NSFW Anon Archived It's fucking weird that the left hate the patriarchy... but don't realize that the patriarchy is Soros, Roths, and Saud (QRV)
submitted ago by 3580995?
Posted by: 3580995?
Posting time: 12 months ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 3/26/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 98
SCP: 48
49 upvotes, 1 downvotes (98% upvoted it)
~91 user(s) here now
Subverse anonymized: usernames are hidden and votes don't count.
NSFW: Yes
Authorized: No
Anon: Yes
Private: No
Type: Default
NSFW Anon Archived It's fucking weird that the left hate the patriarchy... but don't realize that the patriarchy is Soros, Roths, and Saud (QRV)
submitted ago by 3580995?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 21893617? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Well, OP didn't want to go for it, so I'll clue you in on where I was taking this:
TL;DR: OP thinks they're woke but is seemingly still stuck in left vs. right herd mentality. Ironic that the families/entity(+) he hates is/are directly involved with the thousands of years of orchestrated brainwashing which produced left vs. right division in the first place. 'Course, I could have misjudged the OP, who knows.
[–] 21893896? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
One can be opposed to things without "hating" them. You are obsessed with pointing out OP's supposed hatred toward this or that, when he's just pointing out what the situation is. Take a chill pill man.
[–] 21894022? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
To be fair, one need not apologize for hating something which has earned it. This is not a judgement about that at all.
[–] 21893795? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
OP does not say "fuck the patriarchy".
Yes
Not yet proven. See first point of contention.
The way I understand it, OP would be in agreement with a hypothetical phrase "Fuck Soros, Roth[schild] & [Al] Saud". Whether that phrase is accompanied by "fuck the patriarchy" is irrelevant as a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Of course, all this is hypothetical and only OP can clarify their stance.
[–] 21893973? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
See edited response for proposal to address point of contention.
[–] 21893899? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Point of contention acceptable.
Would argue that it's strongly implied though. We're at an impasse without clarification though I suppose.Actually, scratch that for just a moment, seems I misread at the start there. Hold on.
Ah yep, I see where I made a mistake. I should have instead said:
Good work on the quoting there, by the way.