Can you stop being fucking retards and generalizing people because there are two idiots that run their mouth on Twitter? You're definitely better than this Mr P. Honestly, do you even know what social justice is? Because it doesn't mean 'random bitch on the internet who hates men.' Just because you're on a forum with a sour culture when it comes to issues like these doesn't mean you have to stoop to a low to get on their good side. Fact of the matter is that the majority of feminists and SJWs are glad that this happening so it's truly just not necessary to warp those people into radical idiots just because of a small few who are probably trolls anyway.

I don't class Tumblrite SJWs as Feminists.
When I refer to SJWs, I mean retards like those in the OP. It's not a matter of stooping to the opinions of others, they genuinely irritate me.

If there is another type of SJW that isn't a rabid feminazi, then please do share. The rest fall under feminists as far as I'm concerned, if they don't just outright hate men.

I know it doesn't work totally with morality, but you're still going to have to summarise the whole idea for me.

Ah right... well summarising it in general wouldn't be particularly easy <.<

When it comes to fields of approach it's a collection of applied suggestions/ideas/sciences. So the biological explanation is rooted in biology (No shit sherlock) with things like Neurotransmitters and brain abnormalities. The cognitive-/-behavioural approach(es) focus on learned behaviours as the explanation for things.

The evolutionary approach tries to explain features of modern day human psychology from an adaptive evolutionary approach. Like muh patriarchy, hunter gatherers, circadian cycles and the like. Some of it has been misappropriated by MRAs but it's still amusing nonetheless >.>

If you don't have any thoughts in particular though, no worries <.<

Go for 130 <.<

God damn that's some nostalgia ._.

It's not exactly what you'd call 'family friendly' so while my family is around and about, I'm not going to go on there ._.

I already had a couple of near misses courtesy of Tblocks and Meatspin ._______.

What are you referencing?

Oh god emperor, there is a shrek version of this?
My life is now ogre.

The boondocks is this

The show that this thread is from, and the shrek video <.<

.___________.

I'll probably take a look, but I doubt I'll be in there much.

It should be interesting either way >.>

Well that's good, I guess ._.

This, from the people who thought giant salt shakers yelling "Exterminate" were the height of Scifi.

And not even god can save you if you moan about how overused the Daleks and Cybermen are.
The scenes that follow such a statement are summed up quite well with the six bong copypasta.

It would make more sense to go with the European focused magazine, unless you plan on moving to americlapland.

You know Meta, if I said the same thing to you, you'd reply with some excuse like damage control. So I'm going to be you and say you're just using damage control now

Oh and I'm not displaying cognitive dissonance. If somebody is going to insult my opinions or attempt to do so then I will in return. I don't get mad if they attempt to derail with insults but expect it back in return. It's a lesson that it'll happen in the world

You are though, you claim you don't get mad over these things but as soon as a jibe/insult/mockery is sent your way it's full on retaliation mode. If these things really didn't bother you, as you claim, then you wouldn't feel the need to reply with more and more childish insults constantly.

Someone laughing at/refuting/disagreeing with your views doesn't require you to roll out the 'yo momma's and taking the piss out of someone's sexuality.

*awaits further damage control*

fucking lol

where's Phillip though?

Who do you think set the fire?

There are Brits on b.net who seriously believe what you just typed though. ._.

Yeah ._.

Something about a chip shop comes to mind >.>

And here I thought this would be foreign policy.

But no, it's Economics ;-;

*srs response inbound*

But that is false.