So is there a way to watch it online/torrent yet? Anyone seen it?

>a Cassie Jaye film

so MRAcucks gave a woman money to be their advertisement?

the world is a strange place

It's fucking retarded Reddit 's version of /r9k/ had to co-opt a term that has nothing to do with being a butthurt betacuck.

Why do they show the public's reaction to MRAs but not show what MRAs are which totally explains and justifies the public's reactions?

Do you know who the Honey Badger Brigade is?

The MRAcucks literally BOUGHT THEM A HOUSE last month.

>isn't that the opposite of most ideas branded red pill?

yeah, in the anger stage

in the acceptance stage you understand sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive

Ad hom and namecalling.

Are you even trying?

>I'm a unlikeable beta, debate me *tips*
Simply euphoric m'goodsir

Wait are you serious? You support feminism?

>Men's Rights Activists
HAHAHAHAAHA faggots.

Literally no better than feminists, nobody cares about your pathetic persecution complex. Women are whiny cunts, now men are turning into whiny cunts too?

More namecalling.

Do any of you have anything rational to say? Or is your indoctrination so severe that you're unable to articulate your own beliefs?

Poor baby, he's being oppressed and triggered by the mean matriarchy and now he has to fight for the rights of men.

Millennials were a fucking mistake.

Don't worry in the next 10 years we are going to have WW3, and after that everything will get back to normal.

What beliefs? Lmao everything isn't black and white. Just turn off the computer if you're so sensitive.

Stop responding to people who aren't talking to you.

But I didn't even disagree with them.

Unfortunately it's the truth. It's really the biggest redpill of all

We devalue ourselves every day. "We" grovel, worship and degrade ourselves to females to a point where it's become the norm. It's desperation and a sign to why that statement is correct

>If I name call hard enough it must be true!

This is why you're referred to as a "regressive." You cannot articulate your own beliefs even as you mindlessly enforce them.

MRAs still exist?

Didn't you all get absorbed by Cred Forums and morph into Trumplerinas?

This is me, how am I disagree with you? I'm pretty sure we're on the same page.

MRAs think women are oppressing them, but it's actually mostly the state and its relationship with capitalism.

>wife wants to abort child and they don't
Who marries someone before talking about having kids? This is just being a bad judge of character and/or having no foresight whatsoever.

>She stabbed me and they put me in jail
That's the government.

>Say that he either raped you, sexually abused you, and we'll get you the house, you'll get the kids
Also the government.

>All she has to do is make the accusation and that's on your record
Who keeps track of criminal records? Oh yeah, the government.

>If you get a test without the mother's permission, you will be criminally prosecuted
Enforced yet again by the government.

>She was able to collect child support from this boy that she raped
G O V E R N M E N T

>93% of workplace fatalities are men
Capitalist society forces men to work dangerous jobs.

>The US government does not want to send you to die, it would rather send me to die
Looks like even they agree with me but they're too stupid to realize its not women's fault.

>an historic
>toronto
I made it 8 seconds before I stopped watching

So then would it be a reasonable idea to form a political action group and attempt to reform the government policies that are discriminatory?

>Capitalist society forces
what is wrong with you?

From what I understand this was originally intended to be an anti-MRA film but the director realized that SJW tendencies were just as bad if not worse.

She knew she was gonna be fucking crucified for it.

I say destroy the state and capitalism entirely, but that's just me.

Nothing as far as I can tell. Are you implying it's not virtually impossible to live without some form of income in a capitalist society?

God I miss being 14.

you do you boo

Want to try again?

You have to be older than 14 to start missing it.

Yes, thank you for that startling revelation.

Not really. Talking to someone with no real arguments is pretty boring.

>Destroy Capitalism And The State Dudes
>A real argument
Pick one.

You know that radical leftism has been a thing since like the 1800s right? Stop watching movies and shows all day and go read a fucking book if you want all the in-depth arguments for it.

And since then we've had many many successful communist states.
Oh wait.

You'll look back on yourself and cringe kid.

Literally any economist will tell you how capitalism is the greatest economic system ever created

>And since then we've had many many successful communist states
YPG/YPJ in Rojava and the Zapatista territories spring to mind. There was also Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune, but those were destroyed by capitalist states. Maybe communism could survive if people weren't trying to get rid of it all the time.

