"The often highly literate, highly intelligent people that gravitate to the alt-right [are often] radicalized by being exposed to true statements that have never been voiced in college campuses or in the New York times. And they are immediately infected by a feeling of outrage that these truths are unsayable and have no defense against taking them to what we would say are rather repellent conclusions"
"Some of the ideas that they discuss, they are just off the table everywhere else. They can't be discussed in academia, they can't be discussed anywhere in polite society. And this is a factor that has really created or fueled the alt-right than anything else. Patterns in America in particular where there's very high divorce and a lot of sexual choice as a result. Lower levels of monogamy and that kind of thing. One of the things that it has produced is a kind of sexual hierarchy among men. This actually does bear out in the figures. Where smaller numbers of men are having more sexual partner and then there's this larger number at the bottom that are having none or very few. But once again the thing that they are starting off with is correct. They are observing a pattern, and they being told you are not supposed to observe it. So what's are answer to that? That's what we have to be discussing. But don't say the phenomena isn't there or we can't discuss it"
so aut rights are born racists?
>call people who don't like SJW's, Islam and liberalism 'fascists'
>be shocked when many people think they support fascism
They're kind of right. Well, Angela at least.
>One of the things that it has produced is a kind of sexual hierarchy among men.
I told you guys horizontalism is a good thing.
If you'd actually pay attention to what these two are saying, it's not that the alt right are smarter, these truths are often part of a larger more nuanced picture, but that the socialist left needs to speak up and be more brave in talking about these things because we are the only ones capable of doing so
Angela Nagle is right here. But Steven Pinker
>The often highly literate, highly intelligent people that gravitate to the alt-right
>being exposed to true statements that have never been voiced in college campuses or in the New York times
Also source on that angel nagle quote because I'm finding nothing.
there was a youtube video with it, but it got taken down (by me), it's still in this original video at 34:22
He's not saying all of them are smart he is saying why smart people fall in with the alt-right.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is probably for the best.
Like, I agree with Nagle's quote, but we have to remind ourselves that the Left is the group that is basically incapable of internalizing a few simple notions like "racism is bad" or "let's try to not be sexist" without elevating them to a completely disproportional, hysterical and self-damaging culture of call-outs, witch-hunting, self-segregation and of constantly shitting new codes of behavior that alienates everyone from us.
So if we open doors to the people the alt-right attracts by addressing these grievances they have, we'll just be adding another horrible demographic for the Left to deal with. In a few years people would be losing their jobs and being told to resign from the Democratic Cops of America for making fun of some conservative pundit's receeding hairline.
So let's keep things this way. We have way too many retards to deal with as it is.
Support Marxist Leninism with Houellebecqian characteristics for state assigned gfs. Not having a gf is alienation due to capitalism.
>these grievances they have
there's leftists that are honest
that talk about sexual realism, race realism etc
but they are immediately banned or shunned by the, well, this is become a trope, but the identitarians in the left, particularly by people who have a gynocentric or female-superiority worldview
yea there's leftists that have these greivances too about sex or race or democracy or whatever (although we wouldn't prescribe everything the alt-right does), we just have no outlet other than 8chan to talk about it, and lefty does, but just barely tolerates iconoclasm or major shifts in thought
Let's face it.
The Alt-Right IS more radically honest than any other political or social group. That of course doesn't mean they would continue to be if they came into power.
But it would help other political groups to become more honest as well. If not in public, than at least in our own circles. The amount of rabid intellectual dishonesty I've seen *within left strategic groups* is a complete road block to any effective political strategy.
If you promote a delusional worldview in your internal discussions, you can't really address anything other than whatever flimsy ideology makes you dishonest in the first place among political colleagues. It's completely self-limiting.
…I know, but where are these highly intelligent people though?
Let's face it.
Yea most of us agreed with this stuff, so take your projection somewhere else.
in the proverbial parent's basement
STILL only 40% of millenials in the US are living independently of their parents
the alt-right speaks to the frustrations of that 60%, or at least the men in that group. I have no idea what speaks to the women in that group, maybe old Disney movies about a man saving them or feminist misandry
Most liberals are fascist to some degree. This is especially true in the developing world. I find it hilarious that /pol/ uses "liberal" as a pejorative when they are liberal as fuck. Fascism is the end result of liberalism.
Angela nagle is a fucking retard. Her book was a poorly written pile of wank that basically vindicated the alt-right and glossed over major principles they hold. She even fucking said most of their racism is "ironic" and that they don't take it seriously, not even any mention of antisemitism.
Just another cunt in a long line of crypto-reactionaries who pretend to be on the left to further far-right goals.
Fuck her and fuck you.
LOL THE SAME OLD MEME OF SJWS CAUSING RACISM/FASCISM.
MUH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS WHAT CAUSES ME TO BE A SADIST GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please go back to reddit.
go back to /r/chapo
They are banned because "race realism" legitimizes natural hierarchies and can EASILY be applied to the benefiting demographic as well. If you engender a society that focuses on Autism Level then what's to stop that being applied to whites as well? What will you do when elites are proven to have higher Autism Levels than the poor?
You people need to seriously fucking think about these things. But you don't, the only thing you're thinking is "huuuuur them blacks will be affected but I sure wont". Dumb americunt narrowness.
I see the goons/SRS types are still trying to rewrite history. Pathetic.
Why? She literally can't spell for the majority of her book and there were no editors to rectify her mistakes.
I could easily imagine a slightly less retarded sargon writing up similar drivel.
> "race realism" legitimizes natural hierarchies
Only if you think we should organize society according to how nature works
that's a muh slippery slope argument
Why are you here, dumb reactionary? What the fuck are goons? Is this a gamergate thing? You genuinely think gamergate is what caused racism?
Masquerading as either conservative or libertarian (or liberal with some policy reservations) in public because not doing so could put their employment at risk.
The label 'alt-right' is toxic in most places, so people don't go advertising they agree with any of the alt-right's concerns.
It's not slippery slope you moron it's a principled portent to why Autism Level matters so much to the right in the first place. Do you think that they care about the Autism Level question just because they're bored?
God damn you're naive.
Calm down, I'm not a mod and can tell you are the same newbie massively triggered by this thread
Ok, well as you are saying that they will become sexual inegalitarians by neutering or gassing all the undesirables (which is probably true), they are currently the only ones genuinely sticking up for the current undesirables
A mod can come here and confirm I've been here for over a year. They have my ban records.
>well as you are saying that they will become sexual inegalitarians by neutering or gassing all the undesirables
Wtf are you talking about?
>they are currently the only ones genuinely sticking up for the current undesirables
They are sticking up for retards. How are white men undesirable in white societies?
If you give me a reactionary answer I will just LOL at the irony of you telling me to leave this board.
I think this is the crux of the issue. "What's observable in nature?", and "How do we organize society in light of these observations?" are two very separate questions.
The liberal consensus is to not ask the first question in order to avoid a potentially negative outcome for the second. This approach is driving people to the alt-right.
IDFK where the rest of this thread is going though.
>masquerading as libertarian
Everyone intelligent on the alt-right does this. Most are former libertarians themselves so they can easily pass an ideological Turing test as one.
Libertarians are considered an interesting novelty in polite neoliberal society so it’s a very safe mask, socially and professionally.
>Constantly attack anyone, right or left, if they disagree with you
>Unironically supported Hillary even before Bernie lost
The Obama era online "left" was a fucking joke and you should feel ashamed for liking it. It's not just about GG either. The whole "social justice" sub culture was, ironically enough, toxic. It produced nothing but a backlash that somehow continues to this day.
But the first question invariably leads to the second, if someone joins the alt-right then they were ALREADY interested in the second question. Otherwise they wouldn't join in the first place.
I mean this dude already answered the question of liberals turning fascist. >>2351501
Yet engages in double think and says that SJWs caused liberals to become alt-right when liberals were already inculcated in a culture that makes that transition VERY EASY.
I'm not American, I'm defending social justice insofar in that they're NOT THE CAUSE of the alt-right or racism in america. This is america and always has been america. It was not a result of fucking political correctness lmao - that is so naive that it doesn't even warrant a response, like you have to be some turbo-basement dweller to believe that this gamergate shit caused all the other systemic problems in your shit country.
What is this supposed to prove you brainlet?
>The liberal consensus is to not ask the first question in order to avoid a potentially negative outcome for the second
And it's the anglo-saxon left online consensus too, except for a few pockets here and there
There's nothing secret about it. Reason magazine used to run articles questioning the holocaust for fuck's sake.
>>prove me you are not a nazi
>How are white men undesirable in white societies?
I never said anything about race. Men in general are hated by women in the US, mostly because of the financial crisis, but also because of a false narrative sold to them
Right-libertarianism is comfortably in bed with fascist policies because both venerate business and property above everything else.
You're just ugly dude, no one hates you because of some fucking conspiracy or feminist agenda. Just lol at this coping mechanism.
I think it's worth bringing up that a lot of people in the alt-right frontlines are jewish or non-white
that's another question
Because white IS a construct at the end of the day and these non-whites have submitted to that very construct in hopes of better social standing.
60+% of millenials are unpartnered compared to 20% in the 50s because the rise of obesity porn and video games… goodbye foilks!
There's some things that happened before all of that that kicked off this whole thing, although of course those things don't help, but they are just epi-phenomena
Oh I don't disagree that the first question leads inevitably to the second. However, I do believe that there is an answer to the second question that suggests an egalitarian approach to organizing society, in spite of any biological differences between citizens.
The consequence of not risking a "Caste system now" answer to question 2 is our current state of affairs.
As a side note, the quotes suggest that the first question is the lure to the alt-right, but I don't think there's much to be gained from exploring this point.
That last bit is so true it hurts.
>60+% of millenials are unpartnered compared to 20% in the 50s because the rise of obesity porn and video games… goodbye foilks!
Yea there was something that happened inbetween the 50s and the late 70s - early 80s rise of home entertainment that gave way to the great uncoupling
Because they have more success dealing with the left's cheapest defense, dismissing your opponent (along with their ideas) by calling them a racist/sexist.
>That last bit is so true it hurts
It was autobiographical ;)
>Oh I don't disagree that the first question leads inevitably to the second. However, I do believe that there is an answer to the second question that suggests an egalitarian approach to organizing society, in spite of any biological differences between citizens.
Look my dude, the alt-right are a pretext to a tomorrow where capitalism turning societies explicitly totalitarian. Autism Level serves as a justification, beyond the days where the bible serves the same purpose for slavery, in integrating the neo-caste systems again.
It is also pretext for further involvement in Africa because liberals will be convinced that africans can't govern themselves due to "low Autism Level". You need to think in realpolitik, the alt-right are USEFUL for the establishment as the vanguard to a collapsing system.
