@Agent Steel, do me a favor and logically connect the statements 1 - 3 below.
Here's what you did, and why you are full of shit.
1. You open the thread claiming leftist men have less 'masculine' physical features. Let's ignore the fact this is completely baseless, with no data, and only your own subjective experience. Even if you were on to something here, it doesn't align with point 2.
2. Political Interest makes a comment about how leftist of the past (really, just soviets), were in short, more working class, and more aggressive. I'm guessing he was implying they were "manlier"
3. Out of nowhere, you claim post 2, validates the thread you started based on post 1. This is bullshit of the highest order.
There's no logical connection between point 1 and 2 above. 1 focuses on physical features, 2 focuses on historical attitudes of working class men. How exactly is there any logical connection. If point 2 was really what you wanted to say, why didn't you open the thread with that? This is because you're bullshitting around, and trying to steal someone else's point. that's low brow shit, and funny enough, not very manly. The alternative and more likely explanation is, you are full of shit, and looking for something to grasp on to try and validate your opening loaded claim. This is what you are doing, and it's shameful.
Point 2 is an interesting speculative thought (that requires further discussion and objective data), point 1, is just random left field subjective bullshit (that requires objective data to maybe be interesting), and point 2 does not support point 1 in anyway. You claims of "logic" are bullshit. You are intellectually dishonest.
Point 2, which I should remind you, IS NOT YOUR POINT
. Is a little more valid because it at least pulls in some historical context. There's at least a little something of substance there.
Agent Steel wrote:One thing that really is starting to bug me is that even though I agree with many leftist policies I've noticed that pretty much everyone who is a leftist is either a woman or a soft, feminized sort of man. Why is this? I have never thought of leftist policies as being un-masculine but it's just really weird how un-masculine the leftist crowd is.
I'm searching for a leftist who is masculine in appearance and demeanor...can someone find one?
Political Interest wrote:
Let me put it here again for you to respond. I am sorry.
Yes, the Western left today are essentially charlatans. After the 1960s we now only have fake New Leftists hipsters and misanthropic idiots who focus on cultural issues.
In the old days we had Stalinist hardmen in the Western left. These were real men who loved their countries and wanted socialism for their peoples. They were not scared to put in the hard work and do the heavy lifting. Most of them were actual workers, i.e. steel mill workers, boiler makers etc. People like Harry Pollitt in Britain, for example. Pollitt knew Stalin and met with him a few times, he even pleaded for his ex-girlfriend's life in front of him before she was shot by the Stalinist state.
These were fighters and believers. They didn't focus on the divisive nonsense that the New Left of today focus on.
There was no obsession about race, gender, or other nonsense. It was all about building socialism.
Agent Steel wrote:^ See?
This guy just explained that there's a very logical and rational reason for why I made this thread.
My observation is true.