[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / clang / dempart / gts / hydrus / lego / randamu / wmafsex ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 2d8fed8658fe41f⋯.jpg (766.29 KB, 3000x1750, 12:7, Mumsnet-1.jpg)

 No.2856439

Anti-trans, TERF, incel, anti-abortion, homophobia, misandry, essentialism, are all reactionary ideologies or views espoused by reactionaries. As such, it will only be only slightly more tolerated in this thread than in the general board. Keep in mind that board rules still apply.

Some reading material:

'The True Life' by Alain Badiou

Zizek:

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-sexual-is-political/

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics/

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/reply-to-my-critics-part-two/

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-moebius-strip-of-sexual-contracts/

https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/transgender-dogma-is-naive-and-incompatible-with-freud/

Victor Villanueva

http://spectrerouge.com/index.php/2017/10/11/revolt-of-the-lonely-masses/

NOTICE

This is the only thread where LGBT, Gender, abortion or incel discourse is allowed. Report other threads which bring up the topic.

Post last edited at

 No.2920096

>>2920092

Report and let mods sort them out.


 No.2920101

>>2920093

He is defending his sexual interest as a high-ranking male that benefits from the current order by having more females to fuck than he would have had before feminism/sexual liberalism. You might as well ask why the middle class defends capitalism.


 No.2920107

>>2920101

Idk about that, but I do notice that all they're doing is trying to shame.


 No.2920108

>>2920096

>Omg mods come help me I'm being oppressed

Why not go back to Twitter tranny


 No.2920112

>>2920107

That is how they do it. They mock and try to turn the low-ranking males into untouchables to prevent them from gaining legitimacy, voicing their of grievances and organizing. That could threaten the position of the high-ranking males that monopolize the females through (serial and/or parallel) polygamy. Instead the “winners” try to get the “losers” to denounce their low position and turn them into individualists who pretend to be or try to become one of the high-ranking ones themselves as that is not a systemic approach and thus not a threat to their benefits.


 No.2920114

>>2920112

Idk, majority of male feminists and IT folks I've seen were dumpy, chubby, dopey looking dorks that basically only looked better than incels.

Meanwhile the guys I've seen that are most successful are more or less ardent misogynists that are equal to incels in beliefs, but on the opposite end of the scale


 No.2920116

>>2920112

At some point you'll have to go outside


 No.2920118

>>2920114

They are more like the middle class I guess.


 No.2920120

File: f28b38bbb88320c⋯.png (59.26 KB, 625x605, 125:121, male_feminists.png)


 No.2920124

>>2920112

I don't know how else to put this: you are obsessed with status and the ability to get sex, to the point of sheer absurdity. It's not a judgment on whether you're right or wrong, but then again, nobody except for other incels cares about whether you're right or wrong.


 No.2920126

>>2920124

What’s the point of coming to a board centered around this discussion just to say this? Obviously no one gives a shit (another than pseudo-Incels like male feminists and femcels and feminists), but now that we’re here why can’t you just argue against what they say in good faith?


 No.2920166

>>2920027

>The study was about violence against women in ALL nations, so therefore GLOBAL

>Read this >>2919954 again

Yeah you purposely misrepsented the study there too.

>Yes 35 percent is a large plurality of women that sleep with abusive men.

>HAHA you dont even read your dtstistics ,dude you are not in r/braincels anymore , put some effort

HAHA Why don't you actually study women's issues. Then you'd know that the study was referencing mostly EX-BOYFRIENDS when they referred to non- intimate partners.

<Almost one third (30%) of all women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner. The prevalence estimates of intimate partner violence range from 23.2% in high-income countries and 24.6% in the WHO Western Pacific region to 37% in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region, and 37.7% in the WHO South-East Asia region.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

Oh and that blows up your whole, violence against women doesn't happen in feminized countries because 23% is pretty damn close to the average of 30%.

Regardless, it shows that who gets laid isn't necessarily predicated on your character, like at all.

>Those rape surviving whores, why dont these sluts fuck me

Were these women forced into these relationships? Oh then it's possible to lower incidents of violence by changing how women choose partners yes?

>We went from all women date bad boys to 35% of them

More strawmen, I always implied a large plurality of women.

>Nice you will post in r/inceltears in no time

You mean r/pedotears?

>Incels trap themselves in disgusting forums that spread shitty theories while calling each other manlets rather than socializing in the real world

More liberal attempts to blame individuals for systemic problems. And again how is that 30 percent of women are getting beat? Maybe how socialized you are isn't a good gauge of how good of a partner you are.

>Many of them are autistic like you

Nah, your just a big pharma shill trying to get more kids hooked on drugs amphetamines.

>Men also don’t have the same mental support as women due to macho man ideas

A big reason for that is feminists.

>In general luck of socialization and alienation from capitalism

There's something called the superstructure that's equally important.

>Though tbh if you actually fall for ince l bullshit you deserve to kys, like at least try to not go full retard

More implicit violence toward low status men.

>>So men who get pussy never waste time on the internet?

>Not to the extent that incels do

Proofs?

>Thats why we ESTIMATE you brainlet

Their numbers aren't estimated nimrod. They ESTIMATE the number is much higher.

> the women are not getting hit because of anger issues. They're being subjugated. Wow an example of ACTUAL patriarchal oppression and feminists like you are desperate to cover it up

>Who Chad hits is completely arbitrary.

t. battered wife

>Ha yes totally not a autistic asocial freak

That's right.

>No it's OVER 40% and 60% in Latin America

Evidence my boy?

>The trend is consistent with many Western countries — 60 percent of children were born to unmarried parents in the European Union in 2015, an increase from just under 20 percent in1970

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/40-percent-of-american-children-were-born-to-unmarried-mothers-in-2015-un-study-says

>So a minority of a minority of a minority dated chads that left after they fucked them (they could be other reasons but let’s go with your flow here) And?

It leaves tons of men alone, and never able to have children. If you don't care fine, just don't expect that men to continue to support the welfare state or really any women's issue. Already seeing this apathy with the abortion ban, just wait until the welfare state is shut down, which women rely on more than men.

> Yes it does, and abuse manifests in forms other that physical. It's just that physical is measurable and non repudiateable

Its proof women aren't choosing partners based on them not being woman haters. Hitting your gf is misogyny yes?

>For someone calling me a feminist and a liberal you talk like a radlib terf a shit ton of times

Lol no, liberals defend male disposability. Like you do.

>Ha kid plz calm down, we will accept you now that your subreddit turned to shit

Jesus Christ you really think there's a cool kids table in the adult world.


 No.2920169

>>2920166

*misformatting

>>No it's OVER 40% and 60% in Latin America

>Evidence my boy?

<The trend is consistent with many Western countries — 60 percent of children were born to unmarried parents in the European Union in 2015, an increase from just under 20 percent in1970

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/40-percent-of-american-children-were-born-to-unmarried-mothers-in-2015-un-study-says

>So a minority of a minority of a minority dated chads that left after they fucked them (they could be other reasons but let’s go with your flow here) And?

It leaves tons of men alone, and never able to have children. If you don't care fine, just don't expect that men to continue to support the welfare state or really any women's issue. Already seeing this apathy with the abortion ban, just wait until the welfare state is shut down, which women rely on more than men.


 No.2920175

>>2920166

*more bad formatting

>>the women are not getting hit because of anger issues. They're being subjugated. Wow an example of ACTUAL patriarchal oppression and feminists like you are desperate to cover it up

>Some yes, some no

>who Chad his is completely arbitrary

t. battered wife.


 No.2920188

>>2920175

*who Chad HITS is completely arbitrary


 No.2920246

>>2920243

So how many TB of interracial cuck porn do you have?


 No.2920259

>>2920243

At least he didn't eat it


 No.2920330

File: 210069cf640e2ce⋯.jpg (18.59 KB, 351x359, 351:359, 502.jpg)

>>2875637

I'm crossposting this from halfchan /lgbt/ so sorry about that but I'm interested in the perspective this thread has on this:

So I've accepted i'm bisexual but I still have a big femdom fetish and I'm ashamed of it. I'm not one of those people who can only cum from femdom and sometimes I go weeks not even thinking about it or watching porn but then one day i just get this intensely strong desire for it.

I also am way too unattractive to ever be a sissy but sometimes I jack off to sissy femdom videos. I know this might sound like a cope but I 100 percent know I am not gender dysphoric. There have been moments where I feel dysphoric in general but not about my gender if that makes sense. It's kind of like how trans people describe their gender euphoria but not from a gendered perspective I literally just feel empty and not like a person.

But anyway, so it isn't a trans repression thing. It literally is just because for me it's the ultimate form of submitting beyond some weird role-playing shit that i'm not into like vore or whatever. I wouldn't be telling you guys all of this except I legitimately feel bad after I jack off to it and sometimes after I get that feeling of just not being a person. It's almost like a k hole but not fun at all

Idk if this makes a difference but I'm a virgin and a hikkikimori at the moment. Before I went back into hikki mode after a period of trying to socialize for about 5 years I told a few of my friends I was bi but I didn't tell any of my family or anything and I'm not going to.

I'm kind of scared to talk to anyone irl about sex shit. My parents weren't like crazy religious people or anything they were actually pretty liberal. They didn't really abuse me physically at all but if "mental" abuse without some sort of attached physical abuse actually exists and isn't just a Tumblr meme I think some of the shit they did might count, particularly my mother, who was probably borderlin (she was diagnosed with a bunch of shit like depression, chronic anxiety, OCD etc but never BPD and I kind of wonder why because I had two friends who had that shit and they acted exactly like my mom when they weren't trying to control themselves). I won't go to deep into it but she never really thought about just saying crazy shit to her kids either. She pretty much straight up told me and my sister once that her life would have been better if she never had any kids or got married and that if we wanted to be happy we shouldn't have kids or get married lol. My dad and her also fought constantly and she constantly talked about killing herself when they did

As for me I have never been to a therapist but my degenerate friendgroup who were all either druggies or mentally ill people several times said I was bipolar. One girl with a bipolar brother even said I should try to get lithium but idk I hate talking about "muh mental illness" cuz I've never actually been diagnosed with anything so I'm scared I'm just making it all up sometimes

I've been literally cucked by 2 different women, one of which was my first and one of my only GFs after I completely blew it with her in bed one day, and several other women I've know ended up only being around me because I would take them places when I had a car and shit like that. One of my best friends who I had a huge falling out with over something completely unrelated lived with me and had a bf the whole time which in itself isn't weird but there were times where I was more like a bf to her than her actual boyfriend(who was a good guy he just didn't know how to deal with her sometimes cuz he was a fairly normal person and she was batshit) so sometimes it felt like we were bf/gf just with no sex. Idk sometimes I reflect on that and am just like "why the fuck did I put up with so much shit, out of someone I know now was just using me, without us even fucking?"

I also didn't admit to myself that I was bisexual until about 2 years ago. In retrospect I've known since I was about 13 but my mom was always so fucking nervous I was secretly gay and there were several times we got in enormous fights cuz she found some kind of bullshit "evidence" that proved I was by literally going through all of my shit while I was gone or spying on me or whatever. I pretty much made myself believe I was completely straight until very recently so idk.


 No.2920369

>>2920330

You should fix the hikki thing first. The rest is just hedonistic overphilosophized bullshit that you have lots of time for later, assuming average life expectancy. Ditch the druggies, they're a bad influence who belong in rehab.


 No.2920546

>>2920330

How old are you anon? I’ve found women generally wanna be dominated and want an aggressive competitor type, rather than someone that’s sensitive and kind.


 No.2920563

>you have to accept mentally ill freaks and their mutilation, otherwise you're a reactionary!


 No.2920565

>>2920546

>tfw meek and always picked last in groups in school

>>2920560

>while not harming others

lolno, harming others makes you even more attractive to females


 No.2920571

>>2920569

What kind of strawman even is that? You obviously harm those who are weaker and will not fight back to assert dominance.


 No.2920573

>>2920560

Nah fam, women just don’t like guys that are kind to them because it’s seen as a weakness. Me, I’m aggressive and assertive with others, I’ve nearly come to blows with people I knew I couldn’t beat and I’ve fought multiple people, but because my aggression and rage is nonexistent with the girls I date they quickly lose interest.


 No.2920574

>>2920571

I can assure you that if I was aggressive with prospective partners and people that are weaker than me I would consistently be in relationships. Instead I’m only aggressive with people at or above my level, and generally am cool-headed and charismatic otherwise. Those are terrible traits, you’re supposed to be like Grug.


 No.2920576

>>2920563

>admit they are ill

>don't immediately want to help them

>not a reactionary btw

Uh-huh.


 No.2920578

>>2920573

Depends. I've been rejected both for being too 'bad' and too 'nice'. The more mature women seem to prefer nicer upstanding guys. The bad boy thing seems to be just a phase for many women, at least in my experience


 No.2920589

>>2920583

>whats the point of asserting dominance over those who are weaker but then cucking out before those who are stronger than you?

To rise in the social hierarchy. What you are doing is moralizing by implying that those who are successful but are clearly not "moral" are ackshually losers and only the good people find success.

> I have some anger issues from time to time and even was psychologically abusive

No wonder you had many before her and maybe some on the side, you can probably dump her later for a younger one too


 No.2920618

>>2920124

He's right though, he's simply pointing out how social hierarchies are enforced by kicking the poor bastards beneath them repeatedly. Someone has to be at the bottom or pretty damn close to it.

Sexualism is just one of the most convenient avenues to use, because it is so psychologically destructive, especially when kids become sex addicts due to the proliferation of pornography and the encouragement of orgiastic practices. That's why these repeated displays of gross sexualism are constantly deployed, why sexual fetishism is pushed so strongly, because it's a potent method of control - so long as people get sucked into addiction and get clouded by the ideology of sexualism. Likewise, it is in the rulers' interest to make it painfully aware that the ruling class can get away with sexual excesses denied to the lower classes, which is why they quite loudly allow it to be known that they engage in pederasty, that they rape young girls for sport, just like the feudal oligarchs of old demanded the right of the first night. The more excessive and cruel the act, the more appropriate it is for enforcing the social hierarchy, hence why fascist ideologies are drenched in the most lurid sexualist ideology.


 No.2920620

>>2920583

You’re literally proving my point you fucking retard


 No.2920671

>>2920576

What are going talking about. Transsexuals and the superstructure most certainly don't recognize gender dysphoria as a mental illness.

They're trying to normalize destroying men's penises and hormones as treatment for bog standard depression and sexual development that some vulnerable young men need help being guided through.


 No.2920674

>>2920565

>lolno, harming others makes you even more attractive to females

Lol no, capitalism rewards violent oppression so women are attracted to that.

It's also because women have allowed themselves to programmed to be consumerist whores. You don't really need to be earning that much to survive in capitalism and a dual income can do it, but you're going to be living pretty damn humble. This is true in first world countries at least.


 No.2920702

>>2920671

Well, you have media praising Desmond Is Amazing as the future of America, where they take an autistic boy and do literal bacha bazi shit with him. I don't think it has anything to do with castrating all men, but it has to do with pushing peoples' psychological buttons through sexual imagery. A good part of the recent hubbub really is the Republicans reminding their base as often as possible that Democrats are the party of sexual deviants who want to make us all gay, or something like that. A small part of it is also that there are simply more broken people, which forms some of the twitter mob of trans furry disabled etc. people who are the butt of every joke imaginable. These wretched people often are talking about very real things, even if it's through the cloud of their own wretched existence, but their existence is just to be put up as creatures to be relentlessly mocked and kicked back down. Poking at this mob, and inserting a few thought agents to make sure they stay on message, is a surefire way to generate quasi-organic internet shitfests in order to keep the narrative going.

I wonder how long it takes for people to finally break kayfabe, reject both the liberal LGBTQIAetc. ideology and conservative ultra-spookery and put a stop to this normalization of obviously disturbed sexual relations. It's not really about gay or trans, it's about the nature of sexual relations in this society being extremely disturbed and rife with abuse. Something has to give.


 No.2920703

>>2920674

>everything is because capitalism

it's a phenomenon that has existed in all previous human societies and even in other animals. Females reward aggressive, high-ranking males that outcompete other males with sex and love, even accounting for the higher socioeconomic status of the more "assertive".


 No.2920725

>>2920703

I think you underestimate just how much of that is based on external circumstances, rather than any innate part of the female brain that detects aggression. Dominance in general is an effective survival strategy and the surest way to secure resources against rivals, so it would persist throughout much of human existence, and is to an extent an unavoidable aspect of nature, since brute force and coercion are always going to be the short-term answer over long-term cooperation.

The truth of women is that most of them are just fucking stupid and have to be told what they like, and this of course is encouraged by social custom. In the current niche, this means that behavior like serial killing and rapiness is considered virtuous, even if we're supposed to say it's mean and bad, because the ruling class got where they were precisely because they were skilled rapers and killers. It's really the only consistent quality they've ever shown, even to this day.


 No.2920760

>>2920703

>it's a phenomenon that has existed in all previous human societies and even in other animals.

This is simply not true. That some age tribe that recently murdered that missionary has village wide orgies and is the primary way they sexually reproduce. Other societies have had egalitarian mate selection as well. Shit Christianity teaches monogamy and no premarital sex. You telling me there's no women under capitalism that adhere to that.


 No.2920769

>>2920702

Well put.


 No.2920772

>>2920760

*That stone age tribe


 No.2920811

File: 35f5892a48483d7⋯.png (44.05 KB, 653x370, 653:370, bonobos_sexual_inequality.png)

File: 0da01114ef6f1f5⋯.png (52.78 KB, 649x395, 649:395, bonobos_feminist_society.png)

>>2920760

I don’t really anything about that tribe, but something utopians like to bring up as an example of an egalitarian society of plenty are bonobos. However the reality is quite different, there is fierce competition and even higher inequality than in chimpanzees.


