[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / baaa / dempart / doomer / jenny / teraha / vg / x ]

/girltalk/ - Girl Talk

Female board for 8chan's females
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 2 per post.


RULES /// FAQ

Comfy feelings.


File: 235e18b0383320a⋯.png (28.66 KB, 733x248, 733:248, QTDDTOT.png)

5d6fab  No.19028

This is the place that you post questions that don't deserve their own thread.

When in doubt, post here.

7fbcc7  No.19032

File: e7caba24b4b010d⋯.png (41.63 KB, 300x100, 3:1, 079b0a1d710494dc777a995c6e….png)

>>19028

Does /girltalk/ want to be friends with Mewch?


5d6fab  No.19041

File: 625c92199ff7a0a⋯.jpg (27.93 KB, 399x399, 1:1, QBo5w8v0.jpg)

>>19032

We'll think about it.


1b9044  No.19042

File: 4fa9f995cf9a71e⋯.jpg (29.21 KB, 564x564, 1:1, EBZC5Y7.jpg)

ahegaos

yay or nay?


0e490f  No.19043


10949c  No.19067

So what's the deal with you girls saying you're looking for friends? When you're just looking for a new bf after your shitty breakup.


5d6fab  No.19073

>>19067

Because we usually are just looking for a friend but you know, shit happens.


f97c9a  No.19081

File: 8c76c23222ee0d9⋯.jpg (25.67 KB, 825x464, 825:464, bane_tom_hardy.jpg)

>>19028

Why does he wear the mask?


0e2ab1  No.19095

>>19042

Are there any more words describing orgasm faces? "O-face" is kind of weak, but ahegoa isn't quite describing it. I mean, does it have to include the tongue sticking out like that?

>>19067

Friends are best. I want a big house full of friends who are all cool with openly sexual relations with one another with a nice patio garden area where we could discus topic of both great weight and trivialities. Friends can come and go quite easily compared to family and the institutional single lover one enters into marriage with. Whenever any of these people die or betray, it causes great distress. I've had my heart broken a few times, it's a bewildering jungle in the head. Men, boys really, insist growing stoic and steely are the ways to deal with this. I just open the aperture.

>>19081

I wasn't reading Batman back then (he looked more like luchador) but isn't always to hide the face in preparation of the big reveal?


1b9044  No.19104

File: a943d97d91d7443⋯.jpeg (29.2 KB, 370x370, 1:1, 45424020_1016129081193555….jpeg)

is it my imagination or are chicks going gay for this


0e490f  No.19108

>>19104

>chicks are going after the human equivalent of a sparklefur

Figures


10949c  No.19119

>>19095

>I've had my heart broken a few times

tfw


5b3452  No.19122

>>19095

>I've got my heart broken a few times

>That made me want to have open relationships with a house full of people i "trust" (since, i quote "friends come and go") but i'm not willing to cry over losing them

I don't mean to judge, but… it sounds like there's some external, foreign influence at work in your decisionmaking, since the two things aren't connected by a clear thread of logic.

But maybe i'm off the spot, and yours is pure sentimentalism gone sour?

So you're either taking that final conclusion from an experience in your life, or something big happened to you recently, and you're still experiencing the aftermaths of grievance. Do you need to talk? If you need to vent we are here for you.


1b9044  No.19129

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

when was the last time you saw a man cry?


23746f  No.19130

What exactly is /girltalk/? Is it an actual safe spot for females? Tbh I’ve been tricked before


f97c9a  No.19131

>>19095

>Men, boys really, insist growing stoic and steely

Actually their brain chemistry makes them more inclined to this sort of mindset.


5b3452  No.19133

>>19130

I try and make it such a place, yes.

Whether I manage is up for discussion, but I mostly focus on keeping it comfy and open minded, so to allow everyone a say in an opinion.


0e2ab1  No.19179

>>19122

I think my post is muddied with information overload.

I'll settle for a house full of platonic friends certainly. I was just venting how horny I am. And at the same time I feel so done with the True Love quest. That search has caused me some heartache, but not in many years.

To say I haven't been in love for these years isn't accurate though. Though not in a relationship, I delight in the love I feel for all.

Finding anarchism (And Epicureanism) is the pretty big happening that leads me to think this way. Thank you for your concern!

>>19131

Epicurus was perfectly male. Male, masculinist, toxic masculinity culture leads them astray. Anytime or place in history when men cut out women, they come up with rancid ideas. Say it's their chemistry, fine, but they can and should fight these inclinations.