I literally cannot imagine ANY society who acknowledges differences in Autism Level yet implements policies that benefits those suffering from a deficiency in Autism Level.
IQ will be linked, directly and tenuously, to all aspects of capitalist life so of course it's going to be the most important trait in western societies IF it's fully embraced.
>As a side note, the quotes suggest that the first question is the lure to the alt-right, but I don't think there's much to be gained from exploring this point.
No, stupid liberals will obviously be curious about Autism Level differences - but we're thinking without context. Type up Autism Level differences and divulge in resources pertinent to that research - you will find yourself in alt-right spaces in short time. Go online to see reviews about the bell-curve, and you will find yourself in alt right spaces in short time.
The point is, that the journey from being merely curious about Autism Level and a full blown white separatist isn't long at all. Do we censor it outright? No, but we should be CONSCIOUS of the context of this curiosity in our current climate.
Maybe the majority of women before the 50's were in unhappy marriages to men they didn't love, and given the opportunity to be free, they took it?
Capitalism, and its precursor; feudalism, weren't exactly on the woman's side when it came to "love". Unless you think arranged marriages were ok.
>I never said anything about race.
Then it's rude to put words in your mouth since complaining about inequality in sexuality is never used as a front for white male identity politics.
>these non-whites have submitted to that very construct in hopes of better social standing
most of them couldn't pass as white, and no one really cares in the alt-right that they are non-white just as long as they are in the frontlines
What's wrong with white men?
Racist and sexist are legitimate accusations, but they need to have substance behind them. They are useless when coming from the mouth of a liberal because they take anti-discrimation as a given instead of being an argument that should have credence behind the labels. It's seldom seen that the perpetrator of discrimination rescinds his ways and becomes altruistic to the victim, that's why you have to appeal to the victims themselves.
You got that backwards, sexual in-egalitarianism is a catalyst for right-wing views (at the moment)
I fucking knew it
>not really, most of them couldn't pass as white,
This contradiction doesn't stop them from becoming active agents in their own destitution. From what I saw at HWNDU, the non-white's were either pathologically depressed or trying to use the event as a publicity stunt for some career.
I didn't mean to imply that they were always illegitimate accusations, just that a lot of very vocal people on the left view everything through the lens of race/gender, even when inappropriate.
But, an accusation from these types is often enough to get people banned/sanctioned in some way, even if there is little to no substance behind it.
>agents in their own destitution
We're not going to have a white ethostate, even if the alt-right were 20x larger, because there's no money in that. There was money in slavery but there's no money in that.
Maybe those non-whites realize that and there problem isn't race treachery, but a nihilism brought about by not being able to lead a normal life of raising a family or at least partnering with someone
To be fair, everything in america is viewed through shallow identities. Minorities weren't the first to start doing it. You really need to read up about your own history.
yea, white men don't hate white men
and leftypol is mostly white men
The alt right and the new atheist movement are basically the same thing. There's no reasoning with this sort of obscene idealism. Best just to let them grow out of it.
No one here fucking hates white men. Get your shit sorted out, virgin.
I never said we were, I'm saying that the perceived actions of these "sellouts" would lead to them suffering. Even if the societies exclaimed by white nationalists doesn't suffice, the sellout still suffers the indignity of being a pariah and useful idiot for people who would otherwise hate them.
They are probably suicidal most of the times as well.
I dunno, you sound pretty hateful
t. hater of white men
White men are the international bourgeoisie and the greatest barrier to communism.
I think it could work in the American system if it were included in the list of protected classes, alongside race, gender, etc.
Absent constitutional protections, I think you'd be right. Hell, given America's history, we'd probably even have to deal with decades of de facto discrimination.
>No, but we should be CONSCIOUS of the context of this curiosity in our current climate.
I think we agree here, I'm just a bit more on the idealistic/optimistic side of how things will shake out.
I gotta run for now, was fun talking
>Maybe the majority of women before the 50's were in unhappy marriages to men they didn't love
And then women perfected marriage by finding the men they liked and lived happily ever after /sarcasm
Actually the little that I've read on this suggests that relationships were more healthy back when they were societally arranged, compared to the social darwinist model we have now with women as the selectors
>I think it could work in the American system if it were included in the list of protected classes, alongside race, gender, etc.
No it will not not. It will be exploited when america inevitable suffers its collapse.
There is no point in discussing Autism Level other than stratification and proposed policy. It wont stop at the door step to white either, it will go over to mexicans and then finally poor whites. It will vindicate the disproportionate wealth the elite have because they'll be proven to have higher Autism Levels than the rest.
>the Steven Pinker thing
Lol cuz nobody talks about race ever, that's totally the issue. It's not just that racial realism is bullshit and its supporters refuse to admit any obvious flaws when they'd rather just stick with a 19th century understanding of human biology.
>Actually the little that I've read on this suggests that relationships were more healthy back when they were societally arranged
And the evidence is?????
Evidence from a time where women were in oppressive marriages and under false consciousness to think that the arrangement was the highest attainment in life as a woman. Similar to stockholm syndrome.
The times where marriages were arranged were also the times where education was segregated by gender so women HAD to depend on men for support. If happiness is comparative/relative then of course women will report on being relatively happy as opposed to staying with their parents or alone. An unmarried woman back then was scorned.
>back then was scorned.
so now let us scorn the opposite
the ideal world has 0% relationships
>They're being told not to observe it
No, they're being told not to reach the conclusions from it because the conclusion is a literal fascist society and disregarding any other solution.
The only people scorned now are losers who are scorned by all and NOT only women. I'm actually talking from experience here - it's not that hard to get a girlfriend of equal attractiveness if you actually go out.
Most people within this community are those who live in complete isolation and probably lack any IRL friends.
Not only by women*
And by experience I mean that I'm an incel loser too, but I know that it's not just because of women but because I'm a "failure" in most other aspects of life as well.
I can hardly interact with other MEN let alone other women. So I can't genuinely blame women for my ills, although I do like the cathartic rants once in a while, but I'm not serious in the verbiage I type.
t. Chad McThunderpenistein
Wrong. You should start blaming women all the time for all things.
You would laugh at this post if you actually knew my life circumstances. I'm probably the most incorrigible incel in the west.
Am I the only leftist who unironically wants to go back to an imagined past where I could find a young virgin wife who'd been cared for and educated by a good and loving family and would only allow me to marry her after I showed I could care for her properly as well. It's not like I don't want her to have her freedom and happiness…… but ya know I would be in to it if she wore a collar…..
ITT:good discussion smeared by unironic
Is it too much to ask for you guys to at least ATTEMPT to blend in.i know it might seem unecessary nitpicking but it's just a concern from an anon that does not want this place to become Reddit:edgy edition.
I used to, but that's because I was a hormonal, angry, edgy retard.
and it's tied to sex
you have any idea how many people are racists because they can't get a date and they think it's because of multiculturalism? Which might have a kernel of truth to it, but really the problems they had finding a partner when they wren't sociopaths is more closely connected to a larger feminist project
Also OP is wrong for a different reason, you can find race realism in the mainstream now and again.
Honestly the alt-right has always talked more about sex than race, even if they are defined by their racial attitudes.
Women are only doing what we'd all naturally do if given the power to do so. It may sound cynical and unwelcoming to us incels, but we'd be doing the same if we were women. Why would we spare a thought to random incels on an obscure forum?
I've been on 4chan for a decade yet I still type like that, ironically I adopted that syntax from other reactionary forums like lookism/puahate and bodybuilding.com. Probably worse than reddit.
I’m just fun posting, I actually have a gf but I heard that whole “oh its just so easy to get a gf” thing for years but it doesn’t make it any easier.
Well I heard spencer say in a recent "debate" that most of the contention to multiculturalism comes from other races interacting with their women, by whatever means. Fascism is also hyper sexual and often homosexual.
The ideal world is just a big orgy. It's a sad thing that no one takes free love seriously anymore.
Don't just sit on your ass. Do something about it.
We should aspire to change the conditions of our own life and our society simultaneously. Get rid of the structures that create and perpetuate human failure while rising above our own failures in the process. Be ruthless in it. That's leftism in a nutshell.
no, but trad lefties are more concentrated in non-Anglo-Saxon countries
I'm genuinely befuddled here. Get rid of the collar and who DOESN'T want a virgin spouse/husband who has been cared for by a loving family?
I find the fascination with the alt-right stupid. If anything it's a good sign. If a right exists, a left exists also. That's why, now in 2018, for the first time since Vietnam war, where there was "Hippies", America has a name for the radical left and that is "Antifa".
So one should be concerned of the radical left - the alt right, the undesirables, have figures that are household names in America - Richard Spencer, Milo etc., Trump of course - all pathetic, ineffective losers. Idiots - but the left doesn't even have idiots, where it should have thousands of radicalized, brilliant journalists.
>Don't just sit on your ass. Do something about it.
That's the problem, I love sitting on my ass now. I get so comfortable every morning; with every passing hour another lost opportunity to "do something" outside.
Another problem is that I live in london and don't know WHAT to do outside, I feel like you either need to know people or have money to "do things".
Most people socialize through work, but fuck do I hate work.
The left was destroyed in america and exists now it its revised, bastardized form that's been integrated with liberalism.
it's not justSsocial Darwinist feminism vs trad wives
I swear you can have people pairing up again just by improving material conditions, decreasing the cost of childcare, and maybe build a new social institution that values partnership to the point where it can socialize all who want partners.
I don't know that women are that happy with the system we've created either. They now have the freedom to compete in the labor market and the dating markets but that's one hell of a double edged sword.
I just want a sweet little waifu who can play the piano for me, and teach our children to read theory.
no, collar stays…. collar is important to me…
for all intensive purposes, the far-right is the only inheritor of the sexual egalitarianism of the hippies, with the left as the new social darwinists
>The ideal world is just a big orgy.
I don't think so, I think an ideal world is where we can escape beyond base carnality and escapism to a pursuit that can benefit everyone. But this is idealism, and isn't compatible with realism. We have too much history that can't just be forgotten.
The cure to a lot of incel problems is to just have spaces where they can socialize and not fear stigma of being a "low ranking male". Which can only really be possible in a society that places human welfare above profit and community over rapacious individualism.
>The cure to a lot of incel problems is to just have spaces where they can socialize and not fear stigma of being a "low ranking male". Which can only really be possible in a society that places human welfare above profit and community over rapacious individualism.
ok but not if the new socialist paradise is built on social capital. One of the good things about capitalism is that it's non-meritocratic.
>I don't know that women are that happy with the system we've created either.
