𝔥𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔟𝔞𝔯

@tarter_derek @_GEN_STRIKE_ @Mappy6984 That’s fine. Your response is “Just get a divorce for whatever reason instead of working through a problem.” which makes marriage pointless. They also said they have a church. So, in their world, that’s who should be advising them.

@HateBear89 @_GEN_STRIKE_ @Mappy6984 I stopped reading when I got to the church part lmfao

That smirk. That dude don't give a shit. Caleb for the WIN. He bluntly gives a a shit

For most divorces, the reasoning given is “irreconcilable differences”, which is actually vague. So, with no-fault divorce, women (and men, but usually women) will divorce for any reason whatsoever or none at all. Sometimes marriages can have bad weeks, months, or even years. That doesn’t mean you cut ties and take off into the sunset. If that’s the case, marriage becomes pointless. I don’t believe the state should even be involved. It should be a religious sacrament and the rest who don’t believe this can sign contracts. Then they can go do whatever they want. I just think it makes vows and marriage pointless if we allow no-fault. There should be some actual fault listed or some process required that would hopefully prevent the divorce from being necessary, like therapy. We have the stats on what divorce does to children, especially young ones.

@HateBear89 @Mappy6984 “No-fault” is very vague. Not everyone can take the same amount of bullshit as another person. Sometimes people simply grow apart, and I see no reason in just living your life out miserable as hell for the sake of stigma.

Yeah, so it should be handled through the church or there should be lengthy/extensive therapy, etc. but the default shouldn’t be “Hey go separate and probably get a divorce”. I’d even argue that a child with both parents and little money is better than one with one parent and more money. I’m not defending the dude. I’m saying Caleb Hammer shouldn’t suggest divorce over financial problems before all else. Though, the cheating may be good grounds for divorce if it’s true. They have a church. They should be helping them with marital problems. Not a financial auditor who makes money on YouTube discussing income/spending habits.

@HateBear89 @Mappy6984 You're right bro.. She should just work 2 jobs to take care of him and the baby and he should just keep gaming and cheating on her. That would be much better for the kid.

Abuse is something which warrants divorce. That’s not what was laid out in this video. Abuse, abandonment, infidelity, sometimes addiction, etc can all be good grounds for divorce. It should be handled by the church, though. No-fault divorce should be a thing of the past. That’s what we typically see these days.

@HateBear89 @Mappy6984 Yeah I don’t care what anyone says, it can 100% be beneficial for a kid for the parents to get a divorce. If your dad beats the shit out of your mom, should they just “work it out” for the kids sake? You think that would help to raise him better? Stupid ass opinion

Well, I believe Rachel would say she’s more than a typical anti-feminist “pick me” and not desperately making any attempt at being seen as the first or sole person with these views, but you seem to disagree. So, I disagree that your posts don’t read as apathetic. It’s odd because I’d think you’d want as many people as possible out there who share your views/messaging…even if you’re not completely aligned. It’s just punching right unless you disagree with the substance of what she’s saying. It seems like your argument is that it bores you or you’ve seen it before?

@HateBear89 I’d say I comment more on culture than politics and I’m far from apathetic

When I first started getting into commentary, Ann Coulter gave me one piece of advice that stuck: stay away from the “I’m anti-feminist and here’s why” lane. It’s been done to death. It’s oversaturated. There’s nothing new left to say there. Watching Rachel Wilson now desperately try to brand herself as the first or freshest voice in that exact space is honestly embarrassing once you understand that reality. It’s not groundbreaking. It’s not insightful. It’s recycled. Everything she does and says has been laid out before her by much smarter people like Ann. It’s the same kind of cringe you see from accounts like Gays Against Groomers where the entire identity hinges on pretending to be the “exception.” The whole “I’m different, I’m one of the good ones” angle isn’t new. It’s a tired formula. Rachel’s version of anti-feminism follows that exact same script. There’s no innovation, no depth at all. It’s just repackaged talking points dressed up as bold commentary. When you look at the circle around it (her husband, the constant association with Brian Atlas, the endless rotation of the same types of women used as content fodder) it becomes pretty obvious what the model actually is. It’s not commentary. It’s a loop. And acting like it’s anything more than that is where the real cringe comes in. To be continued…

@BillWalkerutsz @Azariel91 Agreed. Can we be done with both already?

@Azariel91 We should be allowed to freely associate and exclude whoever we want to exclude for any reason we want to we wouldn’t be in this mess if we were allowed to, but just know neither of you would be here if that were the case

Ooo... I love this man's energy!! 🔥

Because she left her kid at McDonald’s for taking too long (according to the words of her other kid). She also changed her story twice. First she didn’t know he got out. Then she said “Why didn’t you tell me he didn’t get back in?” She’s responsible for the kids no matter what the situation is. People with more kids than her do stuff like this every day and don’t lose track of their own children. The cops aren’t the problem in this video. Basically all you’re saying is “Why wasn’t he nicer to the woman who left her kid at McDonald’s?” The cop didn’t do a thing wrong except not be nice.

@DailyLoud Why he so fucking rude! Instead of seeing she’s a mother out here hustling and wasn’t being reasonable n working with her. This why sooo many ppl hate cops.

Mother accused of leaving her 8-year-old at McDonald’s to do DoorDash order, but it turned out to be a huge misunderstanding.

@Rach4Patriarchy She makes and defeats her own argument in a single post. Also, we should stop fighting them on late term. For us, it shouldn’t matter. It allows them to do what they always do and “play around” in the nuances.

- 1,126,000 estimated abortions performed in USA 2025 - 1% of that = up to 11,260 late term abortions in 2025 - you, a retard: “no woman is…” Unless it’s ZERO, some women ARE, and that’s too many.