>>19133

Slow-ish boards always seem nicest.


0e490f  No.19183

>>19179

>spoiler

You can't just label what you don't like about something "toxic," it makes it sound absolute instead of opinionated. You don't just get to pick and choose like a buffet.


5b3452  No.19187

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>19179

You're certainly making me curious about your age but i know better than to ask.

You REEK of wisdom, and please take it as the kindest form of this compliment despite the selection of language.

>I feel so done with the True Love quest

Can't blame you, it must be hard for someone as genuine as you.


2b0445  No.19192

File: 5f46f34d910aa7d⋯.gif (187.43 KB, 441x500, 441:500, 345431425.gif)

>>19095

>I want a big house full of friends

>who are all cool with openly sexual relations with one another

God, you're so lame.

>>19179

>anarchism

>requires a government to enforce her version of anarchism

>toxic masculinity

>rancid ideas

Completely subjective.


2b0445  No.19193

File: 0b1ec96df0d1c83⋯.jpg (74.21 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 1472973767472.jpg)

>>19187

>REEKs of wisdom

>some depressed self-absorbed tranny who can't stop complaining about being a failure at life


0e2ab1  No.19233


0e2ab1  No.19234

>>19187

You're too kind! <3

>>19192

>Being horny and desirous of having that itch scratched is lame

Okay.

>requires a government to enforce her version of anarchism

Nonsense. I require no government, it's everyone else who needs to get to work on decentralizing. (I wish France were on the verge of this, but sadly not yet)


0e2ab1  No.19235

File: a62e87d28754347⋯.png (172.69 KB, 530x410, 53:41, 1423487488528.png)


429cd2  No.19240

File: f5337130469a2ae⋯.jpg (59.7 KB, 579x525, 193:175, Christian Dads.jpg)

>>19234

>Being horny and desirous of having that itch scratched is lame

Yes. Women should be filtering out the men who just want to "scratch the itch", since men don't have the natural drive to be picky with who they just have no-strings attached sex with. Otherwise you'll end up searching for love in a guy who thinks you're slutty. Fair or not fair, women who are picky are non-lame.

>>19179

>Anytime or place in history when men cut out women, they come up with rancid ideas

When has this ever occurred? Man does not do things ultimately for himself. Every group-wide decision that the masculine group leader enacts is for the women and children, because they remain his only path to the future. Even the disgusting hordes of talibans from the Middle-East don't cut out women. They merely protect women differently. All that man does is for woman. Even MGTOWs and other degenerates are part of it. Our allegiances stem from nature and divinity, and not whatever from desire.

I'm not the anime-anon btw.


f8d606  No.19241

>>19234

>I require no government

>let's all just be friends and it'll work out

Ok retard.


6c6795  No.19246

>>19233

>>19235

>(((stirner)))

I just love these echo formats! Aren't they the best? You were a mistake. A mistake long overdue for correcting.


0e2ab1  No.19248

>>19240

I come from a Christian conservative background, so know firsthand just how rancid patriarchal traditionalism has been. And I read lots of history and can give examples of when men have shut out all other voices and conspired to rule them, or to lock themselves away and rot their brains with dreams of an "after-life". It's not all Christianity or even religions fault though, it was the progression of tools, the proliferation of metal use and the invention of the writing. So I don't hate men, I'm not a "man hater", I do appreciate many men for decent contributions to societal development, but too much of it sucks, and has ruined us for all these centuries and may actually have sealed our doom.

But should I be taking your post seriously?

>>19241

Gutting the social motivator of monetary gain, which is fear, and replacing it with sharing and reliance on one another, would do wonders for the human psyche and put the concept of wealth from some arbitrary chip or blip to each other. The cultivation of friends and cooperative communities would be emphasized over material gain.

>>19246

>echo formats

Explain.


429cd2  No.19249

>>19248

>I have anecdotal experiences that I refuse to elaborate upon

ok lol

>I can give examples of when men have shut out all other voices

Yes, and men have shut out the voices of other men. My question was when men have "cut out" women, as in, cut them out of group decision making. Quieting the voice of women is not to cut them out, but to protect them from themselves. Even in scientism, all behaviour has an evolutionary purpose, and man does not oppress woman without a cause which necessarily includes her.

I'm not taking an ethical stance on whether or not liberty for women is good, I'm saying that your analysis of gender power-relations through history is inherently flawed. Everything a man does is also in part due to women, and any contributions by women are partly due to men. Separating the one from the other is the death of gender relations, the death of family, and the death of civilization. Your deconstructionist ontology does you no favours, it just makes you seem unbearably French.