Any unhappiness they have is mutual among men too. However, I wouldn't want to be locked into a relationship with one person that I didn't "love" for the rest of my life, so I'm not sure about women. That very agency that looses them into the job market may supersede the security they'd feel within a marriage (that was arranged).
love is a duty not an infatuation, infatuation is fleeting
fear stigma of being a "low ranking male" is basically the "fault" of the person who feels that feeling though. it isnt the fault of women that dudes base their identity and self concept on arbitrary measures of "success". It is possible to be a "low ranking male" and still get laid, and *gasp* socialize normally with females.
Why do you analyse everything at a systemic level, but come down to the individual on sex?
This is the tumblr left's whole problem
Capitalism and its social symptoms are what causes the market facsimile among relationships imo. People are literally ranked in capitalist societies on a 1-10 scale, and people often try to improve themselves as a product to gain more "purchasing power" within this sexual market. That is the real dysfunction of capitalism on society.
I genuinely think a socialist society would be more forgiving when it comes to relationships, and that "social capital" as you put it would pale in its ferocity to the "sexual marketplace" we have now. For instance, a lot of roles once sustained by capitalism (Celebrity, gangster or any other career that evokes elitism) would be gone, meaning a more proportional share rather than people all flocking to 5%.
Yes I know, I'm just trying to assure the other incel that people in his position may have better chances in a society that genuinely values communal activity.
you come with an assertion
agree with my assertion but say that women were duped into being happier than they are now
you aren't much of a utilitarian are you? Like who cares if there are other men they would have like to be with if given a choice if they were more happy back with societally arranged relationships?
Whatever, I wouldn't want to be beholden to someone that I hated.
i dunno. real life? im not a baller by any means and i still get laid. ive known dudes that were homeless and still got laid. soe women even have a weird pathology where they will only date losers because they feel like they can fix them. if youre a weird cringy awkward dude, then it isnt capitalisms fault and the answer isnt state sanctioned waifus. move past this extended adolescent bs.
Well a good analogy is slavery but we probably shouldn't go there.
marriage only strengthens gender norms and heirarchical structures. polygamy and free association is the onyl way forward ultimately.
And historically people were only wed to share wealth between families.
yea that's not a good reason to ignore systemic analyses
>poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough
why don't you look at this systemically?
>because i dunno in real life? I'm not a rich person by any means but I knew dudes who were homeless and still become millionaires. Some people have a weird pathology that they only reward fellow rich people, but if you are a poor person it's not the system's fault and the answer isn't societally enslaving doctors and stuff to give you free health care, move past the entitlement
But why do so many people fear this stigma, even though it really doesn't exist? My hunch is that they misidentify some other anxiety. But what anxiety? What scares them so much?
I unironically think that women are more sensitive to the stability and quality of interpersonal relationships in society and have greater needs for stability and safety in general. Men are kind of hormonaly wired to value novelty, and get a lot out of challenge and strife. It's sort of like frogs. It's not that the other animals aren't getting poisoned too but when the water gets polluted the frogs turn up dead first because they're more sensitive to the water.
So my theory is we're having all these gender issues because the switch to full employment, putting the full brunt of capitalist exploitation on women and dropping them out of traditional family protections is killing them and they're desperately looking for some way to fix it but they don't trust men anymore since they abandoned home life to work a few generations back.
Well it's people that are extremely insecure and fear judgement because of perceived deficiencies in exerting ones self. Some enjoy the feelings of pity and start employing confirmation-bias to every slight.
men had sexual duties too!
If you really believed that women are enslaved to a higher degree than men by societally enforced relationships than you would believe that men don't desire constant variety and promiscuity to a huge degree (which we do)
stop being dishonest. a man being homeless and then becoming a millionaire and a man being homeless and then getting laid are not equatable at all.
homeless incel awareness though seriously
Yeah, marriage back then was hard on both parties, what's your point?
that you are trying to create an oppressor and oppressed class in societally enforced relationships but it doesn't work that way
Well the man literally held the wealth of the family and the property, he was the oppressor insofar that he held objective, material power in the relationship. Oppressor doesn't always mean a man with a whip or some nazi caricature.
This is part of what the more intellectual "alt right" actually sort of get right. People in general but men especially in this point in time are infantilized and being babied. People are still biological wild animals, and biological wild animals fight, struggle, and survive. In the abscence of that, human beings become weak useless sacks of fat and meat. too fragile to live truly independently of the world and therefore let their very selves and identity become defined by the messages and images of the hyperreality we live in. These messages and images are necesarrily negative because they must be in order to convince you you are missing something and need to buy or be something in order to be a "complete" person. Our increasing isolation and dependence of drugs in order to combat high depression rates only contribute to this mental weakness and inferiority.
Sounds kind of hot.
"In doing this I of course acquired the reputation of a misogynist. This is the natural fate of any one who attempts to expose that most shamelessly impudent fraud (the so-called woman’s-rights movement) which was ever supported by rotten arguments, unblushing misrepresentations, and false analogies. I have given some instances of the former in the course of this chapter. I will give one instance of a transparently false analogy which is common among Socialists and Radicals. It is a favourite device to treat the relation between man and woman as on all fours with the relation between capitalist and workman. But a moment’s consideration will show that there is no parallel at all between the two cases. The reason on which we as Socialists base our persistent attack on the class-privileged man or woman – on the capitalist – is because we maintain that as an economical, political, and social entity he or she has no right to exist. We say that the capitalist is a mere parasite, who ought to and who eventually will disappear. If it were not so, if the capitalist were a necessary and permanent factor in society, the attitude often adopted by Socialists (say, over trade disputes) would be as unfair and one-sided as the bourgeois represents it to be. Now, I wish to point out that the first thing for the woman’s-rights advocates to do, if they want to make good the analogy, is to declare openly for the abolition of the male sex. For until they do this, there is not one tittle of resemblance between the two cases. It is further forgotten that the distinction between men and women as to intellectual and moral capacity is radically different from that between classes. The one is a difference based on organic structure; the other on economic circumstance, educational advantage and social convention. That such a flimsy analogy as the above should ever have passed muster shows that the blind infatuation of public opinion on this question extends even to some Socialists."
"What does Socialism, at least, profess to demand and to involve? Relative economic and social equality between the sexes. What does the woman’s-rights movement demand? Female privilege, and when possible, female domination. It asks that women shall have all the rights of men with privileges thrown in (but no disagreeable duties, oh dear no!), and apparently be subject to no discipline but that of their own arbitrary wills."
"Many Socialists, indeed, believe that the sex-question altogether is so entirely bound up with the economic question that it will immediately solve itself on the establishment of a collectivist order of society. I can only say that I do not myself share this belief. It would seem there is something in the sex-question, notably, the love of power and control involved, which is more than merely economic. I hold rather, on the contrary, that the class-struggle to-day over-shadows or dwarfs the importance of this sex-question, and that though in some aspects it will undoubtedly disappear, in others it may very possibly become more burning after the class-struggle has passed away than it is now. Speaking personally, I am firmly convinced that it will be the first question that a Socialist society will have to solve, once it has acquired a firm economic basis and the danger of reaction has sensibly diminished or disappeared."
"Nowadays any one who protests against injustice to men in the interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the nineteenth century"
Ah, yeah, obviously. It's simply a projection of their self-loathing. I should have seen that myself, really.
It makes sense that people on image boards get caught into this trap. We are brutal to each other, and constantly poking fun at socially inept people. Of course you're going to develop social anxiety.
But that isn't a very enlightening explanation as to why our society produces these people. Do you think it's just contingent?
That makes a lot of sense. The mass of people just don't have a meaningful purpose in life. They're born to get some dumb job, enjoy themselves a bit, maybe reproduce, and die. That's simply not enough for people to feel fulfilled about themselves. We constantly see images of people who do have a deeper purpose, feed on them, but we don't live them. When we come back to immediate reality, it just feels shameful and bleak.
The left doesn't have a meaningful answer to that problem at present. I like the idea of everyone being an artist, exploring their own unique individuality, as developed in Oscar Wilde's socialism. But the idea has been co-opted by liberal snowflakes, who want to be special without struggling for it, so it's lost most of its potency.
I don't think he's saying the two are "equatable" whatever that means. You can still look at the two problems from a systemic point of view even if they're not exactly the same in every dimension.
Nice quotes but they never addressed my posts, or were you attacking some strawman that laid behind them? I'm not an ardent feminist - I was being objective in that men quite literally held all the power within the household, the woman only had sex as a weapon (back then).
Not sure what point your second reference was addressing, but I'm assuming it's the latter. That assumption can from simple inference that a more socialized person has a higher chance of entering a relationship, which I don't think is too out of field.
>But that isn't a very enlightening explanation as to why our society produces these people. Do you think it's just contingent?
Nah it wasn't, I forget that I'm on a leftist board and just gave a basic liberal response. This guy here had a more informed answer >>2351764
I could type out a more nuanced post but I can't be assed, I'm very lazy.
I don't think it's productive to argue about genes constantly, it's ultimately a distraction that only favors the right. It would be better to argue about possible policies that may arise from potential differences in Autism Level.
I get the sentiment but I'm imagining selling this narrative in like Puerto Rico and cringing pretty hard
The relationship btw men and women is not like the relationship of proles to capitalists, with capitalists as having dominance over proles by virtue of how material goods are handled.
This is because when someone owns resources to in an exploitative manner, this person is said to have been parasitic and immoral towards the other person.
When a man has more control over resources in a traditional model, this is because he is working for them or will work for them. A woman has more control over the children and passes that responsibility on to her daughter because she will have more control over the children than her future husband. You can see that personal power goes beyond economic power on the micro leve relationships, even if you can solve a lot of personal problems on the macro level by hyperfocusing on the economic problems
*traditional marriage model
Never made the capitalist/prole analogy - the relationship between men and women back then was materially in the mans favor, this is FACT. Material power can supersede this abstract power of women and children, back then the man could, and would take the children because HE was the only one that can support the children because HE earned wages.
The woman would either have to sell her body or return to her parents, and when they were the only two options, then the power dynamic is revealed to be very disproportionate.
I don't know what you're not getting? Were women allowed to work before the wars?
>The ideal world is just a big orgy.
Enjoy dying of AIDS then
Maybe the contention here is about the term "material"? It doesn't matter if the man earned his power or not, he still HAS power over the woman, that is the subject here.
because his job was to work for the materials at the expense of being with his children he got to have the most control over the materials.
because the woman's job was to raise the children at the expense of not being able to control the financial resources, she got to spend the most time with the children
it was a trade-off that made sense in that old model. it worked pretty well. Once we decided that women should have control over her own finances, we still insisted that men shouldn't have control over whether or not he wants to work or be a stay at home dad.
Treating economic power like it's the end all be all *in personal reltionships* is foolish. And it doesn't contract a socialist outlook unless you think the old man-woman relationship is like a capitalist-prole relationship.
