movie I probably won't see in theaters anyway in a city I've never been to.

My problem is that the people defending discrimination are the same exact people who flip out in every other case of discrimination. Isn't that a little weird to you? If someone were really against sexism down to the relative prices of toothbrushes, why would they defend a clear-cut case of sexism here? Why do they sneer at the idea of someone having a problem with discrimination when it comes to men but would be horrified at the same treatment of women?

Makes you wonder if these people really care about discrimination at all, huh?

I always thought you were one of those people. Are you against bakers refusing to serve gay couples? If you are, good for you proving me wrong.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What does that have to do with a handful of screenings of a movie? Do you actually even give a shit, Mal? Are you seriously bothered by Ladies Nights? Or are you just crying about SJW hypocrisy? Either way, you are so triggered.

What bothers me isn't not being able to see a movie I probably won't see in theaters anyway in a city I've never been to.

My problem is that the people defending discrimination are the same exact people who flip out in every other case of discrimination. Isn't that a little weird to you? If someone were really against sexism down to the relative prices of toothbrushes, why would they defend a clear-cut case of sexism here? Why do they sneer at the idea of someone having a problem with discrimination when it comes to men but would be horrified at the same treatment of women?

Makes you wonder if these people really care about discrimination at all, huh?

I always thought you were one of those people. Are you against bakers refusing to serve gay couples? If you are, good for you proving me wrong.

I specifically remember Mal_Fet arguing for anti gay discrimination based on the fact that it's "their business and they should be able to do what they want with it" or something along those lines
---

Theres always that one guy that has to "stick it to the man" and do this.

Like the guy who you tell to not ruin the surprise and he goes "Fuck you Ima do it anyway" and ruins it.

I woudln't be surprised if he suffers a great ass whipping after the show.

And to the people comparing this to the Civil Rights Movement, seriously you are horrible people and if you ever wonder why nobody likes you, just look at your posts.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

I always thought you were one of those people. Are you against bakers refusing to serve gay couples? If you are, good for you proving me wrong.

I don't think it's particularly fair to bring that affair into the mix here. That topic deals with the issue of freedom of religion. There are no religious considerations to be had in this Wonder Woman movie affair.

People may try to draw parallels but when you get right down to it they are still different matters underlying some very different issues and can't really be linked.

Kineth posted...

Hold up. An entire facility excluding business isn't the same as part of the facility being used for a special event.

I don't recall a "special event" exclusion clause in the anti-discrimination law. Weird! Can you find a source on that?

hockeybub89 posted...

I always thought you were one of those people. Are you against bakers refusing to serve gay couples? If you are, good for you proving me wrong.

There's a difference between saying "It would be better if anti-discrimination laws didn't exist" and "It is illegal to discriminate against people, unless they're jews."

---

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

What does that have to do with a handful of screenings of a movie? Do you actually even give a shit, Mal? Are you seriously bothered by Ladies Nights? Or are you just crying about SJW hypocrisy? Either way, you are so triggered.

What bothers me isn't not being able to see a movie I probably won't see in theaters anyway in a city I've never been to.

My problem is that the people defending discrimination are the same exact people who flip out in every other case of discrimination. Isn't that a little weird to you? If someone were really against sexism down to the relative prices of toothbrushes, why would they defend a clear-cut case of sexism here? Why do they sneer at the idea of someone having a problem with discrimination when it comes to men but would be horrified at the same treatment of women?

Makes you wonder if these people really care about discrimination at all, huh?

I always thought you were one of those people. Are you against bakers refusing to serve gay couples? If you are, good for you proving me wrong.

I specifically remember Mal_Fet arguing for anti gay discrimination based on the fact that it's "their business and they should be able to do what they want with it" or something along those lines

Which means he is a hypocrite whining about hypocrites. What an honest conversation.
---

LordTrinen posted...

I don't think it's particularly fair to bring that affair into the mix here. That topic deals with the issue of freedom of religion. There are no religious considerations to be had in this Wonder Woman movie affair.

The issue is discrimination based on a person's identity, which btw, Mal_Fet can't help but shit on identity politics on a regular basis so you're not keeping good company.
---

Conservatives on this board (even in this country really) are pretty bad when it comes to the whole "hypocrisy" thing
---