>You'll look back on yourself and cringe kid.
Doubt it.

Its OK, maybe he means anarchism. That's so much better.

Marx, Proudhon, and a shitload of others would beg to differ.

God, you really are a fucking child. So self assured that you never think you'll look back and think what a sanctimonious prick you were.

How many of those survived and were prosperous first world countries?

Fuck.
He probably does too.

The ypg was a fucking defense force not a "communist state"

Personally yeah I do think anarchism is better than authoritarian communism.

>Marx
Kid, even the Frankfurt School realised Marx was outdated. Its about time you grew up.

>2 examples AND A BUNCH OF OTHERS
Btw Marx was not an economist

Then you're retarded.
There is no other way to put it.

the funny thing when discussing this with a communist is that communist states are only communist states as long as everything is nice

once things becomes bad they're suddenly not "true" communist states anymore

and by this definitions, no true communist state have ever failed

They're not just fighting 24/7. A military force requires resources and infrastructure to do that.

>So self assured that you never think you'll look back and think what a sanctimonious prick you were.
Whoa there. Project much?

that only means that you on a fundamental level do not understand the necessity of state

Whoa there, deflect much?
Whoa there, fail to answer a simple question much?
Whoa there, how many of those "communist states" survived and were prosperous first world countries?
Whoa there, you really think anarchism, reverting to a quasi-feudal model of Barter-Trade is sustainable in the current era?
Whoa there, isn't it your bedtime?

>AND A BUNCH OF OTHERS
The post I was responding to said any real economist advocates for capitalism. It wasn't asking me to name an overwhelming amount of leftist economists. I mean I'll do that if you want, but it's disingenuous to claim that's was the original intention.

>not an economist
I guess that's why he gave up his personal life to study economics and dedicated himself to writing about it.

>the funny thing when discussing this with a communist is that communist states are only communist states as long as everything is nice
The revolutions were successful. The states failed because they didn't properly implement communism. It's not that hard to grasp.

Really kid.
Have a nap.

If you're lucky you'll outgrow this phase.

If you're an adult, consider the noose.

no one wants to talk to (you)

This looks pretty solid.

>I have no argument so I must resort to social shaming

This is classic female behavior.

the real enemy is class warfare when they don't care about your problems

it's systemic misogyny when it's their problems

>how many of those "communist states" survived and were prosperous first world countries?
Alright, let's just unpack this a bit. First of all, I'm pretty sure there has never even been a capitalist nation in history to ever start off as a "prosperous first world country", so you're giving new communist societies an unfair standard to adhere to.

Secondly, you're assuming that there is an end goal to create a prosperous first world country in the first place.This may be true of capitalism, but it requires imperialism so that's out the fucking window for communists.

>you really think anarchism, reverting to a quasi-feudal model of Barter-Trade is sustainable in the current era?
I think that some sort of anarchist market system like mutualism could suffice in the interim until we reach a gift economy.

>The states failed because they didn't properly implement communism

That's a really weird argument

The x failed because they didn't properly implement y

"It only failed because you didn't do exactly as I told you to"

What causes a communist state to fail and why does it happen so frequently?

why are men such fucking losers?

Meh. Who is this even for?

It's like 10 years too late.

The world has already moved for beyond this point.

youtube.com/watch?v=k5-K3dSex9k

We're into the homestretch now boys.

>but it requires imperialism so that's out the fucking window for communists.

Communism requires subjugation of capitalist societies. It literally requires Imperialism to function.

You can't have a communist state living next door to a capitalist society and still have it function. Realistically.

It honestly seems pretty relevant. In the same way that Obama refocused the zeitgeist on racial issues, Hillary has successfully made her campaign about the sex divide. Remember all the puffed up Berniebro shit?

>we're releasing the film worldwide online sometime this winter, we'll announce the exact release date next month in November
twitter.com/Cassie_Jaye/status/787738520311902208

China's famine and the Deng's solution sort of sum it up;

>Produce food
>Food is taken by the central committee and distributed as they see fit
>No incentive to produce at a rate beyond the absolute bare minimum you can get away with

Deng solved the famine by setting a quota system;

>Produce food and meet quota to send to central committee
>Anything produced over the quota can be traded on the free market

The inverse to this happy solution is that capitalism encourages excess consumption and production. Which causes another set of problems.