6c6795  No.19250

>>19248

The parentheses, miss hedonist.


5d6fab  No.19252

>>19249

>Everything a man does is also in part due to women, and any contributions by women are partly due to men. Separating the one from the other is the death of gender relations, the death of family, and the death of civilization.

Well said. The men vs. women thing is just one more divide and conquer program for the masses that's dialed up when a civilization needs weakening. This isn't the first time.


0e2ab1  No.19256

>>19249

>anecdotal experiences that I refuse to elaborate upon

Belligerent troll, I was getting ready for work. Do you have a question?

>Yes, and men have shut out the voices of other men.

Indeed! Slavery, in all its various forms, are a male's institution and it punishes men and women alike.

>My question was when men have "cut out" women

The ruling class throughout most of recorded history has been a male's domain. On rare occasion you get a queen, but men surround her and make sure to keep the charade going. The clerical institutions throughout history have all been a male's domain. No modern religion worships a goddess must less holds priestesses in higher esteem than the males. It's always the exact opposite.

Oh! But you're not even serious!

>Quieting the voice of women is not to cut them out, but to protect them from themselves

Bullshit. Who are you trying to kid? Your little yin/yang dance doesn't impress either.

>Keeping men from being absolutist pigs will be the death of gender relations

More manure.

>…the death of civilization

There has never been any such civilization. Just because a slave-master can speak politely, never break a sweat or a fart in mixed company, doesn't make him civil. This dream world you imagine never existed.

>>19252

It's a statement of puffery. Of course we interact, of course forces of nature have played things out in just this way; the use of tools to help in the fields, the proliferation of metal tools and the leading to battles for resources which led to raids on farms and towns. The hunters turned into warrior kings and brutality, written decrees, enslaves the others. Well now we have the industrial age, advances in science and the death of gods and their ignorance. The spread of socioeconomic revolutions and the rise of all sorts of political ideals. Ex-serfs, men, women and children were all pushed off the kings lands and into the mill towns. There's your first taste of equality. The greed of merchant class just took the reins of the state. Socialist advances have tried to see us through this dark period, but poor masses keep getting bought off, and pitted against each other.

I don't hate men, I hate the age of male dominance, and all their sneaking lies they use to keep people enslaved. They abhor the notion of freedom.

So sex, race, ethnicity, all matter to some extent, but it has always been about this classism. Always a male dominated one, but quite often aided by their obedient women. Stockholm syndrome


38fae8  No.19258

Everyone on this board are guys pretending g to be girls, or legbeards. Prove me wrong.


bff9b3  No.19259

>>19256

>The ruling class throughout most of recorded history has been a male's domain

Yes another excellent point Frenchman. But the question is when did men cut women out, not when did men rule. I want to know how and when a male group leader can rule without factoring in his conception of female well-being, even if it's misguided.

>bullshit/manure/ur dream world never existed lol

ok great

>It's all sex, race, ethnicity and class

This is my point. You have this armchair French ontology that you're superimposing on everything. You sink it all into the morass of dialectics but refuse to justify your metaphysics. Yet the nature of man is tied to woman as the Earth is to the Sun; his kingdom of the future is within her. Both are necessary parts of the people as a whole, as are all of the "classes". There is only the tribe, the allegiances which stem not from dialectics but from our most inward nature. Heidegger's hordes of Frenchmen and Frankfurt dogs want to deconstruct this, but it is impossible; they only create other tribal forces in the process, and man and woman continue to cooperate, even as the classes, regardless of the propaganda. The object of the Frenchmans blind chase through the woods is an ultimate nihilism, but the nature of the tribe rejects his deconstructionism, and he'll continue to be swatted like a fly, as he's ever been. Deny man to woman, and woman to man, and you'll inevitably be burnt at the stake by both.

By the way, your critiques of "civilization" sound like Emersonian Transcendentalism. I'm guessing you don't know what Brook Farm is, so you should consider reading the Blithedale Romance. If you're smart, you should find it somewhat grounding.


932099  No.19260

>>19256

>Socialist advances have tried to see us through this dark period

They're conning you, dipshit.


932099  No.19261

>>19258

>legbeards

Hot.


5d6fab  No.19264

File: ab2157ee66cda94⋯.jpg (23.73 KB, 355x367, 355:367, 041b078067867765fa3dd5077b….jpg)

>>19258

Prove you're not a femanon pretending to be an anon who's trying to convince others there's no other femanons here first.