*expense of not being with his children
>Treating economic power like it's the end all be all *in personal reltionships* is foolish. And it doesn't contract a socialist outlook unless you think the old man-woman relationship is like a capitalist-prole relationship.
Firstly, that is anti-marxist and stems from reactionary notions of pre-WW1 families. Secondly it doesn't need to be 1:1 analogous to a capatitalist-prole relationship for the oppression to take place.
Listen, even if a man compromises his contact with his family and earns his money honestly, he STILL will have material power over the woman. It DOESN'T make him evil, he just has POWER. You are probably ascribing negatives to power but it can be used neutrally when describing any type of relation.
Even if it was a trade off, the man had power - can you not understand that? He owned the property and he owned the ability to procure food - that is objective, material power. He would be better off in a divorce than the woman because of said power, remember this is BEFORE any type of sexual egalitarianism took root - so I don't want you applying modern dynamics to the past in some weird, anachronistic attempt.
This may just be your inability to imagine a world different from ours, which the past very much was..
>The Alt-Right IS more radically honest
I can't believe this has gone unchallenged. I mean, if honesty counts as genuinely believing the complete falsehoods you parrot, then sure, but come on.
Wouldn't socialism solve almost all of this? For example, without an emphasis on profit, both sexes could work and still have more than enough time for their children. We wouldn't look for partners based on money nearly as much as we do now. Freed from long work weeks, we'd all actually have time to socialize and find people we genuinely liked. These fucking feels…
They're more radically "honest" in what they want, but even then I still think that's bullshit - for instance you can't go from america as it is now to a complete isolationist state which ethno-nationalists purports. They know they're going to become imperialists and renege on any peace treaty they have with other ethno-states.
do ugly women get state-assigned bfs too?
>Firstly, that is anti-marxist
Ok and I linked you one of the most prominent marxists of that day saying my argument
and now you are saying that the relationship was like a capitalist prole relationship but not 1:1
Ok and even if a woman leaves her contract with the husband through a false allegation of abuse, she gets the childrenn. In that sense she also has power.
How can you not understand that having access and privelege to personal relatioships that another person doesn't is power? It's objective, personal power.
Divorce isn't appllicable to this because relationships were ends in themselves instead of means to extract resources or children and the pressure not to have a divorce was so high that it was virtually unknown in colonial times and an extreme outlier after that until the late 1800s.
> The Alt-Right IS more radically honest than any other political or social group.
They're fucking idealists. Deceit is the very core of political idealism, you fucking idiot retard cretin. Fuck off, you liberal filth, you disgusting solipsist cocksucker.
I should add that in the past a woman didn't get the children in divorce settlements because she didn't have the money to take care of them, but this was really a non-issue in power dynamics because divorces were basically non-existent
Are you out of your mind? Their entire movement is predicated on myths, confirmation bias, and deliberate lies
> false allegation of abuse
> "b-but what if the wench lies? t-then an innocent man might go to prison!"
Oh, just fuck off. Fuck off and die. Shoot yourself in the face, set yourself on fire and die.
No they literally are not honest. They identify issues not brought up in mainstream politics, just as we do, but that in itself is not honesty.
Would you really call Mormons the most honest religion, because nobody else is discussing the ancient Israelite origins of America?
> she gets the childrenn. In that sense she also has power.
And since it's the workers who do the work for the bourgie, they have power over the bourgie.
Nobody can be this fucking stupid. If you want to to perpetuate the hierarchical structure of societal organisation while acknowledging the class dichotomy, then just admit to being a rightist who isn't fine with his current status; it's okay, rightists are allowed to do that. What's up with this "oppression is bad, but I'm the only person on the planet who should be considered as being truly oppressed" nonsense? It doesn't help your case, and it definitely doesn't help the left at large.
Women don't need to allege abuse to get the children nowadays. Just filing for divorce will do most of that work. The judge will just assume the woman is more capable of child rearing and the man has to fight hard to get his kids, usually in a futile manner.
Also, don't underestimate the degree women lie, they do it twice as much as men
You're attacking a strawman that apparently said "Male/female relationships are like capitalis-prole relationships" when I said NO SUCH THING.
>and now you are saying that the relationship was like a capitalist prole relationship but not 1:1
Any relationship can resemble a capitalist-prole relation by your logic, you're stretching and making tenuous links more pertinent than they are.
>Ok and even if a woman leaves her contract with the husband through a false allegation of abuse, she gets the childrenn. In that sense she also has power.
Dude did you literally not read my posts because you stated exactly what I said here >>2351859
>How can you not understand that having access and privelege to personal relatioships that another person doesn't is power? It's objective, personal power.
What the fuck is this amorphous abstraction, a man still has connection with his children, financially and emotionally. He still has the say in what his children should do, because he HAD the material power in the household. I'm describing something objective and measurable and you're chucking this nebulous nonsense at me.
>Divorce isn't appllicable to this because relationships were ends in themselves instead of means to extract resources or children and the pressure not to have a divorce was so high that it was virtually unknown in colonial times and an extreme outlier after that until the late 1800s.
Ok, so women were locked into relationships where men held a disproportionate, if not absolute share of material power and had no methods to leave. How is the relationship equal exactly? The man could abuse the woman and deprive her of food via not purchasing food with HIS wages. What can the woman do if she's already given birth to an expected number of children? Prostitution was still a thing back then.
If the issues the alt-right rails against didn't hit home more than the ancient Israelite origins of America, they wouldn't be considered an existential threat by more than half the left
What does Marxism have to offer incels though? They are basically 21st century invalids. They have no role in society.
We weren't talking about today.
> They are basically 21st century invalids.
Yes, yes, men are the oppressed gender. Why aren't you on /pol/, again?
>a man still has connection with his children, financially and emotionally
no not when you are in the fields or behind machinery all day
>Ok, so women were locked into relationships
so were men, again divorce almost never happened
>How is the relationship equal exactly
Relationships back then weren't predicated on equality but instead practicality and complementing each other with respect to raising children. Perfect equality would be both partners feeling just as free to do anything the other partner does, which is not the situation women's liberation gave us, especially for men.
>The man could abuse the woman and deprive her of food via not purchasing food with HIS wages
And the woman could abuse the man as well. Marital abuse was only considered a public problem for either gender, but moreso for the woman, if it endangered somoeone's life or if it was unusually brutal.
>What can the woman do if she's already given birth to an expected number of children?
The children's health was a societal concern, when the children's health declined for reaosns of abuse , the society intervened.
you haven't been on leftypol very long. Go back to Reddit.
Back to the incel containment board with you
the comforting feeling that men have all the power is really just a reflection of a man's ego and a woman's sexuality, not reality
read some writings on feminism from the great marxist belfort bax
lol there's been non-partisan father's rights groups ever since the destruction of the family and even in the most feminist places like sweden
and considering the original MRAs were marxists, nor rightists you should be a bit more dedicated to reality
"The movement for the liberation of incels deserves a place on Holla Forums but we need to be quick to spot reactionary attacks meant to divide us."
You're being deliberately dishonest and trying to make an anachronistic appeal to the past.
I'll dignify your retarded, MGTOW ass with one more response.
>no not when you are in the fields or behind machinery all day
This precludes a financial relationship with the children? How?
The children still have an emotional investment in their father and vice versa. Even the absence of a father is still a relationship because a father is contextualized as the bred-winner of the family, with or without his presence. A completely absent father would STILL have an effect on the children. Hence emotional.
>so were men, again divorce almost never happened
Yes, so were men.
>Relationships back then weren't predicated on equality but instead practicality and complementing each other with respect to raising children.
The main argument was about the distribution of power in relationships. Fuck off with your red herrings.
>And the woman could abuse the man as well.
Before WW1? Fucking lol, this is the anachronistic revisionism I'm talking about. You've drunk too much MGTOW koolaid.
Hurrrr all women are manipulative whores who force me to beat them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>The children's health was a societal concern, when the children's health declined for reaosns of abuse , the society intervened.
Oh fuck off retard, domestic abuse was endemic back then and still is. You think the state is going to intervene because some impoverished family in some slum is suffering from the father's abuse? Back then? Delusional idiot.
They MAY have intervened in some petty-bourgeois family, if the father couldn't bribe the court off that is.
> not when you are in the fields or behind machinery all day
Are you aware that women worked all throughout the XIX century, too? I guess not, since you seem to be arguing from the premise that the female gender has always naturally been placed upon a pedestal.
> so were men, again divorce almost never happened
And Texan farmers in the first half of XIX century were incentivised to own slaves so as to not underperform in their economy. Sure, they too were victims of the system that they lived in, but that doesn't fucking mean that slavery wasn't that bad or some other idiotic nonsense.
> Relationships back then weren't predicated on equality but instead practicality and complementing each other with respect to raising children.
Now you're obviously just taking the piss. I'm sorry I took you seriously. Have a nice day.
Wow, get laid.
Where did Nagle say that?
I don't actually want the past because I'm a utopian who thinks that we can get beyond duties and have a bit more freedom. I like the polymorphous sexuality the hippies practiced. The thing is feminism and modernity don't promote that sort of sexuality. That sexuality can only be created through a new social order.
The old model is only the second best thing to that.
>power is having an effect on your children
Power is also having the ability to maintain a relationship when another can't.
>The main argument was about the distribution of power in relationships.
And I'm saying the distribution of power was arranged in such a way to ensure the integrity of the family, not the man's pleasure or superiority of the woman
>You've drunk too much MGTOW koolaid.
I don't use their forums. Too many libertarians
Nor am I a male separatist
>Oh fuck off retard, domestic abuse was endemic back then and still is
I already addresed abuse in old relatioships. And in modern ones, men are abuse basically as often, but with less recourse.
>You think the state is going to intervene because some impoverished family in some slum is suffering from the father's abuse? Back then? Delusional idiot.
mandatory reporting laws for child abuse were established without women's lib and within the context of old relatinship
> I'm a utopian who thinks that we can get beyond duties and have a bit more freedom
Is this what they call it these days?
> the female gender has always naturally been placed upon a pedestal.
As the other person said, go back to Reddit, specifically, go back to /r/redpill
>I don't actually want the past because I'm a utopian who thinks that we can get beyond duties and have a bit more freedom. I like the polymorphous sexuality the hippies practiced.
Do you have mental problems or something?
> reading comprehension
>And I'm saying the distribution of power was arranged in such a way to ensure the integrity of the family, not the man's pleasure or superiority of the woman
Alright so you concede to the point that men had more ACTUAL power than women back then.
only if you consider the integrity of the family to be only a male sphere of interest
Why should we try the convert angry virgins? They aren't social enough to understand left wing political philosophy.
