there are... but it's... (accord?) >> i'm french. this isn't proper english is it?

you say that MRAs seem to "be...and discussing..." and i'm trying to understand how you've gotten that impression. i do not see equivalent antagonism from MRAs.

I can not be sure that the people who are the shitbirds in this video identify with feminists either. i'm weary of putting labels there where i do not see them despite it being something i would readily guess.

/u/FULLBOREKORG may be going a bit overboard, and, i think, perpetuates blocks in communication, but raises a good point that these people do not seem interested in accomplishing anything. i say this knowing that anyone that says "moralists can fuck off" seems to be a moralist themselves.

/u/FULLBOREKORG also states that "University sophmores aren't included in serious discussions of policy reforms." I won't pretend to know what qualifies as serious, but i myself have worked under a member of the canadian parliament while completing my undergrad, and i consider myself to have had a direct influence on my boss.

your overall message is good, that all should work together, but you offer no counter to what's shown in this video while diminishing a plight you show no understanding of. i also just don't enjoy the way you write, and i think emojis can really cheapen your writing.

:D

furthermore i can't think of what these people are trying to accomplish. this seems like a surefire (?) way to get on anyone's bad side. when is this behaviour acceptable? perhaps in a turn of events where interrupting a discussion is the only way to stop such a discussion from bearing the fruit of something of such consequence as legislation that will be enforced by means that disregard such discussion (e.g. that trade agreement i hardly want to name out of fear) and even then the goal of the disruption would extend beyond making noise.

please let me know if i'm using "surefire" properly