I don't know why anyone cares anyway. We're all plebs here and it's we do as we're told and take the bread crumbs as they fall.

You should enjoy yourself while the times are good and prep for the bad times on the horizon.

my uncle was a dentist he had an affair with one of his employers she later sued him for rape a week later he killed himself

thanks feminism!

All benefits that women currently receive from society come from the fact that society as a whole still views and treats women like children.
Ridiculous alimony payouts stem from the idea that women depend on a man to provide for them.
Women have the upper hand in domestic violence cases, inebriated sex/rape cases, almost all criminal cases because society views women as helpless and innocent.
It's all sexism, but its benevolent sexism so women don't care.

No one would care if a man made it.

>What causes a communist state to fail
Communism is just worker control of the means of production. This didn't happen because they turned into dictatorships and that's why they failed.

>why does it happen so frequently?
Every major communist revolution has been led by authoritarian communists that just tried to replace the old state with a new one. I also explained this in .

It was relevant 20 or 30 years ago.

Now it's just flailing and gnashing of teeth in the face of the inevitable collapse.

This is a "conversation" that should have been had in earnest after the repel of Prohibition, at the latest in the post war years.

It's too late now.

kek, doom and gloom people like you are hilarious

It's not doom and gloom.

I literally said above that the problems this documentary address are already so far cemented and superseded by more serious problems that harping on about it is pointless, and you should go enjoy yourself while you can and/or prepare for upcoming issues so you can handle the transition better than you are currently handling the transition now.

Whining about these gender war issues is like whining about industrialization. The genie is out of the bottle. Move on.

>the destruction of our nation is inevitable and coming soon! there's nothing to do but get ready for the end!

I'm dying here

>It literally requires Imperialism to function.
just like capitalism. capitalist countries have been attacking and in other ways destroying communist/leftist regimes since the 50s.
>Bolivia
>Guatemala
>Chile
>Iran
>Vietnam
>Korea
>Venezuela

>Communism requires subjugation of capitalist societies. It literally requires Imperialism to function.
Imperialism is a relationship between two foreign countries. It's not inherent to communism. If two capitalist countries independently revolt and become communist, how is that imperialism?

>instead of acknowledging flaws in communist thinking I shift blame to "that wasn't real communism"
>no it's not my religion I'm totally smarter than you
>it's capitalism that is evil nevermind the millions who died in gulags and killing fields
>no way communism is great despite the economic collapse of every nation that adopts it

>>it's capitalism that is evil nevermind the millions who died in gulags and killing fields
Fun fact: more people starve to death due to capitalism every 5 years in modern times, than were killed in the entirety of every single communist regime in the entire world combined.

Exactly how does capitalism contribute to these deaths? If your argument is that, under communism the food would be given to them so that they wouldn't starve, wouldn't you first have to prove that communism would be capable of producing enough food to feed them? That seems unlikely given its history.

>>Exactly how does capitalism contribute to these deaths?
Exact same way communism contributed to Holodomor.

The issue is that this argument only works if Communism generally produced more yields than capitalism, and the famine would, therefore, have been no better or even potentially worse under the rival system. This has never been the case.

Your uncle probably shouldn't have raped her

This is literally a fabricated statistic and is the opposite of the truth. The last few decades have raised the standard of living globally at an unprecedented rate, including developing nations. The entire world is getting richer. This is irrefutable.
That growth is due to free markets.

>citation needed
>also implying that African countries are capitalistic when they are anarchies consisting of inhabitants with sub 80 IQs

>>The issue is that this argument only works if Communism generally produced more yields than capitalism
Actually, since capitalism produces more yields and they're still being wasted because of Holodomor reasons (you know the general gist of it, right?), this would mean that capitalism is actually much worse, since they still don't reach the people and they exist in greater quantities.

>>citation needed
Literally look up how many people die from starvation each year, and look up the total death toll of communism. You have the internet, don't you?

it was consensual

Oh, so it has to be "the right kind of capitalism"? What system have I heard that about... :)

>about 40 mil people die of starvation in five years
>every country, including communist

>communism killed 94 million people in the 20th century

??????

>a crack in my religion appears and I get offended

So you can use the argument that it wasn't "true communism" and so I get to use the argument that the deaths per year due to starvation occur in nations not practicing "true capitalism."

