There's no way you can actually believe that.
I'm sorry to say, but you are factually incorrect in your statements.
Sexual harassment has been called "anything a woman considers sexual harassment". And, of course, can mean absolutely anything. No way the definition for something that serious should be that loose.
Also, male dominance in work places, and certain fields, is complained about all the time. Even though women themselves don't show as much interest in said fields. It's blamed on sexism all the time.
Calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact.
I've personally hit on women at bars and never been accused of harassment. Finding a couple feminazis who overreach doesn't mean anything, we can all cherry pick examples of the other side going too far. Pretending all liberals think flirting is harassment is no different than accusing all conservatives of being Nazis.
The "sexism" part of women not being in other fields is a lot more complicated than you make it sound; but it mostly has to do with the harassment women get when trying to enter those fields. And I don't mean just sexual harassment.
It's interesting, actually, that you start off saying conservatives manipulate words then go on to rant only about conservatives. It's a good propaganda technique, to make yourself sound fair and balanced while you actually only attack the other side.
The bottom line here is that you're engaging in exactly what I'm talking about: Arguing against a definition that doesn't exist, to make it seem like the other side is manipulating the definition.
Generalizing purely from your own experiences is a common logical fallacy.
Just because Person A hasn't experienced something, doesn't mean said something doesn't exist, period.
I believe you meant to say that I focused on liberals?
Yes, I focused on them because their re-definitions of words like sexism and racism are such blatant examples of what I was talking about.
Well, I had a meeting starting when I wrote the last post so didn't have time to look something up. Now that I have, here you go:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/feminist-guide-to-non-creepy-flirting/
Exactly what I said, feminists aren't against flirting they just want to be treated with respect.
See, a non-propaganda piece would have also used a conservative manipulation that was equally qualified. Like shouting Freedom when they want to pass laws restricting freedoms, like anti-drug laws and restricting religions. Or implying liberals are fascist with a tag, while the Republican President adopts ever more fascist behavior like trying to get a book shut down or attacking the press.
Define respect. You're doing exactly what I write about in the post.
There's "respect" and "flirting". Two words that can mean anything, so they won't take us anywhere with this.
How women feel about flirting depends largely on who is doing the flirting. If a socially awkward, overweight geek grabs them by the backside, it's harassment, but if it's Brad Pitt, it's him being confident.
And mind you: this is actually natural, since women have a built-in mechanism to sway off mating partners that would not make for good fathers for their offspring.
So did you not read the article I linked? Because that spelled it out pretty clearly.
No.
No you didn't read it?
Also it's interesting that you claim flirting is harassment (according to liberals) but then just claimed the word "flirting" can mean anything.
Meanwhile I posted an entire article by feminists on how to flirt without being creepy and you ignored it or didn't understand it.
Almost like you're playing with the definition of the word to advance your worldview.
Love how you vote for every single one of your own posts.
And didn't give anything to the guy who brought up the subject.
Pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you. Notice how the guy you are debating isn't doing that?
Progressives are always self dealing while they scream about how unfair everyone else is. Never changes.
Socialism = theft from production via governments
Socialists = A person scared of competition. Of life. The natural order of things.
(and explains why they want to disrupt the natural order of everything - through weak pseudo intellectual masturbation)
Exactly.
Because their experience consists of repeatedly coming up short in a meritocracy, they instead choose to gang up on the successful using greater numbers to overpower the successful, telling themselves that the successful got that way solely through graft and abuse of power, and thus that they are merely righting a wrong when they themselves use the power of numbers to force the scales in their own direction, and thus count themselves as heroic and righteous for doing the same thing they castigate others for doing.
It's a giant mind f_ck.
Wow.
Yeah, or maybe it's that we understand how things actually work.
You want to compare net worth? Because I'm not exactly going to come up short in that game. Or how about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, both of whom are among the richest in the world but advocate various liberal policies?
Equating progressives with socialism and socialism with "weakness" tells me everything I need to know about you.
LOL. I voted up two of my own comments, and no I didn't upvote his post because I massively disagree with it and think it is propaganda. If you look back you'll see I have upvoted other posts of his.
I really wouldn't care if he did. Upvotes are worth cash. I've had good debates with plenty of people who upvoted their own comments.
LOL. As if you needed to reveal you were biased. Stop reading all the propaganda about progressives and maybe realize they are people too.
They are people, indeed - and deserve all the help they can get- to try to return them to good mental health..
A sane man would argue ideas and positions, not try to discredit groups with slander.