0e2ab1  No.19270

File: 4418263b28c9c70⋯.jpg (28 KB, 482x335, 482:335, Another world is possible.jpg)

File: c85e3d165f0871a⋯.gif (9.51 KB, 279x305, 279:305, stirner.gif)

>>19259

>But the question is when did patriarchy begin, not when did patriarchy begin.

How am I supposed to take you seriously? You're acting as though I'm trying to turn the tables and establish a matriarchy. "Masculinist" male fragility seems to always go there. (Simply put; you're scared of losing control, which is why you make an enemy of freedom). "Men and women are tied together" Nothing I ever denied. Your hysterics are almost comical.

>Both are necessary parts of the people as a whole, as are all of the "classes".

The "classes" are of course what makes inequality, poverty and war, and are wholly unnecessary for a true civilization. Classes, poverty and war are also completely avoidable. We can remake the world with a proper amount of bravery.

>Frenchmen, Frenchmen, Frenchmen

Shut up

>>19260

Marxist-Leninism and other forms of authoritarian-socialism are indeed a con, but so is progressivism/social-democracy. Both forms of state socialism have failed us and so should be flushed away asap.


7f3e23  No.19273

>>19270

>>19270

>both forms of state socialism have failed us and so should be flushed away asap

Again, a con. Crashing the trains is just gonna end with the state socialists paying you a visit. That's the plan. "You are only killing a man."


82e992  No.19275

>>19248

>Gutting the social motivator of monetary gain, which is fear, and replacing it with sharing and reliance on one another, would do wonders for the human psyche and put the concept of wealth from some arbitrary chip or blip to each other. The cultivation of friends and cooperative communities would be emphasized over material gain.

1. If your ideology requires changing human nature somehow to be able to work, then you yourself are admitting that it doesn't work, because anyone can come up with an infinite amount of ideologies that would "theoretically work", but then complain that "it's those dumb humans that are incompatible with my ideology, and not my ideology that is flawed and doesn't apply to reality".

>Let's give someone the power to mold society, and change the way people think and act

2. Doesn't this frighten you in the slightest? Or do you actually have ethical reasons against the use of force to achieve those things?


b67613  No.19277

>>19270

I'm making an ontological claim that men cannot rule without women. I'm also saying that women can't rule without men. I want you to point to how this is not correct, since you seem to believe that it is not. You can call it "patriarchy", but you're not actually defining what you mean when you say "patriarchy". You're just saying it's a thing, and we have it, or we used to have it, etc. Yet, if you have no ontology to justify your ontological claims then you are by definition illogical.

I am also not in control of much of anything. I'm a uni student lol, there ain't much control to lose. Who do you think you're talking to? Are you high or something?

>You're acting as though I'm trying to turn the tables and establish a matriarchy

No, not at all. I don't care what you want. Again, I'm not explicitly taking any ethical stances. At this point the only thing you're doing is ignoring what I'm saying and going "lol I don't take u seriously". How are you ever going to be able to refute an opposing viewpoint if you are incapable of meeting them at their face? This isn't an "hysterical" point. I'm more perplexed than anything. You're doing a bit of projection there buddy.

>classes are unnecessary

Sure, that's fine. All I can say to these points is; research Brook Farm, read the Blithedale Romance. It had decentralized Fourier-esque socialism and everything. I can appreciate critiques of capitalism and centralised political power but your utopia is not in reality very utopian. It's one thing to critique and deconstruct, and it's another thing entirely to create.


0e2ab1  No.19282

>>19273

No, we're quite serious. Not capitalism would be a rebirth for humanity, If we can get to it in time. The real con going on here is the neoliberal mind-rot you buy into. The Earth wont sustain us at for much longer at this rate Lemme guess. You're a climate science denier.

>>19275

>1.

No, the changing itself would then begin to produce people with a different mindset. Raised in a condition of freedom, people would become generally more relaxed, healthier, cooperative, etc. But the people alive today, need to know this new system is very possible. The wealthy and the powerful keep close watch on the all the various medium and play mind games to keep people like yourself in check.

I do concede that this can't happen overnight, nor in all likelihood unfold peacefully, the rewards are as great as the stakes right now. We do nothing and we wait for slow extinction

>Let's give someone the power to mold society,

No. Lets collectively seize our world from the economic royalists before we lose it and our future.


0e2ab1  No.19283

File: 7453a996f03e714⋯.gif (1.08 MB, 160x192, 5:6, Dillane-Jefferson.gif)

>>19277

>I'm making an ontological claim that men cannot rule without women.