 No.2920812

File: eca5bd1677c2ae8⋯.jpg (75.96 KB, 699x699, 1:1, eca5bd1677c2ae8a991507fa86….jpg)

>>2920811

Orgies are a pretty anarchistic thing. The closest I experienced was in school when the teacher just let people freely associate in whatever groups/pairings they wanted to do some task. What happened was that Almost always ended up alone or was manually assigned by the teacher to some group and subsequently ignored.

These natural tendencies persist in humans and will not disappear without biogenetic engineering to make it happen. This does not mean that civilization can not impact this, on the contrary for example the neolithic revolution that supposedly gave people a more secure and comfortable existence created a world where 1 male reproduced for every 17 females. So the natural inequalities can be increased, but they an also be lowered (though not eliminated) through things like enforced monogamy and so on. I think this goal should be pursued but it is difficult as you are up against nature itself.


 No.2920826

How about we just stop teaching everyone to valuate themselves by their having kids?


 No.2920840

File: 4172e5540834418⋯.jpg (1.2 MB, 1080x1080, 1:1, marx.jpg)

>>2920826

If people could be changed to that degree through education the USSR would still exist. Nothing you or anyone could say would stop me from wanting to be with a girl.


 No.2920843

what are some cool historical examples of gays? i really like the story of emperor ai of han and dong xian


 No.2920849

File: b838f73fd789b9b⋯.webm (525.64 KB, 480x480, 1:1, Neckyourself.webm)

>>2920811

>>2920812

>egalitarian society of plenty are bonobos. However the reality is quite different, there is fierce competition and even higher inequality than in chimpanzees

>What happened was that Almost always ended up alone or was manually assigned by the teacher to some group and subsequently ignored.

Does egalitarian mean you just don't have to put effort into relationships to you liberals?


 No.2920854

File: d3ec003db050dd8⋯.jpg (339.39 KB, 2048x1724, 512:431, just-world-fallacy.jpg)


 No.2920959

File: e68d1ff3f324a0d⋯.jpg (104.77 KB, 1140x798, 10:7, rachel0608-1559942188.jpg)

You may not like it, but this is what peak trans bodies look like.


 No.2921002

File: ffd08be87cd8c92⋯.png (5.22 MB, 2048x1900, 512:475, cognitive dissonance.png)

>>2920854

How many more cognitive dissonances are there in this that I missed, /leftypol/?


 No.2923126

https://pjmedia.com/trending/transgender-colorado-stem-shooter-motivated-by-revenge-over-pronouns/

>On May 7, two teens opened fire in the STEM School in Highlands Ranch, Colo., injuring eight students and claiming the life of 18-year-old Kendrick Castillo, who heroically sacrificed himself to stop the shooting. Early rumors suggested one of the shooters was transgender, and court documents released Thursday confirm that one of the suspects was motivated to carry out the shooting due to other students rejecting her gender identity.


 No.2923127

>>2923126

The absolute state of STEMfags


 No.2923133

File: 616dab0c5d8354e⋯.png (188.13 KB, 543x578, 543:578, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 8b8adbe59de9fd2⋯.png (200.97 KB, 554x631, 554:631, ClipboardImage.png)

File: d89fdb42e46eab6⋯.png (79.12 KB, 518x182, 37:13, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2920843

>i really like the story of emperor ai of han and dong xian

You might like some romantic poetry from Tang dynasty poet Bo Juyi


 No.2923233

File: 83b608cd5ebce5f⋯.jpeg (105.32 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 357B8F63-2E1C-420E-9ACE-4….jpeg)

Honestly, fuck trying to date women in today’s world, absolutely nothing is good enough for them. Like, for fucks sake they date and fuck insanely handsome charismatic dudes still have time to whine about Incels AND the dudes they’re fucking?! Honestly there’s no way for a nigga to win in 2019, better to just smoke weed and chill with the bros than worry about bitches anymore, the world is already unraveling anyway so pretty soon they’ll be more interesting shit to worry about than women.

Whenever I smoke my weed I don’t give a fuck about bitches, so I know who my real love is


 No.2923466

File: 40502f7ee01a557⋯.jpeg (436.08 KB, 1299x2051, 1299:2051, capitalismisopposedtofagg….jpeg)


 No.2923474

>>2923127

STEMfags are pretty cool, Cockshott is one of them.


 No.2923528

>>2923474

Honestly I can't imagine the harrasment that he faced. Being transgender in a field dominated by "intellectuals" is enough to make one lose his shit.


 No.2925440

File: 9f07913e8e8b33d⋯.jpg (43.33 KB, 618x410, 309:205, image.jpg)

A third of women only date men because of the free food: study

>The results are in: she only wanted to try that hot new restaurant.

>A new study published Friday in the Society for Personality and Social Psychology journal found that a quarter to a third of heterosexual women have gone on a date with a guy they weren’t interested in — just for a free meal.

>“Foodie calls,” can happen when money’s tight, the grocery store is out of a favorite frozen meal, or a must-try entree is just too extravagant to justify — when the tab comes out of your own bank account.

>Two studies, the first conducted with 820 women, and the second with 327, asked participants if they ever engaged in a plate for play: 23% of the women copped to it in the first study, 33% in the second.

>The researchers — Brian Collisson, Jennifer Howell, and Trista Harig of Azusa Pacific University and UC Merced — also noted that the woman who felt dating for food was socially acceptable were more likely to exhibit the “dark triad” of personality traits. That’s “psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism” for those without a PhD in psych.

>In addition to egotism (with a side of truffled mashed potatoes to-go) Collisson said foodie callers are more likely to engage in “one-night stands, faking an orgasm, or sending unsolicited sexual pictures.”

https://nypost.com/2019/06/21/a-third-of-women-only-date-men-because-of-the-free-food-study/

The generic man's reaction to this is to get angry at women and say they're all just selfish, penny-pinching whores.

The intelligent man's reaction to this is to realise this is another strong argument for socialism, or at the very least for a constant redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, to reduce or eradicate this type of behaviour.


 No.2925452

File: 3c00fe84498377d⋯.jpg (396.8 KB, 720x455, 144:91, iraira.jpg)

>>2925444

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSd48emp0lI

imagine being this stupid. thinking that because of the collapse of the soviet union an isolated country like north korea experienced economic turmoil for a little while means they just don't have food and aren't prospering hard as fuck today

just imagine for a second being that stupid and retarded to not stick up for a country america has bombed into oblivion and put every economic sanction under the sun over due to cold war era politics


 No.2925464


 No.2925475

>>2925440

I feel more relieved that I have given up.


 No.2925477

>>2925444

>DPRK has no food

t CIA

>>2925463

If I ever lose my job due to a second round of McCarthyism and I can’t go to Cuba, the DPRK makes a good Plan C.


 No.2925489

>>2920959

Anybody who believed she was black must have thought that black = ugly because she has entirely white features.


 No.2925607

>>2925477

You need at least a bachelor's degree to teach English in the DPRK. Also enjoy your 6-days/week 07:00-22:00 work schedule.


 No.2925665

File: 90da056f6bdedfe⋯.png (70.53 KB, 1600x800, 2:1, Proofs?.png)


 No.2925667

File: 543d29b153c6558⋯.png (270.47 KB, 768x600, 32:25, Screen Shot 2019-06-25 at ….png)

Wtf I hate TERFs now.


 No.2925868

>>2925444

https://www.cfr.org/blog/north-koreas-food-situation-stable-and-improving

They had a famine during the economic crisis in the 90s caused by the fall of the Eastern Bloc along with massive floodings and droughts but they have recovered from this despite facing imperialist sanctions and embargo. The DPRK is a mountainous country with little arable land, and the sanctions on oil and fuel along with the resulting lack of fertilizer limit their food production, yet they still manage to outproduce the ROK in corn, wheat, soybeans, potatoes, and apples (page 79-102).

https://kosis.kr/upsHtml/upload/Magazine/NEW/IF/bukhanY17.pdf

And the ROK imports like 80-90 percent of its food. What do you think would happen if they were sanctioned on the same level as the DPRK?

And it is interesting how the situation is never compared to other Asian countries. To give one example, as per UNICEF data the severe child malnutrition rate for DPRK in 2012 was 5 percent, compared to 13 percent in Indonesia and 20 percent in India.

Kind of like how Cuban who try to drift off the island are mentioned in propaganda against Cuba, but the much larger number of Haitian and Dominican boat refugees are barely talked about.


 No.2925889

>>2925667

Can't wait to see /pol/yps suddenly changing their view on her to positive


 No.2925902

>>2925440

Stop kidding yourself. They'll just use men to get other things. They do it for food just because it's one of the things you can get in our society but there are plenty of other things and favours they could get anyway in a moneyless society.


 No.2925907

>>2925902

We need to abolish all trade, gifts and "voluntary favours". The Machine God will plan all, including reproduction.


 No.2925908

>>2925667

Maybe now libs will stop referring to Harry Potter when they talk about the real world. That would be a welcome change.


 No.2926074

>>2925908

But now radfems will start doing it.


 No.2926076

>>2925667

>makes children's book where people can use magic to change their bodies into other people or even animals

>taking hormones is bad

how do people like this even breathe

Also, "transgender women" so as usual these people don't even know trans men exist.


 No.2926785

>>2882620

What a big brained dichotomy lmao

Why not both you human dustmite?

People should be as resilient as possible is not an excuse for communities to be toxic and vice versa


 No.2926786

>>2882669

I'll take "things nobody said for 100" please


 No.2926832

File: dd504716e3e5009⋯.jpg (70.93 KB, 600x806, 300:403, Nopemeout.jpg)

I'm getting tired of these people tarnishing ml


 No.2927961

File: ee7c50d874b99f0⋯.png (194.04 KB, 1030x666, 515:333, Screenshot 2019-06-28 at 1….png)


 No.2928023

File: 59c1015c01feac3⋯.png (1.06 MB, 960x720, 4:3, peaktrans.png)


 No.2928028

>>2928023

Are CPGM-ML the ones that supported Brexit Party?


 No.2928029

File: 2255da0dc54710a⋯.jpg (156.16 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 2255da0dc54710a6f1d3edfb96….jpg)


 No.2928046

>>2928023

Badmouse is an idiot. Throughout the video he A) fetishizes the noble savage trope and B )thinks the only way socialism can succeed is by pandering to 0.3% of the population.


 No.2928056

>>2928046

And here I thought Badmouse was redeeming himself, coming around to the tankiepill. Tranniesm is truly an infectious mental disease. Look how this idpol shit destroys peoples perceptions of real issues. As you said, 0.3% of the population dictating what 99.7% should do or say - sounds similar to bourgeois rule.


 No.2928060

>>2928056

>0.3% of the population dictating what 99.7% should do or say - sounds similar to bourgeois rule.

And how do they do that exactly? Where black people in America also practicing "bourgeois rule" when they fought for civil rights in the sixties?


 No.2928061

>>2928060

>Comparing a race that is born into discrimination and abuse to some mentally ill weirdo who wants to mutilate themself

The sheer fucking solipsism of you people.


 No.2928062

>>2928046

Don't forget he subscribes to the old bourgeois feminist nonsense about the dichotomy between men doing wage labor and women doing housework.

>>2928056

Badmouse has always been a social climber. He goes with whatever seems will make people like him. If you watch a few of his videos you will see he learns just enough to sound like he knows what he's talking about to someone unfamiliar, but makes major mistakes constantly. He's exactly the kind of wrecker shit who goes after "social capital" and sees an activist movement as a ladder to climb to the top of.


 No.2928066

>>2928046

So im a little worried that i'm agreeing with a Trot here but yeah.

I just watched that Badmouse vid and does he seriously mean to tell me that the Problem of CPGB-ML is that they're not queer-inclusive enough? And that if they were, they'd be a Force to be reckoned with? I actually kinda like his point about both Sargon and the CPGB-ML fetishizing this fictional version of 'the common man', but i feel like a dozen LGBT people leaving the party is really the least of their problems.

Also Badmouse really turns a blind eye to the concerning fact that there is very real and substantial pro LGBT-advocacy from parts of the Bourgeoisie.

>>2928056

>Look how this idpol shit destroys peoples perceptions of real issues.

The left is still not much more than an advocacy group for a tiny set of people who deviate in some way and are therefore bullied by the society at large. It's pure moralism, has nothing to do with class politics or scientific socialism.

I think the reason for the current state of the left is Fascism and its ideological structure: Fascism takes a social group that deviates in some way and makes them the scapegoats for the Problems created by Capitalism. After the trauma of 20th century Fascism the left has developed into a direction of very pronounced acceptance of everyone, as intolerance or even anything other than veneration of deviant social groups is seen as the embryo of the Fascist victory.


 No.2928069

>>2928061

And are trans people not born into discrimination? What do you think makes them "mentally ill weirdos"? Chemicals in the water?


 No.2928070

>>2928066

>I actually kinda like his point about both Sargon and the CPGB-ML fetishizing this fictional version of 'the common man'

That's a wholly separate point from being inclusive of LGBT+ people. So is not engaging with activism for those people specifically.

>>2928069

I don't agree with transphobia but being born trans and being born black are very different sorts of marginalization.


 No.2928071

>>2928060

That is a much larger part of the US population, and their oppression was and still is much more substantial than oppression faced today by LGBT people. The bourgeoisie is also much much more opposed to the liberation of black people than to the liberation of LGBT people. >>2928062

>Don't forget he subscribes to the old bourgeois feminist nonsense about the dichotomy between men doing wage labor and women doing housework.

Yeah this argument is also so stupid. It rests on gender essentialism.

>Badmouse has always been a social climber. He goes with whatever seems will make people like him. If you watch a few of his videos you will see he learns just enough to sound like he knows what he's talking about to someone unfamiliar, but makes major mistakes constantly. He's exactly the kind of wrecker shit who goes after "social capital" and sees an activist movement as a ladder to climb to the top of.

I dont think hes a social climber, he changes ideology a lot yes but many leftists do that especially in their first years. I think hes very genuine but hes also not too bright.


 No.2928072

>>2928069

No they're fucking not, they're only discriminated against when they CHOOSE to show their beliefs/behaviour. They may be born transexual but they CHOOSE to come out with it. Racial minorities are FORCED FROM BIRTH TO CONFRONT OPPRESSION. They have no CHOICE.

That's the difference you child.


 No.2928073

>>2928023

Badmouse thinks CPGB lack of popularity has to do with not letting in queer people and not a giant propaganda apparatus against socialism and the conditioned apathy of the working class.


 No.2928074

>>2928070

>>2928066

Just want to emphasize a huge problem Badmouse and a lot of other people trip up on with the idpol thing: accepting and welcoming a marginalized group =/= being an activist for them. The crux of the argument in the video is that if your org isn't fighting for these issues, that it's automatically exclusionary to the marginalized people. It's a similar thing to the feminism motte and bailey deal.

<Feminism is wanting equality

>OK, well I want equality

<Then you're a feminist

>OK

<And since you're a feminist that means you also want these specific policies

>wait a minute

Just replace feminism with any other identity, replace equality with inclusion, and replace the policies part with focusing on advocacy for those groups.


 No.2928076

>>2928071

>I think hes very genuine but hes also not too bright.

I don't buy that he's dumb. He very often dips into smearing people or dishonest arguments. In this video he even points out where he did this (didn't change it though) by calling CPGB larpers for using stalin imagery even though other parties do that stuff too.


 No.2928077

>>2928070

>being born trans and being born black are very different sorts of marginalization.

I agree. But in this specific case, in which a minority of the population fights so that the majority respects their existence, there is a similarity between black struggle and LGBT struggle.


 No.2928079

>>2928077

Except blacks aren't advocating for children to undergo surgery to become black.


 No.2928080

>>2928079

And blacks aren't normalizing the use of organ destroying hormones/mind altering drugs.


 No.2928083

>>2928077

The similarity is only in the most abstract sense. You couldn't call trans people a coherent community or group in the way black people are. You can't draw lines around trans neighborhoods, and many if not most trans people can't be identified instantly. Trans issues are about personal autonomy and identity. Race issues are about "tribal" conflict, conflicts between groups of people. They are different at a fundamental level in how the demographic is constituted and how the people are mistreated.

Oversimplifying the problems for the sake of drawing similarities for "solidarity" is bad analysis and it reinforces bad moral/ethical habits. We shouldn't support trans people because they face a similar struggle to one we already support. We should support them because it's a worthy cause and they need help. Trying to find similarities between people (or worse justifying advocacy based on that) ignores the common humanity to us all. The kind of struggle someone faces matters to dealing with it, but it shouldn't have to compare to a familiar struggle to justify caring about it.


 No.2928087

>>2928079

Neither are trans people. Minors can't legally undergo SRS in most of the western world.


 No.2928089

>>2928087 (me)

>>2928080

And also, SRS isn't necessary to be considered trans, hell, medically transitioning (HRT) isn't even necessary all the time to be accepted as the opposite gender.


 No.2928092

>>2928089

There are trans organizations that have advocated for it though, despite its legality. That's the thing about laws, they can be changed. Fact is trans want far more than just being "recognized", it's just not comparable to the plight of black people. REALLY insulting for you to even imply that, probably some sheltered white suburban teenager.


 No.2928097

>>2928083

I wholeheartedly agree, so this bit was a mistake on my part, my bad.

Still, I don't agree with the reactionary notion that any other struggle that exists outside of class struggle inherently works against it, because all of those fights can be unified into one single cause that benefits the whole working class.


 No.2928111

>>2928092

>There are trans organizations that have advocated for it though, despite its legality.

Some organizations don't speak for the whole of trans people, just like rainbow capitalists don't speak for the whole of the LGBT community.

>Fact is trans want far more than just being "recognized"

Then what more do they want?

>it's just not comparable to the plight of black people. REALLY insulting for you to even imply that

As I've stated above >>2928097

, this was a mistake on my part, so my bad.

>probably some sheltered white suburban teenager.

I'm not any of these things.


