Neither and both. They both wanted their world view to dominate and did so by influencing a bunch of countries. The US fucked up all of South America during that time, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, Korea, and probably a few countries in Africa. The Soviet Union wasn’t innocent in all of this fighting their proxy wars against the US.

*One letter removed by autocorrect in offhanded unserious comment*

You must write the titles for those rightwing youtube videos about “Shapiro owns transtard in unbelievable response”.

ERMAGERD UTTER DESTRUCTION!!!11!!!111!!1!!!11

I’m not trying to insult their intelligence. I’m insulting it.

Also, well done on finding an autocorrect mistake. Must be proud of yourself.

Thanks Duning Kruger

Unrealistic: he’d be abusing the child.

Those are relative explanations as in relative to the region. Compare it to Africa where the crime rate and murder rate is quite different despite there being active wars on the continent. Violence is of course present but not at the same level as in South America.

“Why is everybody moving away from here??? Must be because the immigrants are taking away all our jobs!!!”

A tale as old as time.

Sorry, I don’t watch basketball. All I knew was that he was famous basketball player and LeBron was the first name that came to mind. Now I have to look up who LeBron is.

Thank you!

Requires a login. Is it available anywhere without a google account?

“It has no fixed meaning”.

Great, I can ignore it then.

6-7?

Why would it be rage bait? Those videos look like commercials, but I don’t know what they’d be advertising.

Female leads are the worst aren’t they? (Don’t know why, some fat fucking nerd told me so)

Two sentences in and I know you either didn’t read the entire post or you interpreted it as a critique of feminism. If you can’t understand it, maybe run it through some LLM and let it summarise it for you in your native language.

I see what you mean after looking up co-opted. I was looking for a term that indicates joined by to influence and amplify for your own goals. Yes, feminism has brought about good and real tangible change, but it was also used as a major distraction (my original claim).

As you said, the first wave was indeed racist and many parts of feminism are still targeted at the white, middle class woman. The outrage for the sexual assault on a white woman is magnitudes larger than that of a colored woman. Colored women are also taken less seriously by medical professionals as well as the judiciary. There was a documentary in Germany about how non-white women are treated by doctors and it was disgusting to see how they were brushed off as “it’s in their culture to exaggerate”. The same happens in France to Muslim women.

More like your reading comprehension is 0.

Wat?

I’m not sure why you’re saying “no”. It doesn’t seem like you’re contradicting at all. The 60s were second wave feminism.

Of course, but the point is how much energy is put into what. We should be putting most of our energy into resolving the wealth gap, but instead we’re deeply divided and easily get distracted. Celebrities, feminism, blm, “immigrants”, movies, TV series, games, … . In doses they are fine, but the minority cares about solving wealth distribution and don’t vote on solutions.