So derailing political discussions with sexual ad hominem attacks at every possible opportunity is healthy masculinity?
You don't get it. The pendulum swings the other way every 8-12 years. Donnie Boy is just another corporate puppet. Same with Ryan and McConnell. Your revolution isn't coming.
This ain't Pinochet-era Chile, boy.
While a few tumbleristas sometimes leak out into the real world and should be ignored, are you saying that if a person makes a racist/sexist/xenophobic/bigoted statement they shouldn't be called out or held accountable for it?
The point is that the username and avatar don't match. Julius Caesar was not a king. He was also not an emperor.
It is not fear your "beta" males feel. It is your pain and your darkness. Fear is what you will inevitably feel once you eventually realize you are but a drop in a vast ocean of reality, and your "power" is only an illusion; fleeting, circumstantial, and insignificant.
And at the same time sexually exploiting their women. That's the ironic thing about all this, the actual (versus perceived and fake) threat of sexual violence has for hundreds of years been by white men against black women. Yet the reactionary right portrays race relations as an epic struggle against the depravity of black men - total garbage.
It's not new. A preoccupation with creeping effeminacy has been a preoccupation of the right since the nineteenth century, one of several responses to the impact of industrialism and bureaucratisation. It goes back to Boulanger, at least, if not earlier. All that's changed is that their preoccupations are expressed in more crassly sexual terms than previously, and even that's not really a novelty, it just lacks the curtain of bourgeois respectability that the right has traditionally draped in front of its neuroses.
I don't think that's equivalent. Racism, sexism and bigotry are objectively bad things, but there's nothing objectively bad about effeminacy, homosexuality or even, really, being a big ol' ****. The tone might be similarly shrill, but the content is very different, and content is at least occasionally important.
I assumed it referred to the Medieval title "King of the Romans", if only because the 11th century seems reasonable dating for the poster in questions' politics.