 No.2928189

File: f05704cc57cd13f⋯.pdf (739.14 KB, [Benjamin_Noys]_Malign_Vel….pdf)

>>2918457

>>2856439

The problem with all this "discourse" is that it masks the fundamental truth that feminists are crypto-accelerationists.

By combining all the social "gains" they have made, as well as the neoliberal capitalist recuperation thereof (chemical based birth control, no fault divorce, discourse of rape where men are presumed guilty, and the explosion of internet porn), it has made family-forming so difficult that one has to consistently "transcend" or "transgress" the rules of bourgeois capitalism just to maintain a sort of attractiveness parity, i.e.: material attractiveness where a male will still stand out, in a world where a single man, no matter how hot, rich or famous he is, has to compete with the rest of the internet.

The capitalists stoke this competition because that's where the money is, and the feminists stoke this state of events because of their stated goal of feminism as disintegrating the patriarchal family and reintegrating it into something else. It is pure ideological jouissance driving them towards this.

There is a visible endgame of this state of affairs. Donna Haraway, author of the cyborg manifesto, lived in a potential prototype of such a "reintegrated" family in the 80s:

https://www.wired.com/1997/02/ffharaway/

>Maybe it was inevitable that Haraway would wind up blending science and politics and thus breaking one of the big taboos. While studying for a biology doctorate at Yale in the late '60s, Haraway realized "what I was really interested in was not so much biology as a research science, but the way it was a part of politics, religion, and culture in general." Part of a commune active in gay liberation, women's rights, and civil rights; part of a graduate biology program "up to its ears in anti-Vietnam War work centering around chemical herbicides"; and part of a university integral to the military-industrial complex prosecuting the war, she could hardly help being political.

>Her doctoral work in cell biology ("nothing bigger than a microbe") dragged on, and she found herself in Hawaii, teaching general science to kids destined to be hotel staffers and tour guides. She had gone there with her husband, Jaye Miller, who was actively gay and a fellow commune member. "We figured out ultimately that we wanted to do a little brother-sister incest, but at the time we didn't have any other model than getting married." A few years later, they "stopped being married" but continued to live as part of the same household, along with their respective partners, until Miller's death from an AIDS-related illness in 1991.

Essentially, a bunch of the commune died from AIDS, the whole thing fell apart, and now, knowing that anyone with the illness depends on a ridiculous cocktail of synthetic drugs made by private corporations just to stay alive, making a supposedly progressive and militant leftist group (LGBTQ+) even more dependent on capitalism if they want to enjoy their own sexuality, I have to laugh.


 No.2928190

>>2928189

Seriously, I think the whole mess with LGBTQ+ and all their marches and protests is in practice nothing less than that of watching a chicken run around with it's head cut off before it finally bleeds out and dies. Disease will kill the sexually active, and the rest will be too scared engage in any sort of sexual activity wherein they could become an "affinity group" or commune. Those who push feminism and homosexuality onto society at large want to destroy society, because they believe they will never be truly integrated into a family-based society it is oppressive, but are totally missing the mark, and are counterproductive. They literally become machines that consume sex, and will finally consume each other. From the linked book:

>Sex-Work-Machine

>The experience of most work is of profound boredom and pointlessness – hardly one of acceleration. Work is the eternal ‘hell of the same’, as Baudrillard put it – repetitive and often

ridiculous tasks to no good or even useful end.

>Accompanying this experience is the erotic reverie, an experience of endless variation and exploration of erotic possibility both at and beyond work in a libidinal acceleration. Those familiar with the most boring forms of work – factory work, office work – will also be familiar with the endless exchanges and discourses about sex. Pornography is passed around, the sexual possibilities of colleagues discussed, and the mind is occupied with the libidinal.

>The libidinal fantasies of machinic integration, ‘pathological’ as they are, suggest the utopian merging of libidinal acceleration with an acceleration of labor that is repetitive and machinic. For accelerationists this infusion or melding produces a multiplicity that explodes the limits of the ego in new vital possibilities. The real of production, as desire infuses the machine, ruptures the iterative routines. Work would (finally) be sexy. Although this is a state without feeling or thought, which could also suggest that sex might be worklike…

>If, as psychoanalysis suggests, our experience of sexuality is fundamentally repetitive and boring then this fusion does not have to go far. The seeming endlessness of erotic possibilities

becomes frozen in the tableaux of our own singular drives. It is the work of the Marquis de Sade that demonstrates this mode of possibility as repetition and, even, as labor. The relentless iterations of the 120 Days of Sodom (1785) produce the deadening sense of timetabled labor, increasing in intensity and activity. Adorno remarks that Sade’s ‘orgies are arranged like mechanical ballets.’

>I’m suggesting that we don’t simply confront the integration of fluid and mobile life into deadening and alienated labor, but also the desire tointegrate the repetitive and deadening circuit of the sexual drive into the deadening circuit of labor. While accelerationism might promise an integration of desire and labor in a machinic ‘synthesis’ to accelerate the boredom of work it disguises the boredom of desire.

>Accelerationism wants to enchant sex as something accelerative and machinic, away from the iterative reverie of fantasy. The fantasy of integration is the fantasy of abolishing fantasy. What accelerationism

promises is the integration of the person into machine, of sex into work, and the generation of the Real of production. In this way fantasy as the access to the Real is collapsed into an immersive and immediate experience of the Real without mediation. Although couched interms of the libidinal, what is extinguished is the libidinal, as accelerationism reproduces the deadening experience of labor as the site of masochistic enjoyment. >At the same time contempt is often expressed to actual workers for their failure to fully ‘enjoy’ this situation. The result is an evasion of the deadlock of desire through the claim to immediately access desire and fantasmatically dissolve the deadlock. This is the libidinal fantasy of accelerationism.


 No.2928199

File: 27e23e513b44501⋯.pdf (12.76 MB, gilles-deleuze-difference-….pdf)

>>2928190

The only way forward is the creation of real affinity groups, ie families that can self-reproduce, because it is actually through reproductive sex that we liberate our specific possibilities, where even though we recreate heterosexual sex the same way, the anticipation of what the resultant child may become is its own liberatory potential, regardless of the difficulties that arise when raising one. Read Deleuze's Difference and Repetition; this is the only drive towards jouissance that exists that results in something different every time; actual reproduction of human beings within human families, and the rebuilding thereof, is the real liberatory potential. Anything counter to that is a distraction, and a libidinal experiment. Leftists should be working to allow families to grow, to build a potentiality that would be stronger than capitalism, not stagnate in pointless experimentation.


 No.2928215

>>2928189

>>2928190

>>2928199

God this is gibberish


 No.2928222

>>2928215

Why don't you try to study it instead of dismissing it out of hand?


 No.2928226

>>2928222

I actually read the entire wall of text you posted and im sorry, it makes 0 sense to me.


 No.2928299

File: d0d2c726c167739⋯.jpg (34.35 KB, 825x464, 825:464, cyberpunk-2077-keanu-reeve….jpg)

>>2928226

>>2928226

>I actually read the entire wall of text you posted and im sorry, it makes 0 sense to me.

Ok this is how it works:

Capitalists have ideologically taken over Feminism and Queer Ideology and have recuperated it, i.e. repurposed it to serve the growth of Capital. The radical faction of "sexual revolutionaries" has been decimated by, and constrained by public reaction to, AIDS, rendering it practically impotent and dependent of drugs created by Capitalism to survive, rendering it captured materially by Capital. People who tried to experiment in alternative, "liberating" lifestyles ended up destroying each other trying to escape the forms-of-life that Capital enacts. The psychology of the death-drive prevents those invested into feminist and queer ideologies from realizing that there is no liberatory telos resulting from their respective forms-of-life they have invented; it is merely pure enjoyment that will ultimately end in catastrophe and oblivion, as their lifestyles will not be reproduced by the next generation.

Thus, they think that they can kill, or at the very least strong-arm Capitalism towards their ends by breaking down the human base of its reproduction, which is to deprive Capitalists (seen as archetypical white heterosexual males who are potential patriarchs) of their potential in society to connect with those who feminists/queer say are oppressed by them (women, POC, LGBTQ+, etc) by spreading the new lifestyles as an alternative to heteroniormative sexual relations which are precisely those that, according to feminists, reproduce Patriarchal (and Capitalist) Society. They hope to introduce chaos and conflict into human relations in order to disrupt Capitalism, when Capitalism thrives precisely on these two things.

In their indiscretion, they have nurtured and spread the very agent of their own destruction, which was AIDs for the gays, and crack for the blacks.

In the end, there is only one liberatory potential, the creation and linking together of families and clans that have enough material and human power that can survive the interference of the state and its army and surveillance apparatus, which is necessarily patriarchal (be the patriarchy be nomadic/pastoralist or static/agricultural).


 No.2928307

>>2928299

What I find highly ironic is the very character of Johnny Silverhand is the one character that has liberatory potential in the game of Cyberpunk, him being the rock star, the archetype rebel who is still a patriarch on the stages of his concert. Every rock star is a patriarch.


 No.2928355

>>2928060

Corporations don’t sponcer Black Pride parades.

>>2928069

No they chose to take the pills.

>>2928087

Jazz Jenning was 17.


 No.2928356

File: e7b3b699e3c5f88⋯.png (50.53 KB, 819x260, 63:20, Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at ….png)

>>2928023

Was this meant to be sarcastic?


 No.2928361

>>2928356

Technically, he isn't wrong. And the trans group love their technicalities as shown above.


 No.2928379

>>2928307

It's not surprising, for all the rhetoric of the feminists they still end up "falling in love" with males who very much fit the patriarchal archetype, that is those with high social standing and are aggressive. They despise the males who would never be fit to actually be patriarchal and deny them love and sex, which leads to them being selected out and the reproduction of the patriarchal males and thus patriarchal society.


 No.2928677

>>2928023

Badmouse is overcompensating for his early edgy lib dem phase and sucked into the Breadtube orgy. It's madness and dude just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Granted I think CPGB-ML's line is stupid and counterproductive, but the left's embrace of queer theory and the so-called sexual revolution is far, far worse. The former is just a shrinking group of old tankies that have to know they're running a grift by now, the latter is a systemic failure that has paralyzed any sort of social organizing because they're trying to reconcile the degraded sexual mores of liberal capitalism with socialism and the struggles of people (and I mean any struggle, including that of the very gay and trans people that get lynched and shit who very much don't want to be lynched). You couldn't construct a better way to piss off the majority of the population and turn them against homosexuals than the current "LGBT" platform dominating the media landscape.

>>2928066

I think it's more because the left can't attract much else besides the very fringes of society as long-term support. Most of your typical working people tolerate the system, or see some path other than socialism as the way to change the order of the world.

The core of fascist ideology, social Darwinism and the ideology of eugenics, never went away for a second, and now it is the 8000 lb. gorilla looming over all of society. It found a way to integrate itself with liberalism, and in doing so destroyed the liberals even pretending to care about political equality. We live in a society where most of the population is marked, from an early age, with the limits of what they can achieve in the system, beyond just the fact of capital and money. For now, that system is subordinate to capital and mostly serves its bidding to create the kind of work force capitalists want, but the precedent will persist long after capitalism is no longer viable and it's baked into the minds of virtually everyone alive today.

I guess you could call it "fascism" of a sort, and what America became in 2001 is really damn close to the apparatus the Nazis built, except that it maintains the fiction of a democratic republic, one largely defanged and rendered impotent, because it is well known that Congress isn't even reading the laws they pass now, and a lot of affairs simply bypass Congress anyway; Mitch and friends basically made Congress stonewall for 8 years even more than usual, but the country kept trucking along and the new economic policy under Obama went through without any real pushback, and during the two years of full Republican rule, the only thing Congress did was give a huge handout to the rich and sell off the country like never before. Right now the only function of Congress seems to be to sell off the country to oligarchs, and I expect in the 2020s this process will reach Gorbachev tier as the wheels really come off the bus.


 No.2928724

>>2928299

You're talking as if feminism (at least the strains of it that ever attained institutional power in the capitalist world), queer ideology, and the so-called "sexual revolution" weren't fully capitalist in nature. There isn't even a serious attempt to fight capitalism in those movements; they are the expression of that system's priorities and the conditions it creates. Sexual revolution was one part historical inevitability because families were already breaking down for some time, and policies pushed by the most arch-capitalist forces to control the population, both in numbers and in their behavior. The latter is most expressed in the so-called "free love" movement where your most private relations are politicized, no one can trust a partner, and, because power is the ultimate aphrodesiac, the ruling class can insert itself into the orgy and has the satisfaction of telling you that some ruling class chad is fucking their wife, their daughter, perhaps their son, and that you yourself have to content yourself with increasingly unsatisfactory pornography and fetishism until you give up. It's literally the old right of the first night, updated for the era of mass media and transportation. People didn't ask for this "freedom", not men and not the majority of women as far as I can tell. It was an unwelcome and unwanted change, and much of it was pushed from above to accelerate what was already breaking apart trusting relationships.


 No.2928727

>>2928677

You are over-analyzing.

>Most of your typical working people tolerate the system

Yet most of them also have problems with it and are open to alternatives.

>The core of fascist ideology, social Darwinism and the ideology of eugenics, never went away for a second, and now it is the 8000 lb. gorilla looming over all of society

This was more true 20 years ago than it is now i feel. I think eugenics and social darwinism is going away in favor of traditional fascist open war between different assigned social groups, as part of the decline of neoliberalism and the rise of open death-cult white supremacy stuff. its something somewhat different.


 No.2928740

>>2928727

56% land cannot go white supremacist. Their fascism has integrated feminism and racial diversity.


 No.2928751

>>2928727

The alternative mainstream society has to capitalism now is "meritocracy" rather than socialism.

Eugenics dominates the education field, it is the organizing principle of how schools sort through their students more than ever. Prior generations didn't quite see it as badly because you just had to not be a retard, but now we have a system where you're basically regarded as worthless without a college education, and then you have to get the right education and please the right people, otherwise you just get an empty credential that leads nowhere. We have a system where far more than half the population in some way is essentially failed, and the mainstream of society basically accepts this because they've been denied a meaningful language to criticize it.

White identity politics doesn't have much longer to live, it's basically the boomers that remember segregation that have been driving it. Gen X by and large doesn't really care about it, Millennials and beyond only care if they get hooked into /pol or other edgy bullshit communities, or they care because they refined their concept of race along more eugenic lines (like your typical liberal who basically considers black people to be children to be pitied, and when push comes to shove will make intelligence judgements based on race or some other superficial criteria). Liberal racism shows that eugenics can only be a system which breeds outrageous status-seeking and vanity, because it runs into the obvious problem that no amount of good genes or good breeding make up for humans being little better than barely-ascended apes that can barely qualify as sentient. Seriously, we are made to fight social struggles over perceived general intelligence and people have been fucking sterilized and killed for it, have been pushed to suicide for it, yet for all their supposed brilliance, we have here an upper class by the meritocracy's metrics that is full of mediocrities, riddled with personal failings and anxiety, and barely able to look past themselves to make some very basic observations that would be necessary to make the present environment livable (like, for example, the ridiculous wealth and labor poured into nothing more than status conflicts, even beyond the excesses of typical capitalism).

>>2928740 is right, modern strains of fascism can easily integrate women, homosexuals, racial diversity, and so on, so long as the principle of corporatism and the subordination of people to institutions and ideology remains a constant.

I don't consider /pol or the right wing edgelords to be representative of the most potent strains of currently-existing fascism. The real fascism I worry about is people like the Bushes and John Bolton, or to a lesser extent the theocrats who would be the Lord's Believers. Trump country is just a bunch of losers latching on to whatever makes them feel good; at most, they can only be regarded as enablers of the actually competent fascists, either of the strains we already know or some hitherto unknown strain. The /pol Nazi crowd is just an absolute joke that buffs up their numbers and desperately wants to believe there's a secret army of white identitarian youth, rather than the collection of degenerates they actually are. For a lot of reasons, I don't think a Hitler archetype - some screaming retard that says a bunch of feely shit to get other screaming retards to follow along - can get far in America. That method has a lot of weaknesses compared to currently existing methods of social control a fascist America would (and has) used.


 No.2928759

>>2928751

Yes you are definitely over-analyzing. White supremacy and socially conservative prejudices are the driving force behind Americas right wing.

>modern strains of fascism can easily integrate women, homosexuals, racial diversity

Some forces have been trying to do that but largely failed.


 No.2928764

File: 6f4bd28b7235270⋯.jpg (60.59 KB, 821x368, 821:368, 1.jpg)

File: 978c47dadb429ab⋯.png (244.12 KB, 615x537, 205:179, 2.png)

File: 51cead08bd00e5e⋯.jpg (90.47 KB, 905x556, 905:556, 3.jpg)

File: 83a30108904efb0⋯.png (245.31 KB, 615x537, 205:179, 4.png)


 No.2928767

File: 855f6ebf08a4df6⋯.png (151.83 KB, 814x910, 407:455, 6.png)

File: 23c579aea62e798⋯.png (35.17 KB, 499x426, 499:426, 7.png)

File: 44d5239ba507442⋯.png (347.56 KB, 561x653, 561:653, 8.png)


 No.2928781

>>2928764

As i said it exists. But the core support for both the imperial war machine and the Police is drawn from the white middle class and their white supremacy and especially their anxiety about losing their place in the world. Yes this pandering to the liberal professional-managerial strata also exists but it is much less important and is also called out most of the time.


 No.2928790

File: a7a8815a63372ff⋯.png (395.94 KB, 616x608, 77:76, 5.png)

File: 9a9351c90813736⋯.jpg (46.9 KB, 720x960, 3:4, 9.jpg)

Is the army not disproportianally black/hispanic? Females are also more likely to have college degrees now so they are going to be a major part of the middle class. (open) LGBT association is also more common in the upper classes.


 No.2928808

>>2928790

Yes but still, the mass base of the entire Republican party, which is the Party in Power right now and the party pushing the interests of the Bourgeoisie most aggressively, is almost entirely composed of racist or at least chauvinistic white people.