Naw. You're playing an old romantic saw. I offer the same though. A collective role in self governance, –I like anarcho-syndicalism.

By "patriarchy" I mean male dominance. Don't play coy, we all know what happened for centuries.

>I am also not in control of much of anything.

Oh I know, me either.

>You're projecting

>You're a utopian


8bb786  No.19286

File: 04828030008d6c3⋯.jpg (31.85 KB, 750x538, 375:269, CAPITALISM.jpg)

>>19283

>Don't play coy, we all know what happened for centuries

First, "romantic" and "ontological" aren't mutually exclusive. You still haven't justified yourself, you're just moving the goalposts. Second, anon, I'm not playing coy. Patriarchy in the sense some are using it nowadays was invented by feminist theorists following cultural marxism in 1996. The word hasn't been understood nor used in this way for even 25 years. It is a word under assault, and has been ever since then, so defining what you're actually referring to is very important.

Also why are you calling me a utopian lol? How do you know when I'm not advocating for any particular ideology? I didn't even mean "utopia" as an insult. You can call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that history does not paint it as very appealing.

>Raised in a condition of freedom, people would become generally more relaxed, healthier, cooperative

How do you know this? You're making the statement quite axiomatically. But no axioms have been laid out, you're just throwing it out there.

And how do you divorce your "condition of freedom" from the one in Russian anarchism (including anarcho-syndicalism), in communal living experiments, in Nozick's state-of-nature? If your wish is to change human nature, how do you propose to change it? What is going to stop people from reverting back to their "old" nature? Even if just one person does it, your entire "condition of freedom" can collapse. After all, with no state, it seems that any singular powerful person can control however large a territory their resources permit them to control. What is to stop these people if not other people who are more powerful? Eventually, power centralises and a state or state-like entity forms. It has also not once been without the will of the people behind it. How do you stop this from happening?


edcfb7  No.19289

>>19282

Swing, and a miss. YOU ARE MUSCLE FOR THE STATE SOCIALISTS. THEY WILL SEEK YOU OUT ONCE YOU HAVE DESTABILISED THE COUNTRY IN QUESTION.


0e2ab1  No.19291

>>19286

>cultural marxism

Oh brother! It's as if the left and right liberals have torn the head off of Marx and are tossing about a volleyball net. There's no such "cultural Marxism" anon.

>The word hasn't been understood nor used in this way for even 25 years

Oh the ironing! –But misappropriating Marxism for your liberal agenda of misdirection isn't the same as young liberal "third wave" feminists exaggerating the usage of the word patriarchy for something like the way men sit with their legs open. The latter is done in ignorance, the former to deceive. Of course I'm referring to actual patriarchy,

>Why are you calling me a utopian

^It's a quote showing your contradiction. How sloppy a student are you?

>History (liberal capitalist hegemony) doesn't paint utopias (their enemy) as very appealing

Ya don't say!

>How do you know this?

Deductive reasoning. A tendency would follow, in patches and over time, no doubt.

>If your wish is to change human nature, how do you propose to change it? What is going to stop people from reverting back to their "old" nature?

I can wish for things all my life, but it is the majority people who can decide to let the climate catastrophe kill us off or divert our way of living. The very act the species needs is why they would change.

>it seems that any singular powerful person can control however large a territory their resources permit them to control

It doesn't seem that way at all. He has no resources at all. Centuries of brutality and the people take control of their own lives and you think one pipsqueak is going to raise an army and go backwards in time. Try and revive Christianity and slavery, anon. Just you. –Can't happen.

>that meme

Are you posting this ironically? It's a critique of that idiot argument.

>>19289

Capitalism is inherently unstable and is going to crash again. But I suppose you'll scapegoat Jews again.


6fa675  No.19292

>>19291

>capitalism is inherently unstable

So much for anarchism. Controlling the economy requires a fucking state, to begin with, you retard. What's with the jew thing, anyway? You're the first person to even say that word in this thread. You just come back from temple, or something?


429cd2  No.19293

>>19291

>Of course I'm referring to actual patriarchy

This still tells me absolutely nothing. There's no irony in me using "cultural marxism" as a vague blanket term, because it's not integral to my point. Throw that away, and what I'm saying still stands; the same can't be said for your point and the word "patriarchy". All you're doing is flinging pilpul in my general direction and hoping something hits a vital organ. Stop dancing and answer the question, and not with more subversive jibberish like "patriarchy = actual patriarchy".

>It's a quote showing your contradiction

How is it contradictory to state that you are projecting your own "hysteria" onto me and then to state that you are a utopian? Excuse me?

>History (liberal capitalist hegemony) doesn't paint utopias (their enemy) as very appealing

Yet again, you're just flinging shit my way and hoping it hits. You can call written history "liberal capitalist hegemony", but you're not showing why, contrary to the suggestions of history, these failed utopias are actually appealing. You are not making any logical sense at this rate anon, you're just parrying counterarguments with incoherent sophistry.

>A tendency would follow, in patches and over time, no doubt

But how do you know this? Why is it not in doubt? Invoke the mere name of deductive reasoning all you want, but you are not showing the actual deduction. This is getting kind of incredible.

>It is the majority people who can decide to let the climate catastrophe kill us off or divert our way of living

No, the question isn't why they would change their nature, it's how. How would human nature change? Are you positing that human nature is just whatever the will of the majority at the time is; is that your ontology? And why is it necessary to change human nature into propagating anarcho-syndicalism of all things, to avoid climate change? What?

>It doesn't seem that way at all. He has no resources at all

But what if a man (or group) constructs a hydrogen bomb, and forces a certain locality into slave labour under threat of, you know, nuking them? What's going to stop this?

>You think one pipsqueak is going to raise an army and go backwards in time

First off, it obviously doesn't have to be one person. It can be a group of people too, controlling the resources within an area under threat of force. This is a very rudimentary point of Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick. You should be aware of these things. Secondly, it doesn't necessarily involve "raising an army and going backwards in time", because it does not involve any specific scenario. I'm just saying that anarchism as a state-of-nature (in fact, anarchism is going back in time unless you disagree with Nozick) tends to centralise power until a political state or political state-like entity forms, which is evident seeing as anarchism is extremely sparsely distributed throughout history, and wherever it is, it anteceds state-formation. Do you have an answer as to why this is, and how you would prevent these things from occurring in your utopia? You've continuously refused to satisfactorily answer any of the important questions. If you wanna actually make a point, you're welcome to do so, otherwise I'm just gonna throw you into the pile of neurotic anarchists and move on.

…and yes, the pic is obviously not meant to be taken seriously lol. I already told you I can appreciate critiques of capitalism.


0e2ab1  No.19298

>No, the question isn't why they would change their nature, it's how.

By not doing statism or capitalism.

>What if muh warlords gots nukes

We have nukes now. Dig your own grave, coward.

So you're doubtful that anarchism can happen or that anarchism can remain? You seem unsure. Which is fine, since it's all just theory we're proposing till something happens.

Gotta love you people that scream so loudly that it can't happen and it's utopian. You have no actual concerns about improving the world in any little way.

No, I am not avoiding some heavy question posed by that wall of text, you didn't actually pose much that I haven't answered.


0e2ab1  No.19299

>>19292

>So much for anarchism.

What?

>Controlling the economy requires a fucking state,

Control? What are you even talking about? People work to push goods around. That doesn't require a state. What requires a state is capitalism. Money printing, land ownership, legal documents of every kind. An economy would run the way it does now, but by well healthy, educated, rested, happy people

>What's with the jew thing, anyway?

<He says on an Anti-semitic baby sandpapering mill's homepage

Capitalism is inherently unstable and will crash again. The rich will have their government push the burden onto the lower classes, and the media will trumpet the cries of the racist rightwing. You are anti-socialist so I naturally took you for a regular old 8chan stormfag.

>…just come back from temple

Not a believer. You seem spook though.


bd5101  No.19302

File: 477d14f7b37ba23⋯.png (317.5 KB, 545x400, 109:80, 35123736_2054703204557338_….png)

>>19291

>Capitalism is inherently unstable and is going to crash again

>totally has nothing to do with going off the gold standard, printing useless money, building your economy on credit, wealth redistribution, paying more in welfare than you get in taxes, central bank fuckery, and other Marxist/Keynesian policies implemented to "fix capitalism"

Despite all of that, it's still more stable than any socialist experiment ever attempted, tbh.


0e2ab1  No.19314

>>19302

>gold standard

It totally doesn't. You see how much gold and silver seesaw in value? That was unstable even for a the young American economy. They had small recessions throughout that period. But it's not the currency so much as the people, the human factor.

>wealth redistribution

Question for you. Where is the wealth being redistributed? Where is he majority of this "welfare" going?

>Marxist/Keynesian

We were Keynesian for a while, you know, during our boom time, but since the 1970s we're "Chicago school" neoliberal.

You seem American.

>Despite all that it's still more stable than

Both styles of state socialism have failed. They were of course half and half deals to fix the problems one finds in capitalism. But the poison of it is what makes them failures.

Time for Not Capitalism.


ee3db3  No.19322

>>19299

>what requires a state is capitalism

This "capitalism" you believe in is a lack of control over an economy. Laissez-faire, you dumb broad. Good luck trying to convince someone that central forces swooping over everyone's geld is supposed to "stateless", especially when you're screaming "racist fascist nazi bigot" at them for even disagreeing with you in the slightest.


d6ba03  No.19336

File: 50c24a29d26f51a⋯.jpg (62.67 KB, 864x576, 3:2, 50c.jpg)

>>19314

>You see how much gold and silver seesaw in value?

It's not as ideal as having multiple competing currencies in the market (letting people choose which is better and to be able drop the ones that begin to fail), but at the very least it shows the real amount of wealth that the government has and prevents politicians from creating money out of thin air, thereby taxing the population via inflation.

>Question for you. Where is the wealth being redistributed? Where is he majority of this "welfare" going?

To the people who do the redistributing, ie: the government. Where else would it possibly go?

>but since the 1970s we're "Chicago school"

Don't make me laugh.

>Time for Not Capitalism.

Socialism was always an utter failure that only politicians benefited from, whereas capitalism has pulled billions of people out of poverty in the past hundred years.


e0b8e2  No.19338

>>19314

Seems to be no matter where I go, there you are, preaching your religion.


0e2ab1  No.19339

>>19336

>Where else would it possibly go?

To the people who hired the government. What do you think lobbyists do? This is late stage capitalism, aka "corporatism" or oligarchy. This is what "free markets" lead to. Freedom only for those who gather up the most money.

>Don't make me laugh.

>We're not practicing neoliberalism

Funny guy.

>Socialism… something-something, big government, poverty is really prosperity

Liberal bs. But the damage has been done, and now it is time for something that works better, Not Capitalism. I don't care what you call it, but it is not statist, not capitalist, needs no money and would go a long way to fixing what is broken. Your faith in human greed has always led us to ruin and now the biggest ruin is just around the corner

TIME FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

>>19338

>religion.

You meant to link to this faithful driven man, yes? >>19336


f97c9a  No.19340

>>19314

>>19339

>woman

>left wing

Unsurprising


6be33f  No.19367

>>19339

>late stage capitalism

Dream on, pinko fuck. Your con scheme doesn't work, and your senseless words fall on deaf ears. Get lost.


46c49b  No.19401

Sometimes it's very frustrating when you do those contradicting stuff.

>Telling me you don't want me to do X, but want me to still do X as a 'reaching out' gesture

It's really draining and depressing. :(


5d6fab  No.19453

>>19401

Not to be rude but is there a question here? or are you replying to something itt?


c5fdfc  No.19457

>>19453

He's venting.


9e950e  No.19463

File: c5a560280700e90⋯.jpg (176.51 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, fc8362fd-c67c-4f09-9c2f-70….jpg)

The real question is how's everyones new year been so far?


783304  No.19472

>>19463

Eh, it's okay. The real question is how's yours?


9e950e  No.19484

File: e6d32e88397053f⋯.jpg (47.65 KB, 500x625, 4:5, 281da7b1-1a9c-4ba6-807e-bd….jpg)

>>19472

just ok? like not good not bad just eh? Hmmm.. it was shitty at first but now things have been looking up!! thanks for asking anon!!


f62713  No.19491

>>19484

How shitty? Like, I can have a shitty day, but I get sort of used to a shit life. I have my goals in mind, and they're within palm's reach. Cute kitty. Is it yours?


6494f6  No.19492

>>19484

Nevermind. I should've reverse-searched. Still, cute pic.


9e950e  No.19518

File: 6fb46f91d15bfd9⋯.jpg (33.39 KB, 690x690, 1:1, cyd5ng580h421.jpg)

>>19491

Awh, well i hope it doesnt stay shit for long!! I feel that, definitely. Things just BARELY started not being shit for me. Haha it is indeed a cute kitty!!! Wholesome and cute things are life!


3db1d9  No.19519

>>19518

Thanks, anon. You make me feel.