Many of the increased yields are, in fact, going to people who would otherwise starve. More people would starve under communism. How is capitalism worse?

>>So you can use the argument that it wasn't "true communism"
Why would I? I haven't used it and never will.

My entire point is that, guess what, sociopaths gonna sociopath regardless of the system. One of them creates a steeper pyramid than the other though, which is historically irrefutable.

No the fact of the matter is that seizure of the means of production by people who don't comprehend even basic economic models has caused the largest amount of preventable suffering in human history.

>show what MRAs are

A completely understandable reaction to the insanity that is Modern Third Wave Feminism?

for you

Second largest, the largest was caused by the seizure of the means of production by people who "understand" "economic models" and use them to subjugate the masses.

Tell me again how great Ghostbusters was.

>so MRAcucks gave a woman money to be their advertisement?

It's almost like they aren't sexist and instead choose to value or devalue ideas based on the merit of the idea and not where the ideas come from.

>creating the means of production is now the same as seizing them
>i'm just going to ignore all the other posts in this thread btfoing me

Communists, everyone.

>Literally no better than feminists

Feminists are angry at reality.

MRA's are in opposition to Feminists.

Not quite the same thing.

It's his religion. It doesn't have to make sense or have a historical track record. He has embraced it instead of embracing Christianity. His god is now named "Marx" and anything you tell him otherwise is blasphemy.

>The entire world is getting richer

lel

try

>the rich are getting richer

trickle down economics is a fucking delusional fantasy. you are literally retarded if you think it works. neoliberalism has us careening toward oblivion.

>>creating the means of production is now the same as seizing them
Come on, look at the world around you. Literally all means of production have been seized from their creators by a multitude of nefarious schemes. Can you really not recognize this?

At least the commies were honest and did it by proper force.

Marx was a retarded welfare queen who had some decent observations, but then again who didn't in his era. I'm down with JC.

>DUDE IT'S CAPITALISM'S FAULT, WOMEN AND SJW'S ARE INNOCENT LMAO

You're not fooling anyone, Commie.

>Literally all means of production have been seized from their creators by a multitude of nefarious schemes

You are literally just making shit up. I won't deny that some people have been cheated out of what they deserved, but that's a fraction of a percent of the demonstrable cases.

>You know that radical leftism has been a thing since like the 1800s right?

Yeah, and it's been a laughable ideal that has accomplished nothing of value and killed millions upon millions of people in less than 200 years, lol.

So you think that this is totally legit and a system that produces this is awesome and should be supported?

>the poor are not getting richer

Once again, demonstrably untrue. Even just looking at tangible wealth, the gains made in the last ten years have been staggering. It's cliche as hell at this point, but it's true that modern cell phones are a ridiculous luxury.

>I've got no real arguments against Anti-Feminists, but being "Anti-Feminists" is unpopular, so I'm going to agree with the shrieking anti-logic SJW harpies that hate me for having a penis. That seems logical.

>muh cell phones
Jesus Christ, really?

I'm not claiming the system is perfect. There are reforms that ought to be made. I would argue that cronyism is largely responsible for that graph, and that reducing regulations would help to reverse that. But even if that weren't the case, this system is still better than the economic collapse caused by communism. Even at its worst, capitalism results in fewer deaths than communism. So, yes, I'll support it and work to reform the problems that arise.

See? There's no response to it. All you can do is make fun of how trite it is to use as an example.

Lol @ men acting just like feminist bitches about their so called "rights".

Anti-feminists I'm okay with. Free speech activists and MRAs make me hesitate because every time I look through their social media it's infested with Cred Forums shit. MGTOWs are just hilarious.

>this system is still better than the economic collapse caused by communism
Have you ever lived in a communist country that went through transition to glorious capitalism through criminal privatization (like all ex-commie countries did after the Berlin wall)? It's really not.

It's great for the established neoimperialist countries that are exploiting the rest of the world though, so if you're in one of those, just don't ask how sausages are made and it's all good.

Pretty much all of the people who did live through that transition would disagree with you. Even under the burden of state-supported oligarchy, life is better than communism.

>instead of acknowledging flaws in communist thinking I shift blame to "that wasn't real communism"
Why don't you point out those flaws and I'll address them?

>nevermind the millions who died in gulags and killing fields
see >communism is great despite the economic collapse of every nation that adopts it
You're really not getting that the economic collapse was caused by the failure to actually implement communism.