 No.2928809

>>2928759

You think the Bushes and the neocons really give a shit about white feefees or fags marrying?

Even Trumpian ideology (such as it exists) isn't necessarily a rehash of the old segregationism. It's a movement of petit booj and relatively comfortable uneducated workers who benefit from a system of heavily exploitation of foreigners, here and elsewhere, and who benefit from prison labor because they themselves aren't liable to be used as prison labor. They don't necessarily care about the racial dimension of it, just that the system persists, and a lot of them would turn on their white "brothers" and even each other to maintain that system for themselves. It is true that a lot of that system was built on segregation and white supremacy, but these Trumpians do not necessarily give a shit about the white identity politics of Spencer, /pol, and other hard identitarians.

As for "socially conservative prejudices", the theocrats when you really start to get what they're doing are not simple ideologues quoting scripture to burn the fags. People go along with pro-life positions and uphold family values not because they're brainwashed by some evil cult, but because those things are actually really popular. But the church as an institution is brittle, the younger generation doesn't believe any more. Without the legitimacy of the church, social conservatism only has conspiracies and vague feels to work with, and those don't have a particularly wide reach.

White identity politics is on its last legs, as much as America is a nation formed by white supremacy. Desegregation destroyed the most obvious basis for its continuation, and once the boomers are super old, it won't have the same appeal except with a small minority of contrarians and the usual sorts that seek identity politics for crass reasons of vanity (that would be the /pol types who are almost universally terminally online faggots).

Religion and the socially conservative values that actually drive people from the socially conservative camp to vote R and hate libs, is also on the decline. The church's corruption is more and more obvious, and I really see Trump as the repudiation of that. When it came down to it, the evangelicals and social conservatives didn't pick Boogerman Ted Cruz or some sufficiently pious Christian, they picked an obvious ball of sleaze like Donald J. Trump because, when it came down to it, the religious right didn't have much to offer their flock. They saw inaction on abortion, they saw their leaders cut deals with liberals and show that they're all about elevating the super rich, and as always religious institutions have a hard time surviving the modern media culture and modern ideologies. The strength of the church as an institution is waning, and without the church as a bedrock for those socially conservative values, all the social conservatives are left with is conspiracies, feels, and showmen like Trump. Maybe, maybe, the Trump people and their ilk could manage a fascist coup or a business plot, but as a driving force, social conservatism is giving way to the juggernaut that is liberal capitalist culture. There is no alternative, just like the bitch said.


 No.2928811

>>2928809

(cont.)

You're making the mistake that fascism is when you say mean stuff about colored people and homos, rather than seeing fascism as a kind of social, governmental, and economic system. The Bushes successfully built a police state that self-consciously resembled institutions built by the Nazis, suspended long-held legal standards like habeus corpus, was able to wage a forever war with barely more than a peep from the elected government and has continued to do so until the present day. The Bushian form of fascism was smart enough not to just abolish democracy outright, but to render it impotent and so thoroughly gamed that it could, over time, wither away, as more and more the basic institutions become unmanageable (and I'm not talking about merely forms or the welfare state, but basic things like a working court system that can hear cases in anything resembling reasonable time, just for basic stuff like handling a probate case - lord help you in criminal court if you aren't rich enough to afford the good lawyers). If fascism is coming to America, it's not going to follow the retardation of people like Spencer or the white identitarians. Those guys are there to stir shit and run a grift on the desperate losers who always get a big hard on for identity politics. Fascism would look more like John Bolton, or a coup by the CIA, or even just the continued decay of republican institutions and their replacement with think tanks and experts until there is a sufficient base to suspend democracy outright through an enabling act. Trumpism and its ilk, at best, can be an enabler for the really big fascists on the right. It did come close with Bannon and Gorka in there, but the moment either would step too far and start fucking with the unelected entities that really govern America now, Trump would be removed and probably tried for treason in a kangaroo court, and if his supporters got uppity, they'd be put down like the dogs they are.

In all likelihood, if a non-establishment fascist coup were done, it wouldn't be for the sake of white identity of conservative values, but because the rank and file of the police state were not kept under sufficient control and not placated enough, and that hasn't happened yet. It wouldn't be spurred by white identitarians fighting for it in a civil war, it would be the police state growing out of control and devouring the country's political apparatus whole, stacking the government with every lowlife thug they can find.


 No.2928823

>>2928809

>>2928811

>You're making the mistake that fascism is when you say mean stuff about colored people and homos, rather than seeing fascism as a kind of social, governmental, and economic system.

No i understand this very well, however you are making the mistake of not understanding that this system needs a mass base of support, and that the great majority and the deepest and most reliable support for the rule of the Capitalists in the US, objectively, has always and still does come from the white middle class. Recent phenomenons like the inclusion of LGBT stuff and diversity are a qualitatively new phenomenon, i agree, and the ideology of pure idpol is, in its erasure of class divisions, essentially fascist. What i am saying is that as things stand, this is still not the ideology that ensures Burgeois rule in the US, and i am sceptical if it is well- suited for that task. Trumps white-supremacist base is almost half of the electorate, these people are still invaluable to the Capitalists.


 No.2928836

>>2928781

Bush got his war without any real base of popular support. If you talk to Trumpians, they fucking hate the wars, the wars, and the more wars in the Middle East

>>2928823

Fascism does need a base of support to stage a coup, but that coup doesn't need to be white identitarians, and hard identitarians like Spencer aren't going to coup shit. More than their whiteness, the base of American fascism recognizes their class position, and the overall war within the working class against each other. Like I said, most of these Trumptards will freely betray their white brothers as soon as it feels good to do so. When Trump sends his people, he's not sending their best. They're bringing greed, they're bringing the surburban wasteland, they're retards.

The strains of fascism that are actually winning now don't really need white supremacy any more. They're happy to inherit its fruits and hide the racism that America was built on (because a critical view of race relations would show how utterly abominable Americans have been to be what they are now), but they only need enough popular support to keep the general population in line. The white identitarians wouldn't be part of that as ideological partners, but as shock troops because they're typically the degenerate sort that go along with any police state when the getting is good. Plenty of right-libs would go with them too, including a good number of teachers to keep the ideological flame of this nu-Fascism burning bright (teachers and the whole educational apparatus is chock full of some of the worst people, totally ready for fascism and a good number of them are happy with some of the good old racism). If they go hard with promoting homosexuality as an alternative and build a privileged place for homosexuals in nu-Fascism, it's entirely possible the current corporate LGBT+ blob goes over entirely to the fascist state, seeing it as a defender of their lifestyle against Islamists and Chinese Communists that don't necessarily agree with the hard line the global corporatist LGBT lobby has taken on ideology. Women, as a group, would be aggressively recruited as the servants of nu-Fascism so long as they make their bodies available to eugenics, the only outcasts being that part of the female population that faces significant discrimination under the current eugenics regime (they're almost uniformly going to be against all of what's happening in the world, and can only barely tolerate living now because the current liberal state is relatively tame compared to what nu-Fascism would bring).


 No.2928866

>>2928836

alright, again i'm seeing what you're saying.

>hard identitarians like Spencer aren't going to coup shit

I agree.

>The strains of fascism that are actually winning now don't really need white supremacy any more.

right now they still very much need covert and structural white supremacy. But yes, open white supremacy has no future.

>Women, as a group, would be aggressively recruited as the servants of nu-Fascism so long as they make their bodies available to eugenics, the only outcasts being that part of the female population that faces significant discrimination under the current eugenics regime (they're almost uniformly going to be against all of what's happening in the world, and can only barely tolerate living now because the current liberal state is relatively tame compared to what nu-Fascism would bring).

This is very good and true, and covert eugenics already is a real component of current mainstream ideology. But again, i think we have to be clear: Right now, the core and bedrock of Capitalist rule in the US are racist boomers who approve of Trumps policies for example at the border.


 No.2928883

>>2928866

You know most of your normie Twitter folk are passive libs that would balk at any talk of revolution? The bedrock of American capitalism is the majority of people going along with it, if only because of inertia. Trump's retards are a part of that inertia, because the rot in the system is so great that it lets a minority get a president doing senselessly cruel shit just to be senselessly cruel, but there isn't a particularly strong desire for an alternative to neoliberalism (and Trump is neoliberal to the core, on core ideology he is remarkably close to Hillary, and both are two of the most rotten people in political memory). Both would have a directive regarding the border: preserve the status quo of cheap and oppressed migrant labor in the US at all costs, through the use of brutal police methods and a police crackdown on the native population (which incidentially drives up prison slave labor, another thing they want to keep at all costs). Open borders and taking in loads of refugees would hamper that because the numbers would get too hard to control, the immigrants will find sanctuary and piss off of working, so that's not happening no matter how much "nationalists" tell us the leftists want to make the country brown, and you just know Hillary has no qualms with resorting to cruelty and giving the pigs a free hand to crack down. Nor are Trump's policies even really aimed at making more jobs for Americans, and in their heart of hearts, the Trumpians don't see themselves doing the farm labor and other shit jobs immigrants are doing, not at immigrant wages and not at any wage they could expect (even something equivalent to minimum). They just want to find some other group to whip and put in the subordinate position; by default they're pointing to the blacks, but if that doesn't work they'll go after poor whites and especially poor whites in cities, and they'll whip up a frenzy about welfare and people cheating the disability system (despite many a Trumpian openly and blatantly cheating the disability system and collecting while working under the table, because of course they do). The important thing is that the underclass doing the labor not be a threat to them, and the migrant underclass would be a threat in the long term so long as they have the sanctuary cities. The migrants have a position to bargain with, so they don't get walked over completely and reduced to the status of literal slaves. The Trumpians want to make conditions as harsh as possible. It was never about making jobs for white Americans, or at least not the Trumpians, because the Trumpians almost always have jobs (ill gotten jobs, usually, that's how the workplace goes) or they're retired and it's not their problem, or they're that part of the disabled class that is often dubiously disabled (legit disabled people by and large do NOT like Trump if they have any opinion on politics, he's literally killing them and kicking them off, but the ones who know how to cheat the system can survive Trump's curveballs and those cheats are delighted at seeing the honest suffer because it extends their ability to cheat the system).


 No.2929145

File: 932fb75163a1f6d⋯.jpg (58.11 KB, 649x557, 649:557, imgID139636692.jpg.gallery.jpg)

>>2928724

>You're talking as if feminism (at least the strains of it that ever attained institutional power in the capitalist world), queer ideology, and the so-called "sexual revolution" weren't fully capitalist in nature.

That's the point, we know this, but the retard idpolers on reddit and buzzfeed still act as if what they do has liberatory potential. Since I refuse to believe that people are that retarded, I have concluded that it is pure and simple opportunism on their part, and it has to be exposed as opportunism and combated.

>The latter is most expressed in the so-called "free love" movement where your most private relations are politicized, no one can trust a partner, and, because power is the ultimate aphrodesiac, the ruling class can insert itself into the orgy and has the satisfaction of telling you that some ruling class chad is fucking their wife, their daughter, perhaps their son, and that you yourself have to content yourself with increasingly unsatisfactory pornography and fetishism until you give up.

>It's literally the old right of the first night, updated for the era of mass media and transportation.

Pic and vid related is exactly what will happen, and it is already happening in the forms of incel mass shootings. The only thing that will end this madness is the destruction of those enabling the female imperative and profiting off it, or doing enough damage to it where it will submit and break. /pol/ ironically would be our best ally in this endeavor. They bribed each woman from birth with her chance at a "prince" with Disney films and later on with teen magazines and social media accounts, and I know because I remember this happening to a girl that I liked but she decided she wanted to be with some guy from California with a pool who fucked her and dumped her. Tbh not my problem anymore.


 No.2929147

>>2929146

invidio.us/watch?v=vGhHwLxztnE


 No.2929169

>>2928836

>Bush got his war without any real base of popular support.

>Source: my ass

White people were chomping at the but so bad for Bush to start a war against the scary brown people that we was able to start to major wars.


 No.2929170

>>2929169

*White people were chomping at the bit so bad for Bush to start a war against the scary brown people that he was able to start two major wars.


 No.2929176

>>2929169

>White people were chomping at the but so bad for Bush to start a war against the scary brown people that we was able to start to major wars.

Bush didn't have his war support for the gulf it was basically 50/50 until they faked the story of troops Saddam's troops killing newborns and then he had the peoples backing.


 No.2929179

>>2929145

is there a lot of incel rage on the left? I thought most incels on the left became trannies. interesting stuff brah.


 No.2929180

>>2928836

> they're retards

This was the point at which I started laughing. Nice.


 No.2929224

Weird. This is very weird.


 No.2929229

>>2929179

>is there a lot of incel rage on the left?

Yes and no. Some are able to fuck, but can't keep relationships because the relationships are still subject to the vagaries of female desire swayed by Capitalist Spectacle: if you study incels, they don't crave mere sex, that shit an be solved by going to a prostitute; they want relationships they can rely on, and make families that they can serve. They want a higher purpose in life, seeking the sublime, and they feel they have been robbed of the sublime through feminism and the sexual revolution.

>I thought most incels on the left became trannies

There is enjoyment, and then there is practical reality. I believe that the incels who become trannies are doing this to desublimate their sexuality, where through the belief that they can change it, that it no longer matters, both to make themselves believe that they are doing something revolutionary against oppressive patriarchy, and to establish that a community through which they can disavow their sexuality, by becoming whatever identity they want. It's almost like wanting the singularity to become real.

Sexuality is a part of the human condition, and what happens is that in a sexual relationship, two people become one, and sublimate their individualities into a duality, a multiplicity which builds out the local community they live in. All of the modern relationships that Capital and Spectacle propose to us are little more than autism for two, and we become sick when we lose the feeling,


 No.2929281

>>2928724

>It's literally the old right of the first night, updated for the era of mass media and transportation.

Damn never thought of it this way but this is so true.


 No.2929367

File: 5c0df93f0e437ca⋯.jpg (94.75 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, 1546024071099.jpg)

>>2929179

Chances are the further left you go, the higher the percentage of virgins among males of the same age. There is evidence that the more attractive people are, the more right-wing their politics are as they were favoured due to their appearance which lead them to think that those who are rich or poor or virgins or chads deserve their positions and basically that the world is just. This makes them individualists/liberals and not see a need in state intervention to establish egalitarianism. This is correcting for socioeconomic status, of course attractiveness increases that too and is therefore even more impactful.

Sexual success is highly correlated with social status, so it not surprising that someone at the lower end would be appealed to by communism. The reason you do not see them in “left” orgs is that the western “left” is a fucking joke and largely just red liberals, few exceptions like CPGB-ML notwithstanding. As they are largely educated, professional middle class (or aspiring) they are not actually in a precarious position and able to receive love and sex just fine so they bully the male virgins who threaten their marginally superior existence, tell them it’s their fault (libertarianism), tell them their thoughts are the cause of their condition (idealism) and that they are fascists because they do not put “personal rights” above all (individualism). So most just become apolitical or go full fash as they at least pretend to care about you.

>brah.

kill yourself


 No.2929452

>>2929367

Lol this post flies in the face of every major incel online community


 No.2929460

>>2929169

Where are they, then? Trump ran on being "anti-war" or what a right-winger thinks is anti-war, and specifically railed against the Iraq war as a debacle. They saw the war as a Jewish plot or something.

Support for the war in the general population was mostly the types you see in Reddit Political_Discussion who think they're clever and smart, and that the war would bring down the price of oil. It was never particularly strong. Redneck country hated being sent to die for Halliburton's profit, whatever they thought about the Arabs (true facts, almost no one in the country really sees the Arabs or Afghans as actual people, nearly a century of eugenics ideology reaching its zenith makes that an impossibility in a real sense, even when there are real Arabs who wrote and spoke in English explaining how fucked the occupation was. The exact details of just what Bush was doing on the ground in 2004 and beyond are out there, but they're basically ignored in favor of some infantile narrative about how war feels bad and shit).

The media has been trying hard to rehabilitate the war, to get liberals to downplay the war's significance and keep them distracted with false narratives so they have no real understanding of what, exactly, happened, and why it happened, and what is happening now. The alternative media isn't particularly helpful either, since it's largely writing a few propaganda lines over and over except in the other direction (if it's not just coming from US directly for false consciousness, it's coming from Putin or China for their own reasons).


 No.2929470

>>2929145

It has very little to do with "female imperative" or anything women choose to do. The people at the top of this world are still men, and largely white men at that. That includes the so called "womens" movement that has powerful men at the highest echelons (it's one of the things radfems always bitch about). For a woman in modern society, you're basically forced to offer yourself sexually to the orgy, and to the ruling class, in order to actually find work beyond the menial. The imperatives at work at the imperatives of the powerful, and the dogs that follow them slavishly and with little prompting.


 No.2929579

>>2929470

>and largely white men at that.

Objectively wrong.

>For a woman in modern society, you're basically forced to offer yourself sexually to the orgy, and to the ruling class, in order to actually find work beyond the menial

A laughable claim.


 No.2929586

>>2929579

Jesus you fucking incels huffing the ideology.

Piss off with your reactionary drivel.


 No.2929588

>>2929586

As a communist, I find the trend towards obscurantism and anti-intellectualism - as exemplified by your reply - very worrying. Communism is NOT your little club or safe space, but a scientific, data-driven programm, which obviously includes substantiating your claims and providing sources.


 No.2929589

>>2929588

*fucked up the tags, sorry


 No.2929608

>>2929586

What is scientific and data-driven about some nonsense about how women denying you sex actually run the world? All of the lib-fem girlboss shit means remarkably little, aside from being performative and selling women a capitalist-friendly ideology. When they get women dressing up like sluts and proudly calling themselves sluts, you have to know some Porky is smiling at the absurdity of it all, that they've actually got people to accept the insane narrative they want to push, loudly and proudly.