Well, obviously. Women have naturally evolved to be sluts who only want to fuck around with Ahmed and Jamal.
that sort of polymorphous sexuality was really just a blip in modernity, it didn't really have much of a place in modernity, hence me not talking about it as "the past"
again, go baaacck to /r/theredpill
you can be just as unironically sexist there
You do understand that the growing population of incels would, if Marx is to be believed, have a cause based in the social and economic state of things as they are, as a result of what events passed pushed us into this present. Marxism offers not an end to the current incel's inhibitions and character flaws, but a society in which incel behavior is not formed in the first place (by and large).
/leftypol/ still trying to understand the "alt right" as if it's one homogeneous group.
/pol/ is pretty homogenous, both of them in their own way.
This thread is retarded and OP should be banned for promoting the the Atheist Jordan Peterson that is steve pinker but I'm going to use it as a trampoline to promote this little autism stream that I've found. I'm 20 mins in and it's been pretty cringy so far.
Let's see if AA is going to sperg out and interrupt the other guy like he did with Jack or if he respects the Aut-right too much for that.
who would like to debate me on whether rape is wrong.
if you refuse to debate me I guess I'll be forced to choose the view that opposes yours.
Sargon looks like he wants to kill himself in that photo
>oh god I'm surrounded by losers, what am I doing with my life?
He's in perfect company
> reading fucking comprehension
Actually, are you autistic? I reread my posts and I find it hard for any mentally healthy individual to misread them. Not trying to insult you here, you do seem to have a problem.
> Armoured Skeptic
Does he still pretend that he doesn't know what aut right is and that he couldn't possibly have anything to do with them?
Holy shit, is le ebin actually reactionary classical liberalism being pushed SOLELY by brown /pol/yps?
first that potato fella and now AA with his shitty accent admits that he's some kind of Paki. https://youtu.be/W2pbmDp_Ly0?t=31m30s
Is that why we've been getting so many retards trying to get us to put forth moralist "arguments" against racialism since the K&T debacle. I'll much sooner side with the Nazis than with these uncle-tom maggots.
It's Academic Agent, not Armoured Skeptic. Armoured Skeptic is the in the pg13 side of the skeptic community.
so.cially conservative* cassical liberalism
It's a true statement. This does not make all alt-right arguments correct but the fact that they will even discuss certain topics is enough to get smart people around them.
It's very destructive as a result. When mainstream society rejects certain discussions (for example "race and Autism Level" or "are gay rights civil rights") everyone who is not on one side of the argument is pushed out and into the same corner /pol/ is. Of course, this means /pol/ is the one leading the discussion and radicalizing people becomes extremely easy. Opinions break from fringe groups to mainstream no matter their basis in reality; because by the time "normal" society decides to seriously debate these issues it is too late.
One of the largest examples has to do with the system of global finance itself. Mainstream people refuse to acknowledge that any alternative to it could plausibly exist, as a result those seeking alternatives are pushed into the same crowd as nativists and know-nothings. This is where their brand of "alternative" finds oxygen and burns brightly.
You're being undialectical, getting cause and effect backwards. The current crisis is what caused radicalisation to happen, and it's people who already got pushed to the right who start caring about questions that are impolite to ask in a neolib society. /pol/ has always been utterly impotent, it's lack of resolution for the problems of this society that makes it grow, and mistaking it for proof that /pol/'s tactics and strategies work does nothing but legitimise them.
> and it's people who already got pushed to the right who start caring about questions that are impolite to ask in a neolib society
That's not what nagle and pinke said, the OP said they are identifying truths about all basically of American society (not just slivers of it) that are impolite to identify in today's society. Other people outside the right identify them too, as much as you'd hate to admit that, and you are going to war with people identifying them here.
/pol/ is just one space where the alt-right gathers, we aren't in some cosmic war with the /pol/, even though it's fun to LARP like that
He's trolling you retard, stop replying to him.
/pol/ doesn't provide solutions, they just radicalize and spread their ideas when no others are present. It doesn't matter if their ideas don't work because they won't be picking up the pieces.
>The ideal world is just a big orgy. It's a sad thing that no one takes free love seriously anymore.
Even though such a world, with a commune structure would be bad or hard for women. It isn't what women prefer, generally. So once "free love" stops being a spiritual or community value, women are going to be the last ones to pick up the cause.
Free love was sort of marketed to men as a reason why the sexual revolution and women's lib was good. But obviously it didn't last very long.
So men choose to live out their free love utopia through porn. It's that big egalitarian constant fuck-fest that knows little discrimination (I"m assuming the dude doesn't watch violent porn, in which case it's a dystopia he's reveling in)
Women's porn is actually a lot more ugly than men's. Just look at the hyper-hierarchal hyper-inegalitarian romance plotlines. Read 50 shades.
wouldn't be bad for women I mean
sorry, I don't trust hibernians
> as much as you'd hate to admit that
What the fuck does that even mean? Whatever you think my views on this subject are, I don't think that you've got them anywhere close to right.
> they just radicalize and spread their ideas
See, that's my point: I'm saying that the aut right isn't actually capable of radicalising normal people, that radicalisation is a natural part of the dialectical process and that /pol/yps are doing nothing more than taking responsibility for the events over which they've never had any control.
Is this another "gender roles are the way they are because biology" episode? You're being undialectical.
But anon they're misunderstood geniuses, fighting for freeze peach.
Why did so many skeptics become reactionary?
that wat op is about
Many of these self-proclaimed skeptics aren't exactly skeptical to begin with. Skepticism doesn't mean blindly denying everything that doesn't suit your agenda. Skepticism is about questioning everything to arrive at the truth regardless of your biases. Potholer54's videos really help with understanding actual skepticism instead of listening to these faith driven "skeptics".
I'm always bothered by this kind of accusation. All right, let's assume that all commies are crypto-Zionists, but then who are the people who see the problems with capitalism and wish to replace with a better system? You can't say that they don't exist — fucking anprims exist, and disliking capitalism's borderline mainstream nowadays, so there's bound to be people who have nothing to do with the Jewish conspiracy who still fill the ideological position that commies claim to occupy, — and you can't claim to be those people, as you're still pro-capitalism, or pro-private property and pro-hierarchy if the word "capitalism" triggers you, so who and where the fuck are those people?
Because "skepticism" in the sense utilised by the "skeptic community" has never been anything more than a way to make oneself feel superior to others solely by the virtue of not believing in nonsense: "ha-ha, those idiots believe in magic, and I don't, and that means that I'm smarter than them"; it's for people with low self-esteem who need to prove to themselves that they aren't losers, and it's rather obvious that if one feels such a need, then there's a good reason for that, and so they put the bar as low as they can without it quite touching the ground — it's basically Dunning-Kruger meets schadenfreude. It then becomes evident exactly why this kind of people would be attracted to rightist ideas, especially given how schadenfreude and Dunning-Kruger are the two defining features of the aut right.
because they aren't skeptics. all the og actual internet skeptics are socdems at worst
Its not so much reactionary as it is they defend the status quo
Hearts of Iron unironically mapped the political landscape correctly when it used its political triangle instead of a left-right axis
people like Sam Harris and this Pinker dude were always there, Dawkings himself picked fights with Steph Gould in the 90s, it's just that politics has taken over people's lives recently whereas controversial topics were simply ignored or otherwise censured from the public's view decades ago.
i'm moreso talking about internet-borne skeptics
>/pol/ is just one space where the alt-right gathers, we aren't in some cosmic war with the /pol/, even though it's fun to LARP like that
This shit frustrates me too, /pol/ are retards but their importance shouldn't be overstated. They're just one element in the grand scheme of things, not the fucking final boss of leftism
I think it should be obvious that the rise of the alt-right is pretty much the result of the abandonment of materialism and the adoption of a strict, wholly idealist version of privilege theory, where all of history is seen as a struggle between races and genders and other identities, and class is seen as something of little importance if it isn't to be ignored entirely.
Even more so, any struggle a member of the "oppressing" identity faces is generally seen as not a legitimate concern, if it is not viewed with the same scorn and mockery those on the right heap onto the suffering. I'm talking about things like homelessness, job loss, sexual assault and abuse. Is it any surprise then that the alt-right is growing?
They have a role as revolutionaries.
I think june is really hot tho and would totally bang her, just wish she didnt hang out with asshats, like sargon.
I have a fetish for brownish nubile women like her.
> help, help, I'm being oppressed by minorities!
While liberal analysis of the problems plaguing the modern society is, one, based on incorrect premises, and two, is woefully lacking even then, you're going to break your spear fighting this windmill. Liberals in general don't see the world the way you're claiming they do, stop raping those poor straw men.
> Is it any surprise then that the alt-right is growing?
When was the last time you left your parents' basement? Jesus Christ, get a life, take a walk outside, the world isn't this fantasy tale about your crusade against internet bullies.
I think that because they're being targeted in that manner (their identity) they've decided to organize and operate in that way in response.
The alt-right was created specifically because the left abandoned materialism. The political opposition to your typical right-wing white guy's ideas about the world oppose him and not to his ideas.
There are people I went to highschool with that were normal and similar to me that were radicalized and are far-right now. I have a couple cousins in particular where this is also true. I don't think its as limited as you're implying it is. Its taking up increasing presence in my daily life.
That's not what I said at all dipshit
You'd think a self-professed leftcom, of all people, would have some reading comprehension
I'm not saying that radicalisation to the right is limited, only that it happens for reasons different than the ones that cunt is claiming are the cause for this.
You're claiming that liberals have a world view based on the premise of the white man being the root of all evil; that isn't the case. Furthermore, you're claiming that the reason the aut right is gaining in numbers is because liberals alienate white men, which, again, happens not in the way you're claiming it does. I don't understand why in the world of fuck do you have to invent idiotic reasons to rant about liberals when there are so many legitimate causes to do that.
> The often highly literate, highly intelligent people that gravitate to the alt-right
Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?
I'm saying that liberals only have a problem with a nebulous "privilege" and "oppression" and have no desire to address real material concerns, and despise those who do.
> liberals only have a problem with a nebulous "privilege" and "oppression"
The vast majority don't, you stupid idiot retard cretin. Your Tumblr bogeymen don't actually fucking represent the majority opinion, in case you weren't aware of that, you dumb lobotomite imbecile.
> have no desire to address real material concerns, and despise those who do
That's the conclusion, and it's the correct conclusion, but your way of reaching it is wrong and stupid and dumb.
>the premise of the white man being the root of all evil
Not all liberals but that faction of liberalism focused on identity politics either sincerely or implicitly believes this. These liberals have begun dominant as the crisis of imperialist-capitalism has forced the establishment to vomit up new figures and forms of social support designed to broaden its shrinking appeal.
Hillary Clinton lost 2016 because she couldn't make a decent appeal to white voters, particularly white male voters, whereas her husband had won office on the back of what democratic pundits called "the bubba vote". Bill had been concerned about the Hillary campaign's lack of appeal with white voters whereas her advisors dismissed Bill as out of touch and stuck in old school thinking based on 20th century demographic realities.