>The entire world is getting richer.
At the expense of those in poverty, which is one of the problems inherent to capitalism.

>That growth is due to free markets.
You know that free markets aren't restricted to just capitalism right? The capitalism in the US is far from a free market anyway.

>about 40 mil people die of starvation in five years
>every country, including communist
The majority of the world's population is living under a capitalist system and 40 million over 5 years still adds up to more over time.

material goods =/= wealth. people can use their phones to look at their two figure bank accounts. the fact that people have to work 2 fulltime jobs in the states to pay rent in some areas is indicative of a broken system. the lion's share of all the money in the world is owned by rich people, not by any particular merit but by the fact that they can afford to find loopholes to avoid paying tax. most developed countries that have a good standard of living have a good standard of living precisely because of socialist schemes such as a safety net, high taxes, a strong and enforced social contract. In a highly individualistic society as is posited by capitalists surely individual empowerment is the goal? If it is the goal then worker's rights would be far more important then the right of a corporation to maximise its profits.

human labour is becoming increasingly obsolete. what are we going to do when there are 10x, 100x more people than jobs? A universal basic income would be a good start but wait that's COMMUNISM. the capitalist system we live under is going to collapse at some point if we don't even attempt at making it fairer.

>>Pretty much all of the people who did live through that transition would disagree with you.
Only the minority that got rich in the process. Literally no one I know is better off than in the 80s.

>material goods =/= wealth
Literally your first sentence is just untrue. Definitionally, categorically false. I did not bother to read beyond it.

>The majority of the world's population is living under a capitalist system and 40 million over 5 years still adds up to more over time.

How many who starve are in communist countries like North Korea? I genuinely don't know.

Still, actually looking at the numbers points out how fucking stupid the made up stat it's replying to is.

Wanna trade my pebbles with a $1000 pricetag for your gold, gentle alien?

material goods are grossly over-inflated in value. push comes to shove, government collapses, will there be a market for flatscreen tv's, or iPads, or luxury cars? There's so much value tied up in these things that doesn't really exist - wealth as a reflection of this hyperinflation of value is not really wealth, it is an idea.

Why are you bringing up pricetags? That has nothing to do with the insane value that's inherent to a device that lets you communicate instantly with anyone around the world. Or access 90% of all human knowledge instantly. Or any of a limitless number of other potential uses.

Is this the one where the chick started the documentary wanting to shit talk MRAs, then as it went on she realised they were right, so her sponsors pulled the funding on her since she wanted to continue it as a more balanced piece instead of anti-MRA?

This exact same argument can be made about money, and, in fact, is a lot more applicable. I think, in the unlikely event of government collapse, I'd rather have a car than whatever $20,000 in cash will be worth.

Yep

look i just think the invention of debt and credit and interest and the rise of the banks as arbitrators of what money is worth is a bad thing, basically.

Why?

Let's nationalise the stock market and abolish income tax

I like the second half of that statement

Because it leads to the abstractification of money and detaches us from what things are actually worth.
Interest in particular is a predatory move made by banks to say "look we can afford to lend people money because we raised the value of other people's money"

But if you took it away, then they couldn't lend money at all. They probably wouldn't even exist. That would be very hard on businesses.

Look if you want to live in a poverty-stricken (and thus filled with crime) dystopia than by all means that's a great idea. There are more people than there are jobs, how can people provide for themselves

There is more than one kind of tax, user. Did you know that some states don't have a state income tax? Did you know that it took a constitutional amendment just to let the Federal government institute an income tax? There are other ways we can fund our government, and it wouldn't lead to a dystopia.

Why would they? If they can't even get a job they deserve to die, they're useless to society.

...

but there are people willing to work with no jobs available. if they cant provide for themselves they will turn to crime.

Who cares if they're willing if they're not competent enough? Crime is illegal.

>with no acceptable jobs available

There are entire industries still struggling to meet their employment needs

and if education is inaccessible due to expense or distance or family situation then people can't afford to learn the skills that will get them jobs.

Plenty of said industries will pay for the necessary education.

And obviously the system, as it is, certainly allows for people to get the education necessary. If it required that they do so to receive benefits it would probably see greater success at getting people back in the workforce.

woah!

It's easily film of the year. It really made me think.