At the end of the day, it's still men making most of the decisions of state, largely because ruling class women are there precisely because they have attached themselves through marriage to a ruling class man. The composition of the ruling class that takes an active role in politics and decision making has changed remarkably little since womens' "liberation", and won't change for a variety of reasons. The revolutionary left is largely male-dominated, too. There's a lot of reasons why this is so but it is universally understood. The idea that women are secretly running the world or that their sale of their bodies gives them significant political power is ludicrous. Most men are not incels, and are not porn-addled or submissive. They usually get their woman, put up with her bullshit, maybe have their booty on the side if they're lucky, and get on with their lives. It's only a minority of men who get degenerated by sexual ideology and make it into the center of their world (and this tendency is pushed heavily because men thinking this way keep buying shit and doing stupid shit to feed this giant hole in their souls).


 No.2929619

>>2929608

This is beyond ridiculous. The nazis were making the same claims about largely jews being in powerful positions, yet when they got in power they spared all the ruling class jews and targeted the low-ranking ones instead, just as feminists do. Feminists in general are incapable of looking at males in an objective was and excessively focus on the small upper strata and thinking it representative of the gender as whole. The fact is that there are massive differences among males because females are the sexual selectors and decides who gets to reproduce which leads to a majority of the ones at the top being male which feminists love to point out but also to the majority of those at the bottom being male which feminists conveniently ignore.

The majority of ruling class females get their position though inheritance, just as the males do and there are self-made women like the Theranos billionaire or the great feminist hero Victoria Woodhull who was the first woman to own a Wall Street Brokerage. There are more females with collge degrees today and given the same credentials they are much more likely to get hired due to gynocentric bias and discriminatory diversity qoutas.

But the important point is that females act in complete opposition to what they say, they loudly denounce the “patriarchs” at the top of society yet at the same time enthusiastically spread their legs for these same men, rewarding such behaviour, thereby ensuring that it persists and that the genes that manifest these dominant-sociopathic-extroverted tendencies remain securely in the gene-pool. They are very much beneficiaries of the high sexual inequality among males, the high-ranking minority of men even more so of course.


 No.2929625

>>2929608

>What is scientific and data-driven about some nonsense about how women denying you sex actually run the world?

You seem to confuse me with another anon. I never claimed that " women denying you sex actually run the world".

I completely agree with the rest of your post, though.


 No.2929646

>>2929619

What the actual fuck? This is pure ideology. A woman's cunt is not worth anywhere near as much as you think it is. No one is given whores executive power over the decisions of state, and at the end of the day they're disposable like everyone else. The few women at the top that are making executive decisions aren't whores in that sense.

>>2929625

Then what was your point, asshole? Sexual favors being traded and sexual rituals are part of this stupid society, and exist to perpetuate its most degenerate elements. That the left keeps getting destroyed by sexual politics just shows how inept it has been at understanding the world and holding power. It shouldn't be so easy to destroy a movement with sexual politics, you should have an answer to these questions without falling back on liberal answers, but you are getting destroyed, you're getting wrecked left and right and you keep walking into the same traps over and over.

There is a movement that wants to sell sexual politics extensively, because it would form the bedrock of an ideological system that makes social hierarchy permanent. Eugenics is a large part of this, and what the incels see is just a distortion that comes from eugenics ideology being dominant and completely unchallenged in the public sphere. They let the ideology get in their head, shape their views of what human interaction is like and how it ought to be, and actually believe that women offering their cunts is important.


 No.2929650

>>2929470

Just a fun fact, for my experience with incels most of then are not white.


 No.2929654

>>2929646

>A woman's cunt is not worth anywhere near as much as you think it is

But they are the ones deciding who has sex and by extension who reproduces.


 No.2929657

>>2929646

>What the actual fuck? This is pure ideology.

Lol, women deciding which men get offspring and which get to be cucked is not ideology.

The only ideology is the idea that women are doing this in anything approaching the a meritocratic and not by what the capitalist superstructure values, which they are so clearly brainwashed by.


 No.2929663

>>2929654

>>2929657

a) What does it matter? Reproducing is not the only purpose of life, retard. That's fascist ideology in of itself to place reproduction at the center of the mind.

b) Women literally don't know what the hell they want and are easily duped. They don't "decide" much of anything because most of them don't have an intellect to make independent decisions, and what intellect they have is dominated by social obligations.

Further, you've already outed yourself as someone submissive and obsequious, begging for approval from authority figures. That's more ideology. I don't need nor want "society" to approve my actions. If I wanted to be a scumbag, I could keep trying to dupe a woman into liking me, lie my ass off, and find a partner. I'd probably have to settle for some retarded woman who can't take care of herself, but hey, I have a womb for reproduction. But we all know that's not good enough for you, and if you somehow found a woman, you'd start bitching that she's not pretty enough, or that she doesn't do X and Y like they do in the femdom porn you obviously are addicted to.


 No.2929666

File: 8076807d758731a⋯.jpg (38.63 KB, 376x460, 94:115, Darwin.jpg)

>>2929663

>What does it matter? Reproducing is not the only purpose of life, retard. That's fascist ideology in of itself to place reproduction at the center of the mind.


 No.2929667

>>2929663

a) It kind of is apart from survival. i can't help it, my parents thoughabout reproduction and if they didn't I would not exist and inheritance is a thing.

b)

>Women literally don't know what the hell they want and are easily duped. They don't "decide" much of anything because most of them don't have an intellect to make independent decisions, and what intellect they have is dominated by social obligations.

I agree. What I mean is the biological organism, as in the female animal, rejects some males in favour of others in a pattern that is not random (and gnerally prefers those who they claim to dislike).

>If I wanted to be a scumbag, I could keep trying to dupe a woman into liking me, lie my ass off, and find a partner

In other words, you could get society to approve of you in the most essential sense, to let you father its next generation. but could youreally? I wish I could make myself believe that.

> like they do in the femdom porn you obviously are addicted to

wow rude


 No.2929678

>>2929646

>Eugenics is a large part of this, and what the incels see is just a distortion that comes from eugenics ideology being dominant and completely unchallenged in the public sphere.

Can you elaborate on this ?

can you comment on this article

https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-eugenics-will-always-fail-5925024


 No.2929688

>>2929678

What's to elaborate? The distributed harem's that women's participation in social media have created is a soft form of eugenics.

Men are being selected for reproduction based on some pretty crass capitalist values that women are instilled with by the same social media they are finding "Chads" on.

This is creating a large pool of male losers, that via the bachelor and child support debtors prisons, are being cucked into supporting children that either aren't theirs or via state violence, barred from raising.

This tension is causing more men to disavow the welfare state. I actually support the welfare state, but they way that women have been biting the hand feeds them for the past 20 years even makes me question my support of it at times. And yes it's mostly male proles upholding the welfare state via taxes. The taxes porky pays mostly go to military, police and other much more expense parts of the state that protect private property.

Studies have shown that women take 100k-300k more dollars in government services than they pay in taxes. While males on average pay 150k-200k more in taxes then they get in services.


 No.2929689

>>2929688

*that via the bachelor tax and child support debtors prisons

* but the way that women have


 No.2929710

>>2929688

This is difficult to decipher:

Are you saying that there is a eugenics movement where capitalists are manipulating women's sexual preferences towards the end of selectively breeding people ?

Can you explain what those "crass capitalist values" are that people are breed for ?

Can you explain how it works, how are women's sexual preferences modified ?

The second part of you post suffers from money mystification, the working class produces surplus, the capitalist-class steals most of it, and you seem to complaining that what's left isn't distributed correctly between men and women. I guess that men and women should unite to get the surplus that got stolen from them, because that is the bigger gain. And afterwards hash out the correct distribution between the sexes.


 No.2929712

>>2929667

I don't need "society" to approve of me, I only need to dupe one woman (or just force/coerce her, if I were of that sort). The need for "society" to approve of my existence is just you internalizing eugenic ideology, and it necessarily implies a ruling class as something permanent and unchangeable. You've just substituted women as a class for the ruling class because, for whatever reason, you are unable to accept the truth, or you've ingrained some incel shit into your psyche and can't get rid of it. Simply talking to women, and in particular women who have been rejected by society, should destroy the belief that women or "the sisterhood" is in charge of anything.

The reason this eugenic system endures and the social pressure is so strong is because a great deal of money, labor, and effort goes into enforcing these mores, and conditioning people to accept the eugenic order as natural and inevitable. It is not an immutable fact of nature, or ingrained into the female sex / femininity in general. Women have to be coerced by a strong, centralized state to be told they can't mate with certain kinds of men, and even then some women ignore those dictates and spite the system. It's the same as assuming the dominant sexual mores of Christianity are baked into the male or female genetic code or psychological makeup. We have a hostile environment for raising children because we live in a system where population control policies are pursued aggressively, and if the propaganda doesn't convince enough people, the state and institutions use force to punish those deemed dysgenic. (For example, I received a lot of misery simply because I was a third born child, because we have a de facto two child policy in this country and in much of the world and my family isn't rich enough for an exemption from this policy. Once they saw the slightest issue with me, before I could remember, I was marked as a defective and my life was essentially over for all intents and purposes. I was to be denied an education or any credential. But that is only possible because we have a centralized state, a school system, and because we're told over and over that the credential system matters even though it has not really produced great people.)

Since I have been able to convince a woman to lay with me, this isn't really a question. I could find someone desperate enough if I really want to put in the effort. There are men who can't, but those men have to be really far down the social totem pole, and they aren't usually the type of men who are on incel forums. (I could find maybe a few men in my time on incel boards that would actually be "incel" due to their social and economic circumstances, maybe a lot more if you count anyone on disability as being socially locked out of mating, which would actually be true if we look the system is structured. But usually it's petty booj types or working class men with jobs on these forums, and in right wing spaces they rail against welfare recipients of any sort.) Whether the outcome of such a union would be anything good is another question. I could just as well invent an artificial womb and eggs and inseminate that, given the material resources and technical knowhow, and there's no rule of nature that would stop me.


 No.2929714

>>2929678

I think I elaborated some on why incels have internalized the eugenics ideology, and assumed that it was imposed by the natural order of the universe or evolutionary psychology. But even those incels who don't fully internalize the ideology, who can see the real situation, lack a meaningful criticism of eugenics or the dominant social system we live under. They might engage in liberal self-loathing or beat themselves up in therapy sessions (that was the general attitude at the old, generally liberal Incel Support board), or they look entirely at phantoms that have no relevance. And obviously, there are a lot of problems with these people (and with myself) that make a relationship problematic in this environment. But if we want to see why this environment is so toxic, why so many people are dropping out, we have to look at what forces at work, and what is happening in the world. The prevalence of eugenic ideology, to me, is so obvious that everyone in the lower classes and even large parts of the middle class should be howling in rage, yet no one is acting, while people are literally killed - publicly and PROUDLY - for eugenics. The only thing I can conclude is that people are scared, very very scared, of criticizing eugenics in a meaningful way, and based on the reactions I get, and what others have told me / told the world, the fear is enforced by constant violent force, and the overwhelming strength of media control by the guiding institutions of this society, all of whom are on the same page. Even many socialists have passively, and occasionally quite actively, advanced eugenics, but eugenics can only exist in a society with extreme political inequality.

The article you linked, and many like it, are just a sop offered to the lower classes, telling them that eugenics is mean and stuff. It doesn't say anything meaningful or relevant, it doesn't even discuss the necessary implications of eugenics as an ideology and social system. It just says eugenics is mean and stuff, but just rebrand eugenics "population control" or "bioethics" or something that looks sufficiently class-neutral and you have the same principles at work. The whole of eugenism is only possible in a politically unequal society, and by tolerating its existence even in the slightest, socialism can't really make a reasonable claim about establishing a system of social equality because the logic of eugenics is that social or political equality is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen. Unless the believers of such an ideology are ruthlessly and constantly suppressed until their ideology no longer appears, you're wasting your time calling for a revolution to replace the economic system (or at best you're just replacing one form of class society with another, which is where we're heading right now and capitalism is running out of options).


 No.2929725

>>2929712

>>2929714

Nice senior thesis.


 No.2929768

File: 0e161d8ae9fa545⋯.jpg (68.14 KB, 600x719, 600:719, Podkowiński-Szał_uniesień-….jpg)

>>2929663

>Reproducing is not the only purpose of life

That's literally the core characteristic of life, the ability to self-reproduce a copy of oneself that can later reproduce itself. Though enabling people (like myself) to reproduce is on my agenda, our core priority should be to allow people to regroup and build self-reproducing communities/societies that depend less and less on centralized capital (ranging from HRT, ovum and stem-cell generation from skin cells, to sex robots with artificial wombs) This involves breaking apart the selfish bent of many people, including women but especially feminists, to commit the apex fallacy, which highlights casually misogynistic capitalist owners and frustrated violent incels while conveniently sweeping the decent men and women under the rug and who use the two unfortunate examples I mentioned to push towards cybernetic state male disenfranchisement.

>>2929666

Even I have to give the devil his due here, 663 went full retard, not us.


 No.2929775

File: 90228823050deb5⋯.png (541.53 KB, 661x755, 661:755, 17_women_1_man_ancient_Egy….PNG)

>>2929712

>Women have to be coerced by a strong, centralized state to be told they can't mate with certain kinds of men

Was there such a state 8000 years ago? Are there such states for non-human animals that show similar discrepancies in sex and reproduction as humans do, most interestingly of course other apes?

That societal arrangements can modify reproductive behaviour is not doubted by anone here, it can mitigate the inequality like the christian system of enforced monogamy did or increae it like sexual iberasm did. But in the end it doesn't matter why, the result is the same and it sucks for me, I would not be happier if there was no "eugenics" and I was just rejected by nature like plenty of male chimpanzeesor whatever are.


 No.2929786

>>2929714

>The prevalence of eugenic ideology, to me, is so obvious that everyone in the lower classes and even large parts of the middle class should be howling in rage.

You mean lower and middle income ranges, you know that classes are defined by relation to means of production.

As for eugenics, i'm going to need you to at least give me a description what is being selected against and what is being selected for, looking at this eugenics phenomenon from the point of view of artificial selective pressures.

>Even many socialists have passively, and occasionally quite actively, advanced eugenics, but eugenics can only exist in a society with extreme political inequality.

I find this hard to believe, i would advocate for using genetic manipulation towards improving health outcomes, my motivation of this is a reduction in heath-care expenses and "better quality of life" (lacking a proper articulation).

That said i don't particularly care if medical problems are solved in other ways, genetic editing might not be very effective, and it might be better to use molecular machinery to improve health. Do you find this objectionable ?

>The whole of eugenism is only possible in a politically unequal society, and by tolerating its existence even in the slightest, socialism can't really make a reasonable claim about establishing a system of social equality because the logic of eugenics is that social or political equality is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen. Unless the believers of such an ideology are ruthlessly and constantly suppressed until their ideology no longer appears, you're wasting your time calling for a revolution to replace the economic system

Political inequality is a symptom of economic inequality, nothing will change unless the economic system will change.


 No.2929788

>>2929775

Nature is not a conspiracy of women against you, idiot. Nature doesn't give a shit whether you or anyone else reproduces, and nature involve a great deal of death and misery as part of its workings. In the end, it doesn't matter, we're all going to die eventually and the question I'm concerned about is what I am to do with the time I have. I've found I have much better things to do than focus on sexual reproduction just so my child can be subjected to the same hellish world I grew up in but even more so. But if you want to keep chasing after muh biological imperative bullshit, you can do so. It's stupid and counterproductive.

Men in the past weren't terrified of being accused of rape for looking at a woman the wrong way. I'm sure you are, or you're going to find some excuse to believe it was a natural state of affairs and that the conspiracy of women are keeping you down, or some shit like that. It isn't women who make up this shit, though, because women couldn't organize shit politically if they tried their hardest. Women are pretty fucking dumb, even the best of them. Shit, men are dumb, humans in general are fucking dumb and could barely be called sentient, often ruled by their baser instincts and clouded by spooks and lies. But women, generally, are dumber than that, which is why even despite liberation women still follow the same tendencies they did before and can't really get the idea of what freedom actually is. Part of this is that women are specifically conditioned towards stupidity, but a lot of it is just natural tendencies playing out. I don't hate women, I don't blame them, I think they deserve freedom and dignity like anyone, and I wish it weren't the case that women were stupid, but it's just the sad truth that women set themselves up for failure and often don't know how to live alone. They couldn't organize a great conspiracy to do much if they tried, and you're giving women too much credit in their thought process when you talk about how they're with-holding sex and reproduction from you. There are quite a few women who are basically rejected from being able to reproduce, except unlike men they're often subjected to forced sterilization and outright social stigma. I wouldn't want to reproduce with them, even.


 No.2929794

>>2929710

>Are you saying that there is a eugenics movement where capitalists are manipulating women's sexual preferences towards the end of selectively breeding people ?

>What is literally the entire fashion, music, film and celebrity media entertainment industry/Society of the Spectacle

How do you think those desires towards "crass capitalist values" and consumer capitalism were and are implanted in the collective psychic mass of the people in the first place?

>>2929775

>Was there such a state 8000 years ago?

Yes, it was called the tribe, and the clan, because it was necessary to have as much labor and reproductive power under the control of one group as possible. This was enforced by the human condition prior to the agricultural revolution. There are tons of cultural holdovers from antiquity like bride kidnapping and bride price that reflect the sheer value of having a woman among your band; this is recorded in both the Bible in the Book of Judges, how a town was punished by the collective of the tribes for the mistreatment of one woman, but also it is one of the founding myths of Ancient Rome, where the city of Rome would have died out if they had not carried off the virgins of the Sabines, and later intermarried with the Sabines to build the Roman Empire together.

>>2929788

We get that shit is hard, but the solution is to get past each other and become pleasant people towards each other. The problem is what being pleasant entails, and in a dangerous world, much of the time, that is unattractive. Many times what turns a woman on is not pleasantness but violence, even as a bystander.