Nothing more entitled than thinking people know you want a window open and thinking you own the window because you’re sitting close to it. Nobody knows you and your kids sat there to look out. All that know is it’s bright and think you probably won’t care. And she never asked them not to.

@HateBear89 @shellshockkk Stfu, entitled yte bitch.

Whose side are you on?

Nah that’s an employee closing the blinds at the request of a customer. We don’t even know the race of the lady. And like I said, she don’t ask the people sitting there because most people assume nobody’s going to be pissed off of you close the shades when it’s too bright. Except this one lady in the video who wanted to be mad instead of asking her not to close them.

@HateBear89 @shellshockkk You whites are dirty ass ppl. You haven't addressed the entitlement of the lady that just reaches over & closes the shades. That's entitlement dumbass. Why did she get to make the decision for a group that was already there? Why doesn't this ever happen to me??!!!

@YFPixel @askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans Yeah, you’re right. I misread. I see how people arrive at $300. I just thought that’s what you were doing and I was attempting to help. That’s my bad. This entire reply section makes it pretty obvious why people have so many money problems, though. lol

@HateBear89 @askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans i was merely using the math used by the user not saying his way was correct.. but thanks

@tom_talented99 @askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans Ooh ok. I don’t see how anyone could arrive at $100 either. I just misread or assumed you’d said the answer was $300. That’s my bad.

@HateBear89 @askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans Dude I get your math and the reason you used it I was strictly confused how someone would get 100 as an answer because the only way is not consistent with the story and omits shit

That’s certainly a claim/assertion, but I haven’t and won’t…and I’d love to see proof to the contrary. Otherwise, it’s just a baseless claim and I can make those against you too. You could ask me or you could believe whatever you want which is effectively just mind reading. You can take me at my word or not, but that’s the case with anything anybody tells you.

@HateBear89 @harveb @paleochristcon You can pretend you think its bad when Trump does it but you're lying. Not only will you make excuses for it like you are here, but it will never impact your overall opinion of Trump because you don't care at all.

People pretty upset Trump tweeted he was glad Mueller died. He thought Mueller was on a witch hunt to personally ruin his life. Thats hatred I can at least understand. With Kirk it was just random woke crazies who he never spoke to or had any knowledge of cheering his death.

Think of it this way. It’s two separate cows. One costs you $800 and you sell for $1000. Now the next day there’s a cow for $1100 and you buy and sell for $1300. The only way the $100 you invest would be a loss is if it’s borrowed. Otherwise, it’s no different than the $800 you initially invested. Just more investment. One day you invest $800 to make $1000. The next day you invest $1100 to make $1300. But you shouldn’t subtract the $100 you included. Ultimately at the end, you’ve invested $800+100 and you’re left with $1300. $1300-$800-$100= $400

@HateBear89 @askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans See I can accept arguments for 200 300 and 400 because it’s following different concepts of profit and being consistent with the math but specifically taking that 100 from 200 makes no sense because your taking the hundred from an early transaction but not the other 200.

It seems intuitive. But the $100 you add isn’t a loss unless you borrowed it. It’s an investment. Think of it this way. You start with $800 and sell for $1000. Now put that $200 profit in a box. You have your original $800. Now you need $300 more to buy for $1100. You take that out of pocket and buy for $1100. Then you sell for $1300. Put the $200 profit from this into the box. You’re left with $1100 again. Thats the $800 initial capital plus the extra $300 you added. So you break even on those and now you have a nice $400 in your box which is all profit. I hope this helps it make sense.

@askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans if you go this route it would be 200 -100 + 200 = 300....... Your math aint even mathing bro

It seems intuitive. But the $100 you add isn’t a loss unless you borrowed it. It’s an investment. Think of it this way. You start with $800 and sell for $1000. Now put that $200 profit in a box. You have your original $800. Now you need $300 more to buy for $1100. You take that out of pocket and buy for $1100. Then you sell for $1300. Put the $200 profit from this into the box. You’re left with $1100 again. Thats the $800 initial capital plus the extra $300 you added. So you break even on those and now you have a nice $400 in your box which is all profit. I hope this helps it make sense.

@askboutfortune @CharlesNF_no2 @NoContextHumans Why would you subtract the 100 he adds to the 1000 when he makes 200 back on that amount his profit would be money made right so that’s 300. 200 from 1 200 from 2 and used 100 extra so 200+200-100=300

Instead of viewing it this way, put your initial $200 profit in a box. Then take the $800 remaining (which if your initial investment), grab $300 from your pocket and buy the cow for $1100. Sell for $1300 and put that $200 in the same box. Now you have your original $800 capital and also the $300 additional capital back. And you STILL have $400 in the box. You don’t subtract $100 from the initial profit just because you chose to invest more money. Hope this helps. The additional capital is only considered loss if you had to borrow it from someone. If you already had it, it’s just an investment.

There isn’t just one way to view it From $800, made $1000 ($200 profit) Added $100 (only lose so far) to $1000 = $1100 (bought second cow) Sold for $1300 ($200 profit) $200 - $100 = $100.00 Your calc treats as two separate transactions with two separate capital Mine treats as just one transaction with same capital from beginning, only adding the extra $100

You’re implying that I believe it’s okay for someone to celebrate another person’s death. Show me where I said that. I think it’s bad to celebrate Kirk’s death and Mueller’s…and Trump’s. That said, I can see a more personal reason for Trump doing it even if I don’t think he should do it. The fact is that people will use this as an excuse to celebrate his death as though they weren’t always going to do it regardless of what Trump said about Mueller. Or they’ll moral grandstand despite how they all celebrated Kirk’s death.

@HateBear89 @paleochristcon I hold random losers on Reddit to the same standard you hold the leader of the free world