I don't want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think "this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet."

Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.

Nowhere does she say she's a feminist. She's telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn't just being a woman. Google "feminist pretty privilege" and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about "pretty privilege" than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.

I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters.

Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?

You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked "why don't women get told to talk to guys?" and the answer is "they do."

Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya.

At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.

Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.

Maybe watch the podcast.

Again, I watched the part labeled "What is causing the rise in sexless men?" and the expert didn't say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren't talking about feminism. You're bringing it up like it's the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren't supported by these things you're linking. I'd tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I'm sure you'd just inject your own narrative into them again.

Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk.

You're the one that keeps bringing it up. "Locker room talk" has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I'll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the "locker room bois" story should be normal and acceptable.

Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms,

I've never heard of a girls' only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here's a story from last week of your "boys locker room chat" that ends with a someone killing themself.

because objectification of women is very normalised in porn

You'd think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.

Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.

You'd think there'd be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn't be doing. They definitely exist, but they're a very small group considering how "exciting and demanded" it should be based on your logic.

They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus.

Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people's content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they'd be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.

They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised.

I'm pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn't because of Aba N Preach. I just don't think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.

You are labeling and cancelling them without knowing about them

What does it even meant to cancel them? I'm absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?