Read this and weep:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/collections/201211/the-aphrodisiac-power


 No.2929795

>>2929788

I never claimed that females are competent enough to run a conspiracy, rather they are just acting out their biological imperative without conscious understanding of it and their rationalizations are subservient to it. They are just the executioners of evolution and I am not any more free than they are to just hurr durr stop caring.

>Men in the past weren't terrified of being accused of rape for looking at a woman the wrong way. I'm sure you are

No, I'm not american.


 No.2929800

>>2929786

There is a middle class, dingbat. Managerial workers, teachers, doctors, are not the same thing as janitors and the lower orders of labor, however much you autistically insist they are the same thing. There is no "working class" as an actual thing with natural solidarity, just a multitude of classes that share in common subordination to a class of very rich people in liberal capitalism; and even then, many of the skilled professions are themselves members of the bourgeoisie, even by the strictest interpretation of the two class system (and Marx never said outright "there are only two classes", he instead noted that in capitalism two classes would tend to consolidate all the others, proletariat and bourgeoisie, and even this I think isn't how it winds up in practice, because Marx never imagined a liberal capitalist society with extreme, explicit political inequality built into the education system and actively pursued).

>I find this hard to believe, i would advocate for using genetic manipulation towards improving health outcomes,

Stop, you're not getting what eugenics IS. It is a system which necessarily purports a ruling class that can decide what traits are "good traits" for their subjects, and it can only persist with a strictly enforced social hierarchy. It's not about curing genetic diseases in a medical sense, that's just medicine. Eugenics, as an ideology, explicitly calls for control of the breeding stock for "human betterment" - or more specifically, the betterment of the people who see themselves at the top of the system. I don't see anything wrong with using genetic engineering to cure something like Down's syndrome. Eugenics is saying that Down's people should not be allowed to breed, should not be allowed to live, and should not be allowed to contaminate those with "good genes", and that's something different from curing or understanding disease. The only form of eugenics that can ever be valid is punishment for those deemed unfit, there is no such thing as "positive eugenics", whose policies couldn't be arrived at through some other kind of political ideology or simple common sense. No one wants to see a child who is hopelessly retarded and needs to be supported their entire life, so they wouldn't want to have children. Eugenics, as an ideology, demands that decision is not to made by the parents, or the person themselves, but by "society" - that is, the ruling class that has inserted itself at the top of the social order and seeks to make its status permanent and immutable. The ideology of eugenics literally cannot work without a ruling class permanently elevated above the rest of humanity, and if there is no lower class to exploit, the eugenicists can do nothing but turn against each other, in line with fascist ideology concerning the oneness of the superorganism.

>Political inequality is a symptom of economic inequality,

Political inequality under feudalism was explicitly stated, it was not based merely on the fact that peasants owned nothing and the nobility owned everything. The argument of liberalism is political equality (the abolition of explicitly declared classes as such) and the retention of private property as the natural right of people. Yet, the reality of liberal systems in practice has been that they retain de jure political inequality, because the liberal revolutionaries with a few exceptions never really believed in political equality. The trick, of course, is to declare that certain people can't really think, don't really have a soul or a mind as such, and this was and remains the primary argument for slavery. It is still the case in law that just about anyone, at any time, can be declared a mental invalid and stripped of any meaningful rights, and in fact something around 20% of the population in America is explicitly restricted for this reason due to being declared mentally defective in some way. This explicit distinction is not merely an emergence of capitalism, because it persisted in socialist systems, and the way they were constructed made such a system an inevitability. Capitalism gives you an explanation of the basis for their power, and Marx's critique tells you how the system can't work on its own terms in an idealized way. But it is perfectly possible to find some other form of class society that doesn't involve capitalism, and that has been the big political project of the 20th and 21st century.


 No.2929801

>>2929794

>How do you think those desires towards "crass capitalist values" and consumer capitalism were and are implanted in the collective psychic mass of the people in the first place?

You tell me


 No.2929802

>>2929794

And I already said, women are fucking stupid. Violence and barbarism are the most expedient answers, and sexuality is the realm of the superficial. Are you seriously arguing we should base our whole worldview, ideology, and praxis on the basest of instincts, one that routinely destroys our own lives and causes nothing but misery? That's retarded, it's a self-defeating mechanism, and you're stupid for abiding by it. But it's at the heart of eugenics.


 No.2929804

>>2929800

>There is no "working class" as an actual thing with natural solidarity, just a multitude of classes that share in common subordination to a class of very rich people in liberal capitalism

That's the exact distinction that constitutes the class. They're not distinct classes. They're variations on the same class who has to sell their labor power.


 No.2929809

>>2929804

Yes, you can say there's a "working class", but you can't really say there's this thing, "THE working class" that thinks it is one unified thing. Solidarity of that sort has to be built, just as the capitalists aren't some hive mind by nature.

I draw the distinction between middle class (those workers who are attached to the higher machinery of labor, who have some control over what actually happens on the ground) and the lower class that are trained to follow and beaten into submission. This is a very crude distinction, but it roughly corresponds to who has a university education, and who does not. In the past, university education and middle class status was the domain mostly of the bourgeoisie itself, but with the creation of universal education systems and their proliferation throughout the entire professional sphere, down to the lowest levels of labor, you're not really talking about the same kind of society where there's a huge body of workers. The teachers and engineers might be poor as fuck, but they do not and can not see the janitor or Wal-Mart peon as a genuine equal, even beyond the superficial trappings of income or capitalist privilege. They are doing and thinking very different things, and have fundamentally different goals, and due to the prevalence of eugenics throughout the educated class, their goals are fundamentally contradictory (appropriate, since that was the goal of eugenics).


 No.2929816

>>2929809

> but you can't really say there's this thing, "THE working class" that thinks it is one unified thing. Solidarity of that sort has to be built, just as the capitalists aren't some hive mind by nature.

Class =/= a self-aware organization. It's a category of people who share the same relationship to their society's political economy.

>I draw the distinction between middle class (those workers who are attached to the higher machinery of labor, who have some control over what actually happens on the ground) and the lower class that are trained to follow and beaten into submission.

That's a valid distinction, but they are still proletarian in the strict sense. Classifying them as separate class-wise is both inaccurate and counterproductive to building solidarity. The distinction is more accurately described as a sub-class.

>university education and middle class status was the domain mostly of the bourgeoisie itself, but with the creation of universal education systems and their proliferation throughout the entire professional sphere, down to the lowest levels of labor, you're not really talking about the same kind of society where there's a huge body of workers.

Being educated isn't how you distinguish class and isn't the reason the bourgeoisie used to be the middle class. They were the middle class because the upper class was the nobility, who had a different relationship to political economy. Nobility owned the land and collected rent/tribute. The lower class was forced to work for the nobility, but the bourgeois middle class was able to increase its standing through capital accumulation by making their living through trade. These are three different relations to the production process in society, not merely a difference of circumstance. Such distinctions don't exist between the modern "middle class" and workers at large. The difference is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. Level of education represents value invested into them, increasing their labor power. The value of their labor is higher because education has given them skills that improve their ability to work (in theory at least, college debt is a matter of either debt slavery or to gatekeep people out of upper class work).

>due to the prevalence of eugenics throughout the educated class, their goals are fundamentally contradictory

How? Is this some r/K selection bullshit?


 No.2929822

>>2929816

Jesus fucking Christ you have a child's understanding of class.

The educated class is practically in a different world from the typical worker, and in a much different world than the lumpens. The fact that Marx had to invent the lumpenproletariat because he was butthurt about Napoleon III kind of tells you how thorough his class analysis actually is.

But go on, keep asking yourself why your organization has nothing but the same kind of college kids and old folks, doing the same stupid shit and getting absolutely nowhere. Hint: it's not the machinations of the dastardly capitalists. You guys sabotage yourself in a million different ways before Porky sends his goons. If your orgs aren't honeypots from the start, they're so impotent that nothing is going to come out of them.

You try to tell me that education doesn't provide distinct class privileges when your class is constantly catered to and placated, and my class is openly scorned and issued regular death threats for having the temerity to continue existing. Educational credentials open you to a whole different world, one where you have free movement around most of the world and you can get a job practically guaranteed unless you fall into the class of mental defectives that are actively discriminated against (and if you're trying to deny THAT class distinction which is explicitly stated in law, I don't know what to tell you). The difference between the educated and the uneducated is literally night and day, and it starts practically as early as children form any sort of coherent memory. It's written into how people are treated, what they can and cannot do, and so on. It's so ingrained that literally no one questions it, and those who do are treated as some sort of crazy person and forcefully silenced, threatened, and terrorized. People can only vaguely gesticulate about what is happening, because they've been deprived of any meaningful language to criticize what is happening except "oh, it's mean and stuff, life isn't fair".


 No.2929826

>>2929822

>The educated class is practically in a different world from the typical worker, and in a much different world than the lumpens.

The petty bourgeois and the plutocrats are practically in different worlds and they are both bourgeoisie. Yes there are important differences, but they are part of the same fundamental class.

>Educational credentials open you to a whole different world, one where you have free movement around most of the world and you can get a job practically guaranteed

This isn't even true any more. Loads of people with masters degrees are working blue collar jobs because higher education is a meme designed to put people into debt. You've got all this class contempt for people who aren't even a different class and are disappearing. If you want to be mad about a "middle class" be mad not at the skilled workers, but the professional managers who are petite bourgeois and exist to create distance between the owners and the peons.

>The difference between the educated and the uneducated is literally night and day, and it starts practically as early as children form any sort of coherent memory. It's written into how people are treated, what they can and cannot do, and so on.

What you're describing is not class differences but cultural ones. It's ok to recognize differences between people that aren't class, dude.


 No.2929831

>>2929826

The educated enter into lower class work, but they do not think and do not act as if they are in the lower class. They will demand to be above people like me in any new order they fight for, and they will get what they want. I have no interest in fighting their struggle to create a meritocracy. They have made it clear that they do not want me in their movements, and openly heap scorn on me and anyone like me, no matter what I do.

More importantly, their status as the educated and valid is explicitly written into law at multiple points. It is merely not absolutely enforced, and to a large extent money allows one to buy legitimacy in the so-called meritocracy. Enough money can even get you out of eugenics - for now. But in the future, that will not be a possibility. The new aristocracy will demand this loophole be cleared, and once that is done, people like me will be the first targets for elimination. This plan of action is openly announced over and over, both by the capitalist rulers and their educated functionaries. There will be no revolution, merely a merger between the educated and those capitalists who see an opportunity to reconcile themselves with a new order, once the system of global finance and capital is no longer sustainable. The merger between the educated, some of the old capitalists, and their fascist thugs, will turn against the population and begin massive exterminations the likes of which we have never seen. There is no way to avert this fate, no way to negotiate with it.


 No.2929838

>>2929831

>class isn't about what job you do, it's about how you act

>the bourgeoisie will ally with art student baristas

log off dude


 No.2929845

>>2929838

Doing labor is an act people do. I'm not talking about act as in a performance, I'm talking about what people actually do, both on the job and off, which I can only presume they do because it serves some purpose they have in mind.

This shit I had to endure all my life wasn't merely a "performance", it was something repeated over, and over, deliberately and for a clear reason that was acted upon. It isn't just because I'm poor and "working class" and it was the mean boojies, it's because of divisions within this working class, that indicate that given a revolutionary situation or anything like that, the various classes that compose the working class will turn on each other with a viciousness far greater than the booj against the proles (and that, again, is saying a lot).

As for the booj aligning with art student baristas, what do you think the socjus liberal left is? Woke capitalism is a very real phenomenon.


 No.2929850

File: 874b0814fec7994⋯.png (4.3 KB, 393x391, 393:391, dingbats.png)

>>2929800

>There is a middle class dingbat

This seems odd, can you point it out (pic)

A middle class only exists in social democracy where middle income is constituted as a political organised force usually via worker-unions , we live in neo-liberalism, hence no middle class.

>Managerial workers, teachers, doctors, are not the same thing as janitors and the lower orders of labor…

>There is no "working class" as an actual thing with natural solidarity, just a multitude of classes that share in common subordination to a class of very rich people in liberal capitalism

class is defined by the relation to means of production, i don't quite understand why you are looking at different professions.

>Marx never said outright "there are only two classes"

He distiguished between lumpenproletarial, proletarian, labour aristocracy, petty bourgeois, bourgeois class, rentiers, finance capital etc.

>Marx never imagined a liberal capitalist society with extreme, explicit political inequality built into the education system and actively pursued.

Marx wrote 3 books about how economic inequality results in political inequality.

>Stop, you're not getting what eugenics IS….

The way you describe it they want to reduce the size of the gene-pool of the species, by further reducing genetic diversity, well humans already have low genetic diversity compared to other species. This would increase the likelihood of doubling up recessive genes, Also you can't really breed humans for traits, that only works if you can observe and control many generations, meaning you need to have a lifespan multiple times as long as the species you are breeding, that's why nobody is breeding Elephants. Also when you say a ruling class decides about traits, can you tell me at least what the current ruling class is selecting for ?

>Eugenics, as an ideology, demands that decision is not to made by the parents, or the person themselves, but by "society" - that is, the ruling class that has inserted itself at the top of the social order and seeks to make its status permanent and immutable. The ideology of eugenics literally cannot work without a ruling class permanently elevated above the rest of humanity, and if there is no lower class to exploit, the eugenicists can do nothing but turn against each other, in line with fascist ideology concerning the oneness of the superorganism.

I cannot translate this into biology, and hence cannot really understand what this means, there are no permanent immutable ruler/subject genes. Im assuming the oneness of the super-organism is a metaphor of some sort, like the recurring theme in scifi with liquid aliens that can all flow into one larger organism. But i don't quite grasp how this relates to people in the real world. You also make a leap of logic when you link the absence of class exploitation to eugenicists turning against each other, can you explain how this works

>Political inequality under feudalism was explicitly stated, it was not based merely on the fact that peasants owned nothing and the nobility owned everything.

Feudal order were build and uphold by economic power, the theocratic justification for surplus extraction didn't hold once economic power changed. You seem to continuously attempting to reverse causality.

> It is still the case in law that just about anyone, at any time, can be declared a mental invalid and stripped of any meaningful rights, and in fact something around 20% of the population in America is explicitly restricted for this reason due to being declared mentally defective in some way.

Is this about some academics attempting to declare "toxic masculinity" as mental illness ?

> it persisted in socialist systems, and the way they were constructed made such a system an inevitability. Capitalism gives you an explanation of the basis for their power, and Marx's critique tells you how the system can't work on its own terms in an idealized way. But it is perfectly possible to find some other form of class society that doesn't involve capitalism, and that has been the big political project of the 20th and 21st century.

This seems like a jab at early Soviet and Chinese Communists pursuing pseudo scientific dead ends, they changed course once they figured this out, they were not eugenicists, they initially thought genetics was bourgois for crying out loud.

You can't go back to feudalism, that is not possible the material conditions for feudalism to exist have been exhausted, so You seem to propose a new theory where a new type of class society can arise after capitalism, yet offer not even a description for that.

In any case you do need to have a economic system without economic classes before you can attempt to change the symptoms of class society.


 No.2929867

>>2929850

The middle class proper is a shorthand for those educated professions, and the specific legal and quasi-legal status afforded to them. The socdem usage of the term intentionally obscures what is meant by this, in order to present the illusion that well paid workers are fundamentally the same thing as the educated professions that hold the overwhelming majority of that class's political power, and its general interests and potential direction. Incidentally, the well-paid members of the middle-income-earners that are uneducated tend to be the most antagonistic towards the meritocracy and the Academy, not because they're really petit booj (their circumstances aren't much different from the educated socialists that call themselves "working class"), but because they are quite aware of their position and how putting the Academy in charge of everything would likely lead to their jobs either being reduced to the level of menials, or themselves removed from the positions to be replaced with people of the correct Academic pedigree. Unfortunately, they too often subordinate to eugenics, and are fairly amenable to its fascist variant.

>Marx wrote 3 books about how economic inequality results in political inequality.

Marx didn't right about education and the meritocracy, because (a) generalized, universal education wasn't a thing when he was around, and (b) such an analysis would undermine his goal of waging a revolution of people of his class and inclination, so if he ever came close to the matter he would quickly brush it aside and deal with quantities of unskilled, "normal" labor, despite that in his time there were many people already submerged into the ranks of the untouchables, not even fit for exploitation by capital.


 No.2929868

>>2929867

>>2929850

>I cannot translate this into biology, and hence cannot really understand what this means, there are no permanent immutable ruler/subject genes.

Eugenics as an ideology purports (against all evidence and reason) that there is a set of "ruler genes", or some master race / master class that is endowed with the virtue to rule as the naturally meritorious. In theory, a meritocracy could form without a eugenicist basis, but the meritocrats inevitably would lean on any pretext to justify their position and passing it down to heirs, whether biological heirs or adoptive heirs. Eugenics can only be understood as pure ruling class ideology, the belief that the rulers should rule absolutely.

>You also make a leap of logic when you link the absence of class exploitation to eugenicists turning against each other, can you explain how this works

Eugenics necessarily requires a class society in order to justify itself, and it does not tolerate its own dissolution under any circumstances (because by its own rules, nature and its worship trumps all, it is the guiding and only principle by which to govern society). If there is no underclass, it becomes necessary to create one, in order to maintain the evolutionary pressure that underpins its ideology. It has nothing to do except turn inward on its own people, unless there is literally one person in the whole eugenicist society. That is where the superorganism in fascist ideology finds its root, the belief that ultimately there will be only one mind, one person, in the whole of society, and all other people and entities are to follow it.


 No.2929869

>>2929850

>Feudal order were build and uphold by economic power, the theocratic justification for surplus extraction didn't hold once economic power changed.