I've seen "SJWs" dismissed as crazy people shouting over the internet with no relevance to real politics. That's not true. It turns out that their influence and/or rather the influence of the identitarian wing of the Democratic Party was tested out in reality. The democrats would not abandon anti-popular pro-Wall Street campaigns but they did put their hooks in the water to catch identitarians obsessed with issues of race and gender. Hillary's speeches could've been written by a "woke" twitter feminist.
Hillary never came out and said "kill all white men" nor do I think she believes that but the optics of the way her race against Donald was framed in the mainstream is obvious.
It just turned out that people preferred the crazy racist guy to the woman with the personality of a condescending school teacher.The democrats haven't learned anything from their debacle in 2016 and if anything they've doubled down. If 2020 isn't a Clinton it will be a Clinton-clone in the running probably going bonkers with idpol nonsense. As scary as it is for middle brows to contemplate they could lose again if they run with that approach.
SJWs are just about the only people who will never leave the Democratic Party no matter how badly they are abused and the fact that their concerns do not challenge capitalism in anyway is heartening for the democrats who are eager to prove they are still the "Left" party in the US.
How else would describe the approach that Hillary and the DNC had taken in 2016?
There's little else to distinguish them from conservatives like Jeb! They both with the maintain the current capitalist order.
Exactly. It's not the default paradigm, which is precisely my point.
> SJWs are just about the only people who will never leave the Democratic Party
True. But even when just talking about Yanks, the dems aren't the same thing as liberals in general; the party being out of touch with their own voter base is no news.
> their concerns do not challenge capitalism in anyway
"In any way".
You do know that eleven twelfths of the democrats who voted for Clinton weren't on board with her campaign promises, and were rather voting against Trump, don't you? Yes, Clinton capitalised (bun nod indended x—-DDDDDDDDDD) heavily on potentially being the first woman president, but that's precisely because that was her only gimmick and she couldn't hold her ground even against other liberals. Common liberals don't actually think in terms of privilege, and that's because they don't really have any kind of systematised political paradigm, their views defined by nothing more than vague opposition to generalised oppression; that they nod to the minority who actually pushes forward this paradigm proves nothing more than the complacency of the liberal majority.
"True statements" like what? They offer no examples besides incels. Because forcing ourselves into humoring the alt-right platform about "the JQ" or "racial realism" isn't going to achieve anything worthwhile. I can't think of a single time in recent history when saying "the right asks the right question" and humoring their obsessions didn't end up in that very right taking over discourse.
Steven pinker is a crypto brainlet
The problem with using "SJW" as a descriptor in these discussions is that it's just not a useful label. Out of the groups of the alt-right, alt-lite, establishment democrats, progressive TYT style dems, lolberts, anarchs, ☭TANKIE☭s, and everything in between idpol is a ubiquitous and malicious presence. The idea that you can tie Hillary to the phenomenon of "SJWs" because of a common use of idpol during what can be described as an age of idpol just isn't useful. I mean yeah, here in /leftypol/ we can bant about all idpolers basically being SJWs including the people who claim to hate them, but in reality most people just see SJWs as the tumblr stereotype and those people aren't writing speeches for the republicans-in-all-but-name that make up Hillary's delusional base.
In a sense I agree with the idea that those people DID create the current internet based alt-right movement but with the caveat that neither group is as influential as they would like to think. The SJWs are just patsies for the neolib establishment and the alt right are patsies for the reemerging neocon one. Neither are in the driver's seat.
>Common liberals don't actually think in terms of privilege
Obviously, I'm referring to those deeply involved in the ideology, not the common "rank-and-file" so to speak. And even then it was the best way to describe it.
Again, not even all hardcore liberals share in that paradigm. I'll be honest and admit that I'm clueless as to exactly what do they stand for, but liberalism has existed for a few centuries by now, so surely they've had some fucking concerns before this whole privilege thing became a fad.
> not hello.jpg
> hello.jpg censored
>Again, not even all hardcore liberals share in that paradigm.
Okay but I don't think he's saying LITERALLY every serious lib shares that belief either, just that's it's a very popular ideology among the liberal ruling class.
>so surely they've had some fucking concerns before this whole privilege thing became a fad.
One of which was the social, political, economic, and legal privileges of the aristocracy.
> the liberal ruling class
Oh, no, no, no, the ruling class most definitely doesn't believe in anything like privilege, that would be almost as bad for them as socialism, as it implies that their goods are undeserved. They may pay lip service to the concept, but never believe in it themselves.
Okay, and after that but before the Cold War?
>Oh, no, no, no, the ruling class most definitely doesn't believe in anything like privilege, that would be almost as bad for them as socialism, as it implies that their goods are undeserved.
It's ideology, it doesn't have to make sense. People jump through mental hoops to try and reconcile contradictory ideas all the time, a cursory glance at /pol/ will tell you that. Liberals aren't any different.
Reminder to people in this thread complaining about relationships to read Origins of the Family, especially the part about how capitalism breeds promiscuity and how only the proletariat can achieve true monogamous relationships. Tbh, with more time and the removal of monetary basis of relationships, people will no longer engage in short term engagements in which the relationship is viewed through the lens of a commodity to be "used". At risk, I point to the Kibbutz as an example
The funniest part about this is that it was the women themselves that pushed for a more traditional lifestyle. Turns out "liberated" kids don't want to spend time with their female parents and prefer hanging out their dads and uncles instead. Really makes you think.
Choose no more than one.
> Again, not even all hardcore liberals share in that paradigm. I'll be honest and admit that I'm clueless as to exactly what do they stand for, but liberalism has existed for a few centuries by now, so surely they've had some fucking concerns before this whole privilege thing became a fad.
> Okay, and after that but before the Cold War?
From early to mid-19th century is what we call "Classical" Liberalism. It's about laissez faire, civil liberties, representative (not direct) democracy (sometimes constitutional monarchy), separation of church from the state. Girondins, basically.
"Modern" Liberalism emerged in late 19th - early 20th century (after the term took root in Marxist discourse) and included taxes on "unearned income" (land), luxuries (incl. alcohol) and rich in general being spent on welfare state (pensions, meals for schools, state-subsidized medicine for the poor, etc.). This is pink-ish "Left-Liberals" (still rightwing, not SocDem, but with distinct centrist drift that causes radical Liberals to scream "Communists!!!").
"Post-Modern" Liberalism that added sex (from "Soviet" marriages - with no-fault divorce - to LGBT rights) and multiculturalism to the list during post-WWII Cold War (technically, it was continuation of pre-WWII situation).
It was more a combination of children wanting to be more with their families (they were communally raised), mothers wanting to be with their kids, a focus more on the extended family then the communal one, and the second generation getting rid of it completely after growing in it. Interestingly enough, despite the abolishment of traditional marriage, couples were largely monogamous and families were shown to be healthy with little mental health illness prevalent in the communes.
This is a valid criticism of the Kibbutz, especially their military involvement, but nonetheless they serve as an interesting case study into communal living and raising. Here's an early psych paper talking about concerns regarding mental illness which I found intriguing.
>There are people I went to highschool with that were normal and similar to me that were radicalized and are far-right now.
What bumfuck americunt town do you live in?
>What will you do when elites are proven to have higher Autism Levels than the poor?
The elites are already proven to have higher I.Q. than the poor. That's part of the problem.
Let's put it this way - what would you do in a society ruled by physical might? The stronger you are, the better you fight, the more ruthless you are towards others, the more successful you are in life.
Would you strive to create an egalitarian society where stronger people can't just beat or intimidate the weak to get their way?
Or would you start pretending that everyone has the potential to be equally strong and what's keeping weak people from achieving it is laziness (right-wing position) or social conditioning (left-wing position)?
The second is pretty much exactly what the current liberal cultural mainstream seems to be doing with regards to intelligence and character.
Oh, and by the way, it's inevitable that the weak plebs will eventually band together and overthrow the strong elite with sheer numbers. The only question is whether we do it, or the fascists. And we know what happened the last time the fascists got their way.
>e second is pretty much exactly what the current liberal cultural mainstream seems to be doing with regards to intelligence and character.
Not really, we're still "Beating" on the global poor. Just not the domestic poor. You people are still attached to outdated notions of Marx when he was talking exclusively about the continent.
>we're still "Beating" on the global poor
It's actually local elites beating on local poor with tacit support of imperialist elites who happen to treat their own local poor relatively better. But even if you want to blame one poor for the worse conditions of other poor, they barely interact with each other (to the chagrin of the liberals who'd very much like to set them against each other), so it's irrelevant to their eventual revolts against the elites.
thank you, it seems this needs to be in every post because people doesn't get it
Fuck off brainlet, SJWs aren't the cause for fascism/racism.
A wealthy suburb of Chicago
>MIddle class suburbanites become fascists
Imagine my shock.
>Physiology is a social construct
It's time to stop.
>whiteness is determined by physiology
>"Modern" Liberalism emerged in late 19th - early 20th century (after the term took root in Marxist discourse) and included taxes on "unearned income" (land), luxuries (incl. alcohol) and rich in general being spent on welfare state (pensions, meals for schools, state-subsidized medicine for the poor, etc.). This is pink-ish "Left-Liberals" (still rightwing, not SocDem, but with distinct centrist drift that causes radical Liberals to scream "Communists!!!").
Pretty much this. Pre-Cold War liberalism was about perfecting capitalist society rather then destroying feudalism or trying to save capitalism. Georgism basically embodied a rising economic trend in liberalism where people were angry that they had fought to overthrow the aristocracy but bourgeois real estate swindlers and the remnants of the aristocracy were still getting rich. It's not unlike the whole controversy over "gentrification" except largely without the racial element of those discourses.
Michael Hudson hits the nail on the head when he argues that classical political economists and their inheritors believed that society would go towards a post-industrial leisure economy once the weight of the rentier classes were removed and the limits on industry were superseded. The American school of political economy even believed in the late 19th century that one of the "problems" society would be facing was that traditional mentalities had arose from situations of scarcity meaning new mentalities were required to deal with the new situation of abundance.
The reality of the situation was somewhat different. For more then a hundred years the wealthiest people in American life were largely industrialists and not bankers and real estate developers which goes to show that Henry George had it wrong after all, the problem actually was capitalism and not "unearned income" stemming from rent. The bottom half of the American proletariat never achieved much more then a hand-to-mouth paycheck-to-paycheck standard of living and its lowest ranks live close to third world conditions.Although there were periods where their power waned, the political establishment of capitalist society was never able to eliminate rentier income, nor was it necessarily even possible given how important both rent and interest are to the functionality of capitalism and the role they play in the distribution of resources.
