Fakestream: Difference between revisions

One of the main reasons why the MSM is unreliable is its adoption of one of the core [[bluepill]] tenets: male disposability. Blatant examples of this bluepilled misandrist propaganda is in its language-use wherein the MSM systematically engages in incel-erasure and romanticism of reverse rapists (i.e. female rapists). For example, if a woman engages in an act of rape, it is called "having sex" or having an affair". When a man does the exact same thing, he is called variations of "monster", "beast" or simply "rapist". Is this not evidence that the MSM is misandrist? Is this not evidence that the MSM is androphobic? Is this not evidence that the MSM is phallophobic? Why are female crimes romanticized whereas male crimes are portrayed as wicked? I'll tell you why this happens. Its because women have a womb, and a womb is more valuable than what men possess, i.e. sperm. Its for the same reason as why gold is more valuable than brass. They are both metals so why do people differentiate? Its because there's more brass in the world than gold; similarly, sperm is in much more plentiful supply than the female egg. Its called male disposability. Male problems are ignored. Male problems are no big deal and as such are swept under the carpet by the bluepilled media.  

Inceldom is a problem that primarily effects men. Because it mostly affects men rather than women, it is similarly swept under the carpet by the bluepilled MSM. This can be seen in incel erasure practises by the MSM. Take for instance whenever there's an inquiry regarding the rise in sexlessness. In order to disambiguate from volitional practices such as sexual abstinence, the MSM continued to use the terms such as ''involuntary celibacy'' or ''inceldom'' during the 2000s and early 2010s in a neutral and studious tone. For example, MSM sources such as ABC Online did as such as late as 2014<ref>https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/sex-therapist-doubts-churchs-training-for-celibate-priests/5964034</ref>, New York Times in 2009<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20Meyers-t.html</ref> or Huffington Post and Jezebel in 2013<ref>https://jezebel.com/whats-the-big-fucking-deal-about-celibacy-1058334334</ref><ref>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/socially-anxiety-dating-government-should-pay-women-date-men_n_3293626</ref>. But something changed by the mid-2010s when it was discovered that inceldom was (mostly) a male problem, not a gender-neutral one. All of a sudden, the tone surrounding discussion about involuntary celibacy no longer had an objective tone. Henceforth, the bluepilled MSM decided that involuntary celibacy would only be discussed in a nefarious light. Male married men have committed far more acts of violence, whether domestic or otherwise than their incel counterparts. Yet issues facing male wedders do not face erasure by the MSM. So why the incel-erasure? Thats because the bluepilled MSM tenet of male disposability dictates that issues that mainly affect males, such as inceldom, should be swept under the carpet lest it challenges the bluepill narrative that men are privileged in western society.