The point of the eugenic system, its laws, its particular concentration of wealth and the means of production into the hands of those who will further the ideology, is to prevent the material basis for a change in the system from ever taking place. Since laws and theories by themselves cannot guarantee this, the only solution for the eugenic state is to use overwhelming, violent force and to totalize all that exists under the aegis of humanity. To the eugenicist, there is no world outside of men or social relations, and the idealized eugenic world is a panopticon. When violent force too is not enough, the eugenicist must resort to deliberately dumbing down the populace, inserting toxins into their food, and so on, lest the lower orders ever gain any sort of position from which the totalized system can be threatened.

In short, the ability to do this did not exist until the 20th century, and once that ability was technologically possible (and consciously sought after), it has fundamentally changed the social and class system from the monopoly capitalism of Marx's and Lenin's day. We are dealing here with a much different construction at its base; one with many of the characteristics of capitalism, yes, but ultimately the existence of central banks like the Fed, a shell game taken to epic proportions, ameliorate to a degree the crises of 19th century capitalism, once the system was able to find its footing in the mid 20th century. A form of capitalism persists because it is inevitable as long as large armies of labor and soldiers make the difference in war and in battle, but at the end of the Cold War, this is no longer the case. It is no accident then that just as soon as the Cold War was over, the eugenic state came out in full force and began a great war against the underclasses and against the low in general, and the educated saw where this was going and see now what they can accomplish. Capitalism can't continue much longer without a general crisis, America's empire is built on a house of cards and so many lies that much of its capital is fictitious. There will be a need to abrogate the agreement that money can buy your way out of eugenics, and abrogate the belief in anything resembling human rights or the dignity of the person.

>Is this about some academics attempting to declare "toxic masculinity" as mental illness ?

20% is the figure I heard for the expected rate of "serious mental illness", that is, mental illness that involves some sort of intervention from the legal system. The explicitly defined legal status of mental defectives should be obvious to any adult, and if you are ignoring that it exists, then you should burn in Hell for your fucking ignorance.


 No.2929870

>>2929867

>This seems like a jab at early Soviet and Chinese Communists pursuing pseudo scientific dead ends

I'm not some idiot who's trying to say the USSR or China are some conspiracy to prop up meritocracy. They were attempts to do socialism as Marx envisioned, but the theory itself just doesn't work, and the problems in the USSR illustrate why it doesn't really work the way people thought it would. Essentially, the USSR could never grapple with eugenics, or with fascism, ideologically. It could only attack phantoms and claim that fascism was just some variant of capitalism, rather than a primitive form of the emerging eugenicist mode of production. The recent prevalence of fascism around the world and its renormalization should prove that the fash are going to be a transitional state between the old capitalist system and the new eugenicist system.

>You can't go back to feudalism, that is not possible the material conditions for feudalism to exist have been exhausted

That's silly, a regression is definitely possible. It is always possible. I don't think feudalism is even useful as a descriptor, there's basically pre-capitalist property and capitalist property, and then what is to come next. But if there were no eugenics movement somehow (suppose it was smothered by the general public being so utterly outraged that they put Francis Galton to the torch along with the rest of the milieu, scaring off the Academy from ever publicly implementing their system), the likely course of capitalism would have been to just call off the whole democracy thing and do feudalism but with corporations and industry, complete with lords and a new aristocracy. That's kind of what the GOP is selling these days, when they're not being outright fash.

>You seem to propose a new theory where a new type of class society can arise after capitalism, yet offer not even a description for that.

Eugenics, defined by sortition by the Academy at a young age, is the new social system and mode of production. Production is no longer carried out in pursuit of "value" so much as it is carried out with the deliberate aim of modifying the human, particularly the lower classes who are reduced effectively to a state of total slavery. The chief goal of the system is to reinforce itself, constantly and forever, and the further the lower classes are driven into slavery and torture, the better the system "works". The middle class in such a system would be offered the illusion of some freedom, perhaps even allowed a quasi-market since that is an expedient method of motivation, but every time they come close to entry into the upper classes, their ability to rise will be withdrawn and the middle class will simply be executed ruthlessly for stepping outside of their assigned place. Torture, humiliation, and degradation will become routine, normal, valuable, and self-justifying. There will be no God except the rulers, who style themselves as such. The ruling class will lapse into total degeneracy, engaging in depraved orgies just to prove that they can, having no desire to change the system and no real ability to stop what their forebears put into motion. Because the overriding ideology of eugenics is to reproduce itself and the hierarchy, it cannot allow a reform into some other system, and any such thoughts are quickly purged if they ever appear among the lower orders (who, lacking access to any means of improving their intellect and likely being deliberately damaged by the education system, will never be able to formulate any coherent theory, much less publish it). Such a system has been referred to by others as "Scientific Dictatorship".


 No.2929888

>>2929801

>You tell me

Ok now you are just being deliberately obtuse. This is stupid


 No.2930105

File: ca9ae8fced00422⋯.mp4 (293.11 KB, 480x386, 240:193, perpetual-motion.mp4)

>>2929867

>The middle class proper is a shorthand…

Economic class is how people relate to the means of production. If you want to group people by income then the socdems are correct in equating manual labour and mental labour, that have similar incomes. Socialist want to incrementally abolish the social differences between mental and manual labour, because in the end people are contributing their time just the same. The way to do this by paying students , and equating education with work. This will have the effect of increasing the supply of educated people and the stratification of intelligentsia will decrease.

>universal education wasn't a thing when he was around

And it still isn't a thing, there is an enormous class difference in education, that is manifested by payed tutors, and expensiver higher education.

>Eugenics as an ideology…

I get that it is a self serving falsehood, however you did at least subtextually claim that they change the biology of people and i wish to understand in what ways, from an objective point of view, not from the point of view of a eugenicist.

>Eugenics necessarily requires a class society in order to justify itself… If there is no underclass, it becomes necessary to create one…

This seem nonsensical, class societies cannot be created by eugenicist believes. I get the impression you want to distract from economic basis for class society .

The point of the eugenic system, its laws, its particular concentration …. deliberately dumbing down the populace, inserting toxins into their food, and so on….

The primary contradiction is class, if you tamper with the food supply, that is a attempt at mass murder, there will be no mercy, and no escape.

>Essentially, the USSR could never grapple with eugenics, or with fascism, ideologically. It could only attack phantoms and claim that fascism was just some variant of capitalism

Fascism is a stage of capitalism, and you can't possibly blame the Soviets for not being hard enough on eugenics proponents, they got kicked out of scientific institutes, purged from the party, and some got gulaged, exiled or even executed, what more do you want. This level of brutality for what essentially is a false hypothesis would normally be inexcusable, and the Soviets only get a pass on this because the Nazis used this as justification for their plans to exterminate 60 to 70 % of the Slavic ethnicity in Russia.

> a primitive form of the emerging eugenicist mode of production.

are you trolling me ?, it's a pseudo scientific theory that has been refuted scientifically and is oltically and socially discredited. Everybody knows the Air-force has a "secrete biogenic weapons program or something" since they got caught asking people for DNA samples based on ethnicity. And everybody knows it's a con-job where somebody is exploiting scientific ignorance of military official's to probably fund research on something else. Looting the defence budget is a systemic feature of capitalism.

>a regression to feudalism is definitely possible….. just call off the whole democracy thing and do feudalism but with corporations and industry, complete with lords and a new aristocracy. That's kind of what the GOP is selling these days

Both political parties in the US are shilling for corporatism, and no feudalism is no longer possible because the material conditions are exhausted, the people pursuing this are fighting against reality. By the way attempting of implementing full corporatism in the US will fracture the US into tiny city states, that would become subjugated by other capitalist powers. The more technological economies become the greater the penalty will become for irrational allocation of resources and labour time. Both the Soviets and the Chinese communists had a significant economic advantage because they had a higher degree of rational planing, than comparable capitalist countries, with current technology this advantage would be even more pronounced. If one were to implement a similar system but with bug fixes like actually fully implementing time and material accounting i.e. abolishing money, such a socialist mode of production would not be reversible, it would transform the material conditions the same way capitalism transformed the material conditions that no longer make it possible to revert back to feudalism.

>Eugenics, defined by sortition by the Academy at a young age, is the new social system and mode of production, … bla bla , slavery … enternal system.

I'm out, none of this is viable, slave societies are outrageously inefficient, in current conditions such a society wouldn't last a month before it got wiped out by the economic contraction. Lets not even bother explaining why there can never be an eternal system. (pic)


 No.2930187

>>2930105

>I'm out, none of this is viable, slave societies are outrageously inefficient, in current conditions such a society wouldn't last a month before it got wiped out by the economic contraction.

Lol there's more slaves now under capitalism than at any point in history. And where do you get off saying inefficiency will take down a mode of production. Capitalism is wildly inefficient and has successfully papered over that with wide scale violence.

What took down capitalism was the bourgeoisie, and what took down slave societies were more complex then simply inefficiency.


 No.2930270

>>2930187

He's an idiot who thinks this stuff is just memes and aesthetics, papered over with a grade school understanding of socialist economic planning.

I don't think "feudalism" ever really ended, as in the revolutionary bourgeoisie violently overthrew the aristocracy. The first liberal revolutions, after all, failed in the end and the French monarchy was restored, and the growth of liberalism came through steady reform after many failed revolutionary attempts were put down by conservative forces. From what I see, the old aristocracy and the upper parts of the bourgeoisie realized they had far more in common and a common enemy in all the small folk (both the petty booj/smallholders and the propertyless working class), and more or less agreed to rule side by side. The aristocrats of old are still around today, sometimes with their noble titles intact and their former legal privileges converted into informal markers of merit. They were never truly violently displaced in full, except in the countries that went towards Marxism. (The American countries are a weird case where formally there never was an aristocracy as such, but there is an effective aristocracy that is very much active in American politics and in the upper crust of American wealth. The highest echelons of the bourgeoisie simply became the new noble families and merged with what could be called American nobility, and act every bit the part; those people don't believe in capitalism and muh free markets, they want straight up feudal relations and to rule over the country like kings, and that's what they've been getting.)


 No.2930304

File: 919d3def73b9d79⋯.mp4 (158.04 KB, 480x316, 120:79, 1steam.mp4)

>>2930187

>Lol there's more slaves now under capitalism than at any point in history. And where do you get off saying inefficiency will take down a mode of production. Capitalism is wildly inefficient and has successfully papered over that with wide scale violence.

Great you don't know what slavery is, slaves are considered property in the economic system, most slaves are subjected to such aggressive forms of psychological trauma that they no longer can perform cognitively challenging tasks or learn complex skills. that means they have very low productivity and other than waged work cannot be easily be hired and fired, but would have to be sold low and bought high, to adapt to vary demands of labour.

Slave societies came before feudalism, and largely were supplanted by it, there first steam engine was invented in a slave society and the potential for an industrial revolution, could not be realised because it was a slave society, It's quite simple if you buy a slave it would be against your economic interests to attempt to replace it with a machine.

In contemporary conditions a society attempting to revert to slave society in a significant way would be utter clobbered by competing capitalist ones. But more likely would be that the internal collapse of productive efficiency would cause it fail because there would no longer be enough surplus for maintaining administrative functions. No amount of violence could compensate for this.

>>2930270

>He's an idiot ….

Ad-hominem fallacy followed by confusing feudal elements in society with feudal productive relations.


 No.2930318

>>2930304

Ad hominem would imply I was making a debate argument on a point. I called you what you are because your understanding is demonstrably weak and you keep repeating the same misunderstandings because you think your crude bastardization of Marxist theory will be passively supported by other idiots (there are many on this board who couldn't really read Marx critically).

I think it's been documented that Marx's crude model of how societies progress has been more or less scrapped, that there isn't really a distinct "feudal" stage. My take is that there are times of rapid accumulation of property that allow for large empires to dominate (see: Roman empire and its slave economy, and modern capitalism), and times when that breaks down. Mapping this on the rest of the world has been very problematic.

Other anon is right, there are literally owned slaves in the world today, and a multitude of other forms of bonded labor, human trafficking, and so on. Something like 200 million people in some form of slavery is what I heard was estimated, 27 million of which are outright slaves.

You just think slavery is a feel and that if you gussy it up it's suddenly better. You really are that fucking stupid.


 No.2930380

>>2930318

>Ad hominem would imply I was making a debate argument on a point.

You are using indirect sub-textually rhetorical means of framing to achieve the same

>I called you what you are

circular reasoning

>because your understanding is demonstrably weak

You didn't demonstrate this

>passively supported by other idiots (there are many on this board who couldn't really read Marx critically).

this is a adhominen

>I think it's been documented that Marx's crude model of how societies progress has been more or less scrapped, that there isn't really a distinct "feudal" stage. My take is that there are times of rapid accumulation of property that allow for large empires to dominate (see: Roman empire and its slave economy, and modern capitalism), and times when that breaks down. Mapping this on the rest of the world has been very problematic.

Just assertions

>Other anon is right, there are literally owned slaves in the world today, and a multitude of other forms of bonded labor, human trafficking, and so on. Something like 200 million people in some form of slavery is what I heard was estimated, 27 million of which are outright slaves.

So conflation of salves and other forms of aggressive exploitation aside, there are according to you 27 million slaves that fit the definition against, billions of waged workers that means that slavery is not a large phenomenon, this isn't supposed to be a moral argument, it's a technical argument about large scale slave societies being no longer viable.

>You just think slavery is a feel and that if you gussy it up it's suddenly better

I said that slavery causes brain-damage that makes slaves bad at cognitively demanding tasks, for both mental and skilled labour hence slaves have low productivity.

> You really are that fucking stupid.

Why bother with the insults, this only diminishes your credibility.


 No.2930382

>>2930187

*What took down feudalism


 No.2930384

>>2930304

>Great you don't know what slavery is, slaves are considered property in the economic system,

Yes, and we have millions of slaves that work with no pay and no rights. From prisoners to fishermen chained to their workstations.

>most slaves are subjected to such aggressive forms of psychological trauma that they no longer can perform cognitively challenging tasks or learn complex skills.

>slavery makes slaves retarded.

Lol, no

>that means they have very low productivity

They can be worked longer and harder with less accommodations.

>and other than waged work cannot be easily be hired and fired,

Yes they can.

>but would have to be sold low and bought high, to adapt to vary demands of labour.

What the fuck are you even blathering about. As long as the slave produces more profit for you than you paid for them your ahead.


 No.2930391

>Slave societies came before feudalism, and largely were supplanted by it,

We had chattle slavery until the mid 19th century.

>there first steam engine was invented in a slave society and the potential for an industrial revolution, could not be realised because it was a slave society,

Uh, the south used plenty of steam power.

>It's quite simple if you buy a slave it would be against your economic interests to attempt to replace it with a machine.

Lol no, slaves, like any worker, can produce more commodities with machines. The only thing that stopped southern slavers from continuing to thrive under capitalism was a then unprecedented slaughter and destruction of their state and its citizens.


 No.2930398

>>2930380

>You didn't demonstrate this

He cited the fact that there are 27 million slaves right now. After you said slavery was an unsustainable mode of production in modern times due to inefficiency. How do you reconcile this?


 No.2930405

>>2930380

>So conflation of salves and other forms of aggressive exploitation aside, there are according to you 27 million slaves that fit the definition against, billions of waged workers that means that slavery is not a large phenomenon, this isn't supposed to be a moral argument, it's a technical argument about large scale slave societies being no longer viable.

You purposely ignored that anon's 200 million figure of people in some form of bonded labor.

Regardless even if you are only going with the 27 million figure that's more workers than even the largest governments. And before capitalism is so integrated their labor is demonstrably in the supply chains of millions of enterprises. Many enterprises is which would collapse if said slaves were freed.


 No.2930409

>>2930405

*And because capitalism is so integrated


 No.2930414

>>2930380

>I said that slavery causes brain-damage that makes slaves bad at cognitively demanding tasks, for both mental and skilled labour hence slaves have low productivity.

This is demonstrably false, slaves produce a variety of commodities that require skill and brains.

The only reason why you don't see enslaved brain surgeons is because the state or slavers ever educate their slaves, is still an underground phenomenon.


 No.2930425

>>2930414

*slavers never educate their slaves, it is still an underground phenomenon.


 No.2930435

File: 12dda1ba109be4e⋯.jpg (216.81 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, akrales_180810_2785_1171.jpg)

>>2856439

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvM_pRfuFM

What do you people think about this video? I know you fucks hate conTRAPoints with a passion but I think this is a pretty good video as it shows that gender is a whole load of bullshit anyway.


 No.2930443

File: b62c728a279eaea⋯.png (55.67 KB, 1008x292, 252:73, patreon_contrapoints.PNG)


 No.2930451

>>2930443

and your point being?

they asked you a question, "what do you think of this video?" not "post an image in reaction with no context"


 No.2930471

>>2909553

When you're so closeted you practically came out the closet.


 No.2930474

I DEFEND incels.

Why Should everyone be handsome?

If someone is ugly;LET him be ugly!

Ley him be Bitter,for that is the fate of some of use.


 No.2930476

>>2930435

Everyone here hates Ecelebs but I un-ironically think Breadtube is serving as a pipeline for the far-left that we actually needed. Radlibs can be easily converted, whenever I make friends that are radlibs all it takes is talking to them about Contrapoints in order to get them curious about communism. The rest is easy.


 No.2930483

>>2930435

I miss contra videos about politics, they were kinda funny, gender shit is just boring.


 No.2930484

File: 33edb44fab6490f⋯.jpg (18.28 KB, 347x331, 347:331, sakal-1.jpg)

>>2930443

>9400 patron and minimum donations of 2$ excluding youtube money and direct donations


 No.2930488

>>2930476

They're doing good work but we really need more tankie content on that scene, current youtube tankies are way too dry and serious for zoomers.


 No.2930500

>>2930476

Well, Contrapoints is almost singlehandedly the reason I'm a leftist now, before that I used to be a """""centrist""""" shitlib with slight socdem leanings ( I didn't even know what social democracy was, I just thought that socialism is when the government does stuff, and I wanted the government to do stuff) until I watched her "How To Identify A White Supremacist" video, then I found out about the rest of Breadtube, then I discovered the Chapo subreddit, then I read The Manifesto, then I found out this board and now I'm a proud tankie zoomer.


 No.2930512

>>2930414

Highly learned Greek slaves to teach philosophy were a thing too, and they were no less slaves than the poor sod sent to the mines to die. A good number of highly skilled positions in Antiquity were carried out by slaves, including some bureaucratic functions, and the same was true in other cultures around the world.


 No.2930514

>>2930512

Did not know this.


 No.2930515

>>2930514

I would think everyone knows this, but autismo over there keeps yammering about how slavery is this or that like it was some civic you could pick in Civilization or something with bonuses and drawbacks. Someone has to say it just to shut him up.


 No.2930531

>>2930435

It was a whole lot of nothing until I got tired of listening and closed the window. Contra has loads of bad takes but he (she, whatever) does a little better than the typical lib. I don't see what point was being made except that we should like trans people or stuff. I think he's just trying to make something out of nothing and is a charlatan with decent production values and some humor. Ask any man if they really think trans women are women when it comes time to bed them and the answer is overwhelmingly "not really" unless that man has some serious issues understanding the human body. Even the trans women who do take efforts to pass and do pass reasonably well don't get treated like women in practice if their condition is known, and men are fairly capable of seeing the truth.


 No.2930542

File: b6dc695b5cd1b08⋯.jpg (156.29 KB, 660x952, 165:238, b6dc695b5cd1b08bad165eb166….jpg)

>>2930500

aw cute a newfag


 No.2930545

>>2930488

I personally find Cockshott's voice to be like soothing ASMR.


 No.2930547

>>2930542

I know it feels good but being elitist towards newfags in leftist spaces is pretty counterproductive to our goals.


 No.2930576

>>2930391

>>2930384

>>2930398

>>2930409

>>2930425

I made the argument that slavery on a large scale is not viable, 27 million is not a large scale when there are billions of workers. (keep in mind that the conditions for workers can be as bad as slavery while not still being slavery) Slave societies were replaced by feudalism, even though slavery continued long after that. This is about the dominant mode of surplus extraction.

Slaves are considered property in the economic system, most slaves are subjected to such aggressive forms of psychological trauma that on average they no longer can perform cognitively challenging tasks or learn complex skills. (this is demonstrated by the fact that there are no slaves in sophisticated professions either mental or manual type, if it would have been possible to create slave brain surgeons somebody would have already done it) that means the enslavement process causes lower productivity and other than waged work cannot be easily be hired and fired, but would have to be sold low and bought high, to adapt to varying demands of labour, because when labour demand is low the resell-price of a slave would drop, when labour demand increases the cost of buying new slave increases, compared to the resell price, meaning the slave merchants benefit at the expense of producers using slave labour.

Productivity cannot be compensated by longer work-hours, because the productivity gains of machines are that dramatic. Slave societies are incentivised against using machines: if you buy a slave it would be against your economic interests to attempt to replace the slave with a machine. Where as it is in your incentive to attempt to replace the labour power that has to be bought over and over from the worker., with a machine. There is no, more advanced phase of capitalism with a return to full slavery. Slavery can return in case of destroyed/failed States that like for example the post Gaddafi Libya.


 No.2930589

>>2930576

>I made the argument that slavery on a large scale is not viable, 27 million is not a large scale when there are billions of workers.

Again you ignore the 200 million figure of partially enslaved workers. And that 27 million figure is GROWING, and it's only as small as it is because the state is forced to prosecute it by proles.

>Slave societies were replaced by feudalism,

Not completely, we have non negligible amounts to slaves serving major CAPITALIST enterprises. And if you think they're unaware of that I've got a bridge to sell you.

>This is about the dominant mode of surplus extraction.

No this is about your stupid argument that slavery collapsed under its own weight.

>Slaves are considered property in the economic system, most slaves are subjected to such aggressive forms of psychological trauma that on average they no longer can perform cognitively challenging tasks or learn complex skills.

Again objectively wrong, slaves in the antebellum south were doing carpentry and stone masonry. You'll find bonded labor in everything from coffee to computer chips.

>(this is demonstrated by the fact that there are no slaves in sophisticated professions either mental or manual type,

Because that would require the state to publicly accept slavery which is politically untenable now. The other anon already cited slaves of antiquity teaching philosophy and being bureaucrats.

>if it would have been possible to create slave brain surgeons somebody would have already done it)

Whatever state allowed it would lose all creditability with the public.

>that means the enslavement process causes lower productivity and other than waged work cannot be easily be hired and fired,

You only think this because you conflate being educated with being smart.

>but would have to be sold low and bought high, to adapt to varying demands of labour,

There were millions of chattle slaves under capitalism, all your quips with the process were over come.

>because when labour demand is low the resell-price of a slave would drop, when labour demand increases the cost of buying new slave increases, compared to the resell price, meaning the slave merchants benefit at the expense of producers using slave labour.

Slaves are humans they can be put to work to produce whatever commodity is in demand.

>Productivity cannot be compensated by longer work-hours, because the productivity gains of machines are that dramatic. Slave societies are incentivised against using machines: if you buy a slave it would be against your economic interests to attempt to replace the slave with a machine. Where as it is in your incentive to attempt to replace the labour power that has to be bought over and over from the worker., with a machine. There is no, more advanced phase of capitalism with a return to full slavery. Slavery can return in case of destroyed/failed States that like for example the post Gaddafi Libya.

Machines need humans to run them. The longest a machine runs the more commodities it produces. Slavery continues to thrive because the margin of surplus value being stolen to so extreme. Commodities have to go for nearly nothing before slavery becomes untenable.

Slavery ended because the bourgeoisie ended it and teamed up with proles to break slavery's back. Otherwise it would have continued to thrive.


 No.2930601

>>2930576

>if you buy a slave it would be against your economic interests to attempt to replace the slave with a machine

uh… what? A machine and a slave are functionally identical. In the era of high slavery of Antiquity, machines weren't used in large quantities because the technical knowhow to build useful industrial machinery was very limited, and manpower was your only option for significant power. The idea of constantly seeking better and better machines through the application of science just wasn't a thing for the Romans or any other ancient civilization, and it takes a surprising effort to start that process in a serious way. You don't start seeing that until you have built the foundations of a system of higher education and institutions of research proper, and it is in the birth of the university system in Europe that I really see the beginnings of both the capitalist mode of production and the mode of production likely to supercede it, the eugenic mode of production. Without the Academy, you don't have this concept of science as an institution, such a process is not something that is absolutely natural and technological progress in the past was dicey, very slow paced, and sometimes just simply regressed because technological know-how wasn't preserved effectively or the material basis for certain technologies was lost. And, in order to build these institutions of education, the universities and the Academy proper, required developments in the theory of thought, theory of social organization, religion (organized religion really changes a lot compared to a construction like paganism or even something like Confucianism which isn't an organized religion the way the Catholic Church is), and finally the printing press which made dissemination of ideas through print possible to a wide audience and with a large volume of printed material.

Basically, if the Romans had steam engines, nothing about their economic, political, or social structure would prevent them from using technology and mechanization. The option just wasn't there to make factory production more effective than the home-based economy or the plantation economy, because factories require significant mechanical energy, labor, capital, and of course suitable tools which were lacking. There WAS pushback against industrialization where it did happen, and the enclosures necessary to create the conditions for industrial capitalism could not happen easily and were a gradual process in European history, but it's not because the owning class decided they liked slave plantations better, but because the technological ability to build useful industrial tools didn't exist until decades before the Industrial Revolution proper occurred.

>if it would have been possible to create slave brain surgeons somebody would have already done it

Funny thing, in Roman times the surgical profession (or what passed for surgery in those times) was often a slave job, or a job for those of low social status and was poorly regarded. https://www.unrv.com/culture/ancient-roman-doctors.php

We don't use slavery in the West because white people wouldn't stand being legal slaves. They would revolt if anything close to that happened. The capitalist would have no problem renting out slaves on a per-hour basis, much like wage labor except the capitalist gets the wage (this is, incidentally, how debt peonage works, the employer (slave owner) simply garnishes a ridiculous part of the worker's wage and puts them in debt for various necessities of life that the cycle repeats indefinitely, passing on to their children even). But because workers in European civilization demand some basic things like freedom and not being in a state of legal slavery, the only option is wage labor. The only argument to be made that slavery is unproductive is that slavery requires a lot of police power to maintain, but the economics can still work out that an army of slaves overseen by some ill-paid crackers is remarkably productive. The South's economic disadvantage wasn't because they were a slave economy, but because the North was just straight up bigger, had the money and the people, and it had legitimacy and competent leadership (and, I should add, the overwhelming support of the educated classes and intellectuals) while the Confederacy was a fucking shitshow.


 No.2930609

>>2930601

>>2930589

The argument that slavery would still exist if it wasn't politically suppressed, but the reason this is so is because the wage work system is economically stronger an hence in a position to enforce this. The confederacy was weaker and smaller because of the slave economy.

Slave societies as in having slavery as the dominant mode of surplus would collapse under their own weight, in current conditions.

If you are going to push the narrative that you could have sophisticated slave labour, then you need to explain why there isn't some third-world country with slaves that do the type of cognitive work that is usually done by a labour aristocracy. There are very little barriers to large corporations to bully a third world government into letting them snatch people and educate them into doing these kinds of work, and it's probably not for lack of trying, that this isn't happing.

My arguments about machines and productivity is that slave societies have a economic incentive structure that is biased against machine automation. If wish to argue against this You have to explain why the Roman empire didn't invest in machine driven productivity increases, they certainly had the surplus to support the development of engineering and the necessary societal institution for that , as shown by the evidence of their elabrorate buildings and infrastructure. The Romans also had Christian religion if you think this is necessary condition for technical development.


 No.2930623

>>2930476

> I un-ironically think Breadtube is serving as a pipeline for the far-left that we actually needed.

We don't need a god damn fucking pipeline you retards. The right only needs a pipeline because their ideology entails things that horrify most people, so they have to be softened up. The idea that we need a pipeline is "both sides" ideology. The most effective methods have always been to be direct and honest, because our mission is to empower everyone. A "pipeline" for us would simply muddle the waters with liberalism at best and at worst extend the right wing pipeline into the "center left."


 No.2930634

>>2895277

What's wrong with giving children hormones? No one's arguing that children be given hormones without accompanying psychological treatment.


 No.2930637

>>2930609

Uh… what? If the rulers today could get away with it, they'd bring back slavery. That's why we have the prison labor system, after all (not slavery in the traditional sense, but it is definitely forced labor enforced by legal institutions, with the conscious aim of obtaining forced labor). The "wage work system" is not a conscious entity, it exists in the first place because most people are not willing to sell themselves into chattel slavery and will revolt. Most people, it turns out, aren't happy with straight wageslavery either, which is why we have a labor struggle that wins sometimes, and loses sometimes, and the wage of being a free worker isn't just paid in capital but in certain rights being (at least in theory) respected. The rulers know they can only push people so far, but if the rulers are of the mind to do so and can get away with it, they'd put us all in chains, kill us as they please, and regard us as lower than animals. It is not their kindness or restraint that gives us anything.

You have given not a single argument that can defend your statement, and your point rests on a number of faulty assumptions about why our political and economic life is arranged the way it is, and you take these narratives to be the totality of history. It's a crude bastardization of the Marxist conception of history, as I said.

The South was just straight up weaker in virtually every metric, which you would know if you actually knew anything about the ACW. The North could have been the most tyrannical slavers ever (and the South DID see the North as tyrants, they weren't getting pissed and doing slavery and racism for the evulz) and they'd still win. The slave system was incredibly competitive with wage labor if we are looking at the basic matter of labor productivity and profit per labor hour - the margins of profit for outright slavery are fucking huge if the slave operation is managed effectively. The reasons why the North wouldn't use such a system is because importing sufficient numbers of black slaves would be an impossibility, because the slave trade was being systematically shut down around the world, and the numbers of slaves required to power industry would have been quite large. Slavery simply wasn't an option for the North, and this was recognized from the very start of the United States' existence. The South had the slaves, and they weren't going to ship large quantities of their property to the North because that would hurt their own business.


 No.2930640

>>2930637

>That's why we have the prison labor system, after all (not slavery in the traditional sense

Yes it is.

<Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

t. 13th amendment


 No.2930650

File: 449766ae5358412⋯.jpg (166.58 KB, 1202x1102, 601:551, KarlTheMarx.jpg)

>>2930623

We need a pipeline because most people beleave pic related is real. However breadtube is not a good pipeline, people like Jimmy Dore is a good pipeline. He destroys neoliberal and reactionary talking points, and has guests to the left to him on his show, however, he appears moderate enough and has good enough optics that right winger will watch him, and listen and digest his arguments. Breadtube has shitty optics, so when right-wingers watch it they will puke, instead of internalize the message, and also they don’t destroy neoliberal and right-wing talking points about how good markets are. Instead they focus on the culture war, which is a non-issue.

>>2930634

>What's wrong with giving children hormones?

It causes infertility, I want grandkids.


 No.2930664

>>2930650

>It causes infertility, I want grandkids.

Try not being a shitty parent first.


 No.2930670

>>2930650

If we had someone like Dore who was just talking about socialism openly it would be perfect. Wolff is close but his critique doesn't go that deep, he doesn't produce that much content, and he's not quite as appealing.


 No.2930688

>>2930664

I’m not a parent, yet.

>>2930670

What’s good about Dore is that you can take someone of pretty much any ideology, have them listen to him, and they will agree with most of what he says. I used to be a right-winger, but then I watched Dore, he mentioned Wolff in one of his vids, and I watched that, became a Market-Soc, then the episode of his show where he mentioned this place came on, and I came here and became a full communist.


 No.2930695

>>2930688

Most people agree with communist ideas if you just don't use communist buzzwords. As far as a "pipeline" goes all we need is to de-stigmatize terminology like Sanders did with the word socialism.


 No.2930697

>>2930547

lmao this is a cambodian smoke signal forum who here wasn't called a newfag at some point?


 No.2930746

>>2930609

>If you are going to push the narrative that you could have sophisticated slave labour, then you need to explain why there isn't some third-world country with slaves that do the type of cognitive work that is usually done by a labour aristocracy.

Lol, what capitalist 3rd world country has all this “cognitive” labor as you call? If wage labor just automatically fosters advanced technology why isn’t every capitalist country producing their own airliners and iPhones. Oh wait, they’re either dirt poor, or used as cheap labor by 1st world countries as cheap labor, it’s like the 1st world countries use the military and intelligence apparatus to oppress these countries, and they can’t develop cognitive laborers because of that even though they have this supposedly more advance wage labor system.

Like I said the antebellum south was producing skilled laborers like carpenters back then. This was one of the motivating factors for the North to go to war with them. The slaves had already destroyed the ability of proles and yoemen in the south to sell their labor and the Northern worker was next to get rekt.

Lincoln had to suspend a bunch of civil liberties and basically institute a dictatorship of the bourgeois for the entire war, because there was fervent opposition to it in the North that could have caused the North to lose. Not exactly the inevitable end of slavery you’re making it out to be. Also Lincoln offered to let the south retain slavery IF THEY DIDN’T EXPAND WEST. How is an intuition collapsing because of its contradictions if it’s actually expanding. The North has to kill every slaver and destroy their state to get them to stop.


 No.2930767

File: 569afb8e4dfb082⋯.jpg (51.93 KB, 900x810, 10:9, sqQlid7.jpg)

<not making a difference between modern durrhurr gender-""essentialism"" and historical philosophical essentialism

Ehehe truly unintellectual garbage you can find on this board these days. The numbers of braindead constructivist IDPOLers is rising too. Pathetic.


 No.2930794

>>2930767

Can you explain the difference?


 No.2931189

>>2930637

most people are not willing to sell themselves into chattel slavery and will revolt.

The will to revolt is not what prevents slavery, because there were many slave societies with many slave revolts that though successful in the particular did not abolish slavery as the general mode of production.

>You have given not a single argument that can defend your statement, and your point rests on a number of faulty assumptions about why our political and economic life is arranged the way it is, and you take these narratives to be the totality of history. It's a crude bastardization of the Marxist conception of history, as I said.

This is just insults, ironically enough it contains no arguments

>The slave trade was being systematically shut down around the world,

This is not plausible for the time-period.

>>2930746

>Lol, what capitalist 3rd world country has all this “cognitive” labor as you call?

Well that's the point why hasn't some ruthless corporation already set up a "cognitive labour factory" that "collects local people" and forces them to develop cognitive skills to be exploited as cheap cognitive labour slaves.


 No.2931258

>>2931189

>Well that's the point why hasn't some ruthless corporation already set up a "cognitive labour factory" that "collects local people" and forces them to develop cognitive skills to be exploited as cheap cognitive labour slaves.

No you accredited wage labor to the system that produced these "cognitive li laborers" let's just called then educated. Every country has wage labor but only a handful have high tech industries like aerospace. And North Korea which doesn't have wage labor in that your surplus value isn't going to private hands, just produced a nuclear weapon, and Cuba produces the most doctors, while the US is short on doctors and all but 5 capitalist countries have nukes, and Russia produced theirs while communist so they really don't count.

Anyway the student debt these educated laborers you hold up as proof of the superiority of the wage labor system over feudalism are de facto serfs.

Some of them are literal serfs now that finance companies are offering to pay these students loans in return for a lifetime wage garnishments making them indentured servants. Which is only one step above slavery.


 No.2931261

>>2931189

>most people are not willing to sell themselves into chattel slavery and will revolt.

Holy shit STFU you worthless shitlib. No one said it would be willing. They'll be violently coerced either implicitly via the threat of poverty or explicitly via police and military violence.


 No.2931353

>>2931258

*and only 6 capitalist countries have nukes,