Is this a /pol/yp in disguise? I see no reason for such vitriol
probably a troll, but who knows why
Similar story and I'm from (North) Seattle.
But to be honest 4chan is just part of the larger left project. We've been more than half of 4chan since it's inception and have been playing the righties there with a fiddle. First by getting a bunch of idiots there to vote for Gary Johnson to keep Romney from winning and then helping the media elect a New York liberal named Trump over the Ted Cruz monster.
>a mag that prides itself on free thought publishes article questioning history
filthy nazi scum
>leftists got people to not vote for Mittens
>leftists got trump elected
wew this is levels of delusion not thought scientifically possible
>For more then a hundred years the wealthiest people in American life were largely industrialists and not bankers and real estate developers which goes to show that Henry George had it wrong after all, the problem actually was capitalism and not "unearned income" stemming from rent.
The problem of Henry George wasn't that he was wrong about land ownership, its that it was incomplete. Most profit nowadays does stem from land and resource ownership with corporations and owners investing heavily with their profits into real estate and land purchases. George was right in pointing out that one needs only to own land to aquire profit and that rent follows average wages. A good example nowadays of how land ownership plays a big part in the economy is franchises, who make most of their profit off buying up land and selling it to potential franchisees and not off selling the actual product as you would expect. Major cities are another great example with the poorest parts being on the very outskirts of the city and not the inner due to poorer people being forced out because of rising rents coupled with inefficent building and capitalist land control. He failed to address capitalism as the main problem, yes, but he was completely correct in stating that one needs only to control the land to control the people on it. One needs only to look at places like England for example where most of the land is owned by a few families who themselves are investors and capitalists who can both pay the wage and take it. The point George missed is that the industrialists and bankers are the main real estate developers and owners, not that land is the primary factor. Once all the land is bought the capitalists don't need to make any new effort innovating or devising new products for profit, they can just extract straight from you.
It is definitely wrong but there is a certain truth to it. It was the left-ward drift of the American population and declining religiosity of America that drove young conservatives to cast their vote for a libertarian like Johnson and later a protectionist nativist like Trump. The religious neocons have few prescriptive programs to attract anyone other then "muh Jeebus"
There isn't any truth to it, I was joking
My theory behind this is that people who post on /leftypol/ are probably way more likely to know people in high school who were susceptible to radicalization.
A lot of these people would have been reactionaries regardless of what happened, but the Trump election gave them licence to be a lot more open with their autism.
Does anyone have a pdf of Kill All Normies?
What's wrong with the epub? https://a.doko.moe/utctic.epub
By the way, don't expect too much. It's full of irrelevant details of American nobodies and it barely offers any actual analysis. It's badly edited and overhyped.
Wanna read it more as a nostalgia trip, but the fact that it's been so overhyped means that anyone who wants to grapple with a coherent response to depressing aut-right recruitment and operations should be familiar with it
also epubs fuck up my phone for some reason
Trying to deny or downplay the holocaust makes you a Nazi. Deal with it.
To be more precise: liberals have been hammering idpol for nearly half a century, and now they're absolutely livid that the right finally decided to play by the same rules. And of course, liberals will absolutely never admit to this fuck-up, with the Russia scapegoating being perfect proof.
There are very few things I would like to see more than liberals burning in a hell of their own creation, but the fuckers managed to drag the entire world with them by getting Trump elected.
It's notable how she's right about absolutely everything but GG, about which she gets literally everything wrong.
someone will whine about this post
The fact that both sides of gg claim that she got it wrong makes me think that she is probably correct.
I dont these these two have seen the alt right behave when nobody's looking, just the restrained, 5 dollar word, dunning krueger twitter personalities.
Someone should send them a link to /pol/
>Whiteness is not determined by physiology
Is it not acceptable to question specific numbers or how the slavic death count is alot of times pushed aside for the Jewish one?
>nazi death count: "yeah we did that shit"
>commie death count: "unborn people count as dead, right?"
How tall are you?
I was talking more about the number of slavs killed by the Nazis being overshadowed alot by the Jewish one, but I agree with you on the conflation of the number killed by communists.
>just pull yourself by the bootstraps, lol
Read his biography on Marat. Based af. His MRA shit isn't nearly as interesting, though
>stop being dishonest
>now let me do this non-sequitur real quick
>Implying the removal of the wealth pyramid that causes women to engage in gold-digging behaviour is """nothing"""
I absolutely agree with Nagle on this matter. I flirted with Sargonite "classical liberalism" and even drifted for a time into watching Milo and considering the merits of Nazbolism. The reason for this is that I was doing my best to be a liberal progressive for a while, but the people I hung out with became more and more hostile and vitriolic to everything, especially my criticisms of certain Social Justice arguments, and they all universally betrayed me after a time, in ways which were very painful for me because I did my best to try and change my own mind about these things and actively sought their opinions. Next thing I knew, there was nothing that could be discussed in a Social Justice atmosphere which was critical in the least. People were being fired, suppressed, threatened, all for the most minor transgressions, and I knew people who would do that sort of thing and even half-threatened me with it. How was I going to develop any materialist theory about culture or immigration or real left alternatives when all materialist talk was suppressed as "class essentialism" and my private concerns were dismissed as every bad word they could come up with? Hell, before /leftypol/, even the real left landscape looked like shit because it had been infected by radical liberalism as well.
Really, it was mere fortune that I found this place and started reading as much as I did before the damage would have been done. And I'm trans, ffs. If the bloody trans community was able to fuck me over so hard I almost went rightist, how much worse could other people be faring?
Females will just end up going for the really good looking guys though.
Yeah Nagle is way too sympathetic towards incels. I suspect that she has some kind of sexual dysfunction herself honestly. She seems very strange.
I would point out that only 65% of high school graduates go on to college and who knows how many of the 25% or so high-school graduates go on to college. Women are over represented at universities and make-up the majority of the student body, so we can assume that more men then women miss out on the whole “college experience”
The men that do go are presented with a special dating experience that often combines involves high amounts of leisure and free time with a culture of partying and substance abuse plus the advantage of being outnumbered by attractive women in the prime of their life. College is also likely the most equitable period of an American adults life because their peers usually have not begun their working lives with its ensuing class stratification and jobs worked by most in college are typically of a similar shitty nature. To think this is like the typical
American dating scene is a bit rich.
Still with the data you’ve posted a whopping 28% of coeds did not have a single hook-up in college. Literally there will probably never be a better opportunity then most. The male average might actually be higher because of serial daters pushing up the average for the whole.
I’m not saying that the problem of incel isn’t overblown but to say it’s not a problem is ridiculous. In Japan over 40% of Japanese millenials are virgins. Many of these people will enter their 30s as virgins and these are trends that are exceptional in Japanese history and really any history that I know of.
*high school drop outs
All of my sexual experience are with men and I prefer women. I am 31 and live with my parents. I do not have a shot. I do not have parents that could have paid for me to be a resident student at a big party school. I also never ended up on the alt right. This shit is also essentially mirrored by my sister who has had no luck either. I think we're cursed.
The only person whining about GG is you. In every single thread. It's time to let that ship go, you are the only one who still haven't figured out what it was all about.
Why not enter a sexual relationship with your sister, then?
Good points but it isn’t necessarily whether someone has had sex that matters but the quality of their sexual relationships. Almost anyone could get lucky and have sex once or twice, or visit a prostitute to lose their virginity.
On boards like /r9k/ those who’ve fucked once or twice and who still have problems maintaining a romantic relationship are considered to be the lowest of the low. You can be a non-virgin and still be incel, I was probably incel for a good 2-3 years of my life but then again dating wasn’t my main priority either.
That’s completely anecdotal but there’s something there in that it isn’t so much whether someone experiences something as the precarity of 21st century sex lives.
Ordinary Americans are serial monogamists by the majority and the effect of divorce and overwork on both partners has created a sense of instability and fatigue. Many of the “angry bitter virgin nerds” may not be actual virgins but their social alienation which is shown most dramatically by the sphere of dating is still a source of anger for them.
>radicals on one side aren't radicalizing their detractors, brainlet
Is there any evidence at all that there exists a "sexual hierarchy" among men that was caused by the sexual revolution? I see that claim being peddled everywhere on the Internet but it's never backed by anything other than memes like pic related.
I take it you have never seen the women on Springer or Ricki Lake?
I asked for proper evidence, not meme-tier anecdotes.
The thirst of men is strong so that gives a women an advantage on what men are appropriate.
You could say they are nitpicky.
It probably was always like that even before the sexually revolution though
>I am going to define "evidence" in an arbitrary manner in order to favour my pre-determined conclusion
If you like but you have given the game away in doing so. Ta-ta, reddit feminist.
Cherry-picking some random occurrences is not proper evidence, you drooling retard. Point me to actual research and then we'll talk.
>major principles they hold
what principles might those be?
Who do exactly did you figure you'd be assigned to?
Real talk, though, state assigned gfs are a retarded idea. I'm down with "re-socialization", but assigned marriages died out for a reason.
That's not how you spell "hot". Unless either or both of you are ugly, in which case yeah, you're right.
> arrows obviously added after the image has been around for some time to make the image look slightly less ridiculous
Wow, you're stupid.
Sexuality has always been tied to power. Eliminate the hierarchical power structure and the problem will naturally go away.
You mean like
Women picking the men with most resources and that?
Wow, you're even dumber than I thought you were.
I'm not very smart
>Cherry-picking some random occurrences
Yeah, persistent patterns of behaviour amongst the people on these shows is totally random. By asking for any evidence you yourself have demanded some form of cherry-picking, reddit feminist. You're quite correct to complain I've presented a shitty dataset but, again, your denial that the attitudes on these set amount to a dataset blatantly betrays what you're up to. We're never going to """talk""" because you have no intent to do so.
> TV shows are a reliable reflection of social reality
> Wah, wah — you're reddit!
>AA with his shitty accent admits that he's some kind of Paki
I've seen his leaked picture though, he's white. The fuck?
>double spacing is bad
Actually, it improves clarity, especially when quoting people.
We need more Nico not less
Post Nico pls
I meant "nothing" as in "marxists still don't offer anything to incels".
Racial separatism for one, she hardly covers that at all.
I'm always sceptical about these sex studies because I've never been asked myself and neither have my incel friends when they were at uni. I think they only approach friendly looking, i.e. attractive, people for these polls.
There is a hierarchy, men marry less often then women and men marrying is far from as common as it is presented on TV. This is not a new phenomenon, the shift happening during/after the sex rev that /pol/ considers the cause (which is wrong, but still closer to truth than completely denying the shift) is just a shift back to the norm. There was a time where men had it a bit easier finding a spouse because of all the men killed in the two world wars. Both before and after that glorious age for betas (the ones who didn't get killed, that is) is shit time for males who want to get married.