9e950e  No.19546

File: 957e5c4759b0dc1⋯.jpg (76.09 KB, 640x640, 1:1, c10b652e-2ed0-49a8-8c12-e2….jpg)

>>19519

here's some more feel heuheuheu


b5dd96  No.19555

>>19546

Thank you, anon. People like you really help make lives better.


db6943  No.19600

>>19463

A year of change around where I'm at.

Kitten pics are melting me too.

Maybe I'll end up somewhere I can get me another one of those fuzzy things.


9e950e  No.19601

File: 3afb78ff6d80e49⋯.jpg (108.93 KB, 682x682, 1:1, 71cd3f1e-41aa-44dc-b49a-df….jpg)

>>19600

Where change happens, so does learning. Change can be a scary yet beautiful thing. I hope the change youve experienced thus far has been positive. If not you fucking got this… I believe in you and whatever you set your mind to!! And i truly and deeply hope you can feel good about where this change decides to take you.


32a356  No.19627

>>19625

Answer me!


03d76b  No.19635

>>19627

What's a mental stimuli? Well it's simple really. A mood, a night spent having fun, the knowledge you want her over the others- things like that.


b99cf3  No.19636

>>19635

Do you mean, like, imagining that kind of stuff in your head, or having recently experienced that being stimulating, because I already kind of think in the former way when I see something I'm really attached to. I guess holding hands really is lewd.


03d76b  No.19647

>>19636

Imagination, truly. You overthink a bit, don't you?


f0686c  No.19650

>>19647

It's better than being stupid.


727064  No.19897

File: e1b3b3df18d76ed⋯.jpg (353.37 KB, 539x800, 539:800, __black_hanekawa_and_hanek….jpg)

Wasn't sure whether to make a whole thread or not, so I erred towards caution and went here. Hopefully I get replies.

Got a friend who has basically made me a good offer to get her some lewd shit and get hawt pics in return. Yeah, I know, it's e-girl shit, but we're friends and that makes it way better than if it was some rando.

Problem is, I've no idea what to do. I've never shopped for anything like that. I don't really want to look like a sleazy pervert in some store, nor to wreck my Amazon or eBay recommendations.

I want some lewd, cute, inexpensive shit. Who's got some ideas of how I should get started?


b33504  No.19898

>>19897

Lingerie and chokers is safe territory.

Ropes/handcuffs and collars a little less.

Ballgags & blindfolds & whips is just plain kinky but she might be ok with it.

By the way you phrase it I'm guessing she doesn't want to show you anything under the belt so buying sex toys is at your own loss and ((might)) offend her, at least for the moment.

Godspeed.


000000  No.19899

Aliexpress is frankly a boon for lewd shit. It would keep your eBay and Amazon history and recommendations clean and it would be very, very cheap.

They've got your typical e-girl crap, striped panties, thigh high socks, catgirl tails and ears and gloves, different cosplay attire (wigs, D.va bodysuits, Attack on Titan costumes, anything that's mainstream, they probably have it). Loads of shitty maid/schoolgirl/whatever cliche you want minimal sexy lingerie.

They also have all sorts of sex toys, but bullet vibrators I'd say are your safest choice. I consider them pretty tame, seeing as they don't necessarily require penetration and tend to need batteries everyone has lying around.

Most of this stuff costs a few dollars, the most expensive being the cosplay stuff.

If you decide to use the website, make sure to sort the items by orders (to ensure you buy from a reputable seller thousands have tested out before you) and read descriptions and reviews carefully before buying. Avoid giving them your phone number if you can because they will spam you with texts about sales.

Another thing to look out for is how subtle they are in their shipping, meaning how they label the shit. I don't know your friend's living situation but if she lives with her parents or roommates, she might not be okay with a package arriving in her mailbox that says "SEXY PANTIES LADY UNDERWEAR MAID COSTUME PANTIES BRA".


000000  No.19900

>>19899

Meant to respond to this

>>19897


bf2783  No.19918

>>19179

I tend to find that people who proclaim that they love all of humanity tend to behave most pathologically to the individual, particular people in their lives. Love is cheap when you see everyone as universally interchangeable, and your commitments to them are infinitely negotiable.

God, I hate people like that.


921df6  No.19930

File: 1e4b2abd134bb4f⋯.jpg (51.3 KB, 612x408, 3:2, DzBJ_9VWsAA1Bld.jpg)

>>19918

>Love is cheap when you see everyone as universally interchangeable, and your commitments to them are infinitely negotiable.

Kindess is also easy when you're being generous with other people's money. Socialism is so many layers of hypocrisy stacked on top of each other.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / baaa / dempart / doomer / jenny / teraha / vg / x ]