There is only one rational solution: Catholic Communism with mandatory bullying for people who marry more than once.
Is there any article or book dealing with that sort of phenomenon? I'm interested in learning more.
>28% of people fail to get any sort of sex during the period of their life when sex is most easily acquired BY FAR
>lol incels barely even exist it doesn't matter
This sounds alot like the more retarded argument against atheism wich goes something like:
<Proposition P = Belief in God is unjustified
<If belief in a proposition causes immorality, then it is false
<If the population start believing in P, then society will break apart/become chaotic etc, and this is immoral.
<Therefore atheism is false
Or in this case:
<P = There are distinct races
<If belief in a proposition causes immorality, then it is false
<Racism is immoral
<P causes racism
<P causes immorality
<P is false
<Therefore there is only one human race
You have in other words derived an is from an ought.
"Race realism" has never been anything more than a thinly veiled attempt to repackage scientific racism for the new century. If you think that the word "realism" means that it's true, then you're an idealist of the highest order and will get the bullet first.
<"Race realism" has never been anything more than a thinly veiled attempt to repackage scientific racism for the new century.
I'm not disputing that, I'm only rejecting that particular argument against scientific racism.
<If you think that the word "realism" means that it's true, then you're an idealist of the highest order and will get the bullet first.
So bullet first, then 1 000 000 years as a smelly corpse in gulag?
it's literally just a point of logic
60-70% of Americans under 35 don't have a partner
This is compared to only around 20% who didn't have a partner in the 50s.
almost every single decade since the 70s, the amount of sex people are having in the US has been decreasing
We aren't close to crisis levels yet in the US but it's a downward trend.
Also the statistics showing millenials having 4-5 sex partners in their life takes into account prostitutes, one night stands (as you brought up), short flings. It doesn't give an insight into how long and how many people are involuntarily celibate.
People have the most sex in partnerships. There is dramatically less partnerships now than there was before the sexual revolution.
> I'm only rejecting that particular argument against scientific racism
The whole point of scientific racism is to justify oppression. Attacking specific arguments it makes completely misses the point.
> So bullet first, then 1 000 000 years as a smelly corpse in gulag?
You'll get kneecapped.
> dude no need for evidence it's just like obvious /vapes
The evidence linked above
+ if you are wealthy or model like or an athlete or whatever you can just go on tinder and literally pick anyone you like
Incels are on baby levels of reaction. The problem isn't that it's too hard to get laid, the problem is that it's too easy to get laid. Pleasure was a mistake.
> The evidence linked above
All this data set means is that people tend to get older before settling with a partner, not that they're not getting any.
> + if you are wealthy or model like or an athlete or whatever you can just go on tinder and literally pick anyone you like
Which could very well mean that the supposed "hypergamy" is actually restricted to an upper-class segment of the population.
>All this data set means is that people tend to get older before settling with a partner, not that they're not getting any.
That might hold true if wasn’t also true that Americans are having less sex in general and this trend has even reached the teen demographic. It can’t be explained by just an aging population. I don’t know what’s so hard about admitting that alienation can impact our sex lives anyways.
>Which could very well mean that the supposed "hypergamy" is actually restricted to an upper-class segment of the population.
Indeed. The class war is also a war against Chads.
Why must apes live among People? Can nagle or pinker answer the question? Didn't think so.
Bye bye apes!
There's a huge difference between understanding that alienation impacts sex life, and vindicating the incel discourse that the sexual revolution caused the appearance of a "sex hierarchy".
>I don’t know what’s so hard about admitting that alienation can impact our sex lives anyways.
Because if they do, they will have to admit that the alt right have a materialist reason to be as they are, even if their praxis is shit. And they can't have that, because they love having their tribal mentality nearly as much as /pol/ does
i don't have any sort of hard data to back this up but idk to me it seems pretty clear that modern women love being valued as objects rather than human beings. i don't really care about whatever feminist platitudes come out of their mouths, because at the end of the day every remotely decent looking woman will immediately disregard your existence if you aren't over 6 feet tall and have a supermodel quality face along with a high social standing.
if you don't have the above qualities you're pretty much stuck with the ugly as fuck and/or severely obese women that nobody else wants.
I ran into a woman last night, at the bar. Very drunk, came out to ask for a cigarette.
She was horny and asked,
"hey can i bum a cigarette? " After we paused cuz we didnt jump to give her one, she said "Please? I'm a woman."
>All this data set means is that people tend to get older before settling with a partner
you didn't read it fully
in 2017, 40% of the population is not just single but unpartnered, and 60-70% of millenials are unpartnered, not just single
In the 1950s only 22% of the total population were *single*
You can nit-pick as much as you want, but the simple fact is that singledom and unparternship has more than doubled since the sexual revolution, and with the latest generation more than doubled
>because at the end of the day every remotely decent looking woman will immediately disregard your existence if you aren't over 6 feet tall and have a supermodel quality face along with a high social standing.
this is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You aren't going to get a girlfriend by just becoming the ultimate Chad overnight either, but this sort of absurd declaration born from a feeling of personal failure is what grants incels their deserved ridicule. Pls stop telling yourself ghost stories and get your info from talking to real women (even if real people often actually are insufferable)
you are literally a retard if you haven't noticed increased sexual hierarchy in the last ten years, and looked at the statistic and haven't noticed a dramatic increase in singlehood among the entire population since the sexual revolution
t. was still a child 10 years ago
Why does the increase in singlehood and sexual inequality have to be because of the sexual revolution, though? What about increased living costs, more expensive rent, the digital era, etc?
that argument reminds me of when this fellow socialist friend tried to argue that Coachella and other music festivals were proof that we lived in the polymorphous sexual egalitarianism that was implicitly promised for men by the sexual revolution
it's the most dishonest argument ever
Because literally every statistical trend related to divorce, marriage, unpartnership that has to do with this discussion
started before the neoliberal era, but decidedly near the tail end of the sexual revolution
Those things you brought up DO have an influence, and fixing them WOULD increase partnership. But you simply can't compete with either arranged marriaged or societally enforced/patrolled long term monogamy for sexual egalitarianism. It's just a point of logic that the latter two solutions have a more 1:1 ratio of people hooking up compared to today's stratification.
That doesn't mean we should have arranged marriages, but it does lend support to any argument for the state or society acting as matchmaker more than it already does
lol Angela is even too hot for 8chan. They anchored the thread XD We need an edgier place to go to boys.
We have to talk about all the good threads getting anchored here. It’s fucking ridiculous
LEFTIST LOGIC 101
Be a leftist
>Say that race doesn't exist
>Have no problem determining the race of someone when dolling out affirmative action
>Have no problem determining the race of someone when absolving responsibility from non-whites
>Applaud mandatory diversity
Imagine being this much of a disingenuous, manipulative, weasel. These people have no problem lying to your face.
The idea that differing sub-groups of human evolved for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments and developed zero biological differences aside from physical appearance is patently absurd to anyone who understands how evolution works.
>Think voter I.D. laws are racist
>They're racist because it's too hard for blacks to fill out form at DMV or even begin to understand how to accomplish such a thing
Literally think it's too hard for blacks to READ, WRITE, ASK QUESTIONS, or THINK CRIICALLY
>Race is an artificial concept. There is no such thing as race.
>Check your white privilege.
>Would you consider a sub saharan African albino a white person with "white privilege"
>Evolution only exists below the neck.
>Evolution is real.
>Evolution doesn't exclude the brain.
>racists have low Autism Levels
>IQ is racist and scientifically provable difference between groups are fake
>there's 0 evidence Autism Level is genetic, but jews have higher Autism Level than you goyim.
>asians are so smart! ^_^
>accidentally opening the pandora's box of race-based intelligence gradients
>africans are the BEST athletes! ^_^
>continuing the trend
>European Autism Levels begin plummeting after refugee crisis
Top. Fucking. Kek
>Fuck white cis males!!
>There's no such thing as race and gender it isn't real.
>Race does not exist but we need more racial diversity in our work places and schools.
>Race does not exist but racial diversity is our strength.
>Race does not exist but the white race needs to be destroyed.
>Diversity is what makes the middle east so peaceful.
>Leftists are more intelligent
>Measures of intelligence are meaningless
Please pick one bullshit idea at a time, not two which contradict each other
>height is associated with race
>skin color is associated with race
>eye color too
>predisposition to diseases
>ability to digest certain foods
>but not muh magical Autism Level because i-its environmental
isnt it strange that the only factor that could hurt your feelings has NOTHING to do with race or genetics
wow really makes you think.
I think the original was based upon the fact that human mating habits in most of human history meant that the top 80% of females had children with the top 40% of males. Every single human in existence has twice as many female ancestors as male. The one male one female pair bond is only as old as civilization which is an insignificant time period compared to the hundred of thousands of years the bipedal talking mammals we like to call humans have existed.
Antifa is a fascist organization. They exist to generate a false dialectic - fascisy vs antifa - when neither represents an authentic revolutionary core.
imagine being this retarded
>"Some of the ideas that they discuss, they are just off the table everywhere else. They can't be discussed in academia, they can't be discussed anywhere in polite society. And this is a factor that has really created or fueled the alt-right than anything else. Patterns in America in particular where there's very high divorce and a lot of sexual choice as a result. Lower levels of monogamy and that kind of thing. One of the things that it has produced is a kind of sexual hierarchy among men. This actually does bear out in the figures. Where smaller numbers of men are having more sexual partner and then there's this larger number at the bottom that are having none or very few. But once again the thing that they are starting off with is correct. They are observing a pattern, and they being told you are not supposed to observe it. So what's are answer to that? That's what we have to be discussing. But don't say the phenomena isn't there or we can't discuss it"
I'm coining the term sexual realist. No steal!
"If you aren't high status you are stuck with a fat woman"
I don't know if this is true at the end of the day for most people, but obviously it is easier to pick the BMI of your partner the wealthier you are.
After you get into your 30s, pretty much everyone is overweight, you get used to it. Fat women start becoming more attractive.
>I'm coining the term sexual realist. No steal!
I ALREADY DID IT
>let's kneecap someone for pointing out logical fallacies can't be used to reject anything, including scientific racism
Are you really this dumb or are you just pretending?
>I have no idea what
<what fascism is
<what dialectics are
>and I must post
Do you wear a fedora IRL? I would be shocked if you didn't.
And you get your knees not shot, but smashed with a hammer.
> anyone who understands how evolution works
I'll have you know that I'm an actual biologist. For your sake, I advice that you drop any pretence that your accumulated knowledge of biology over your entire educational history is even comparable to what I have forgotten about the subject just today.
there is no cope. just a solution. consent is a Reactionary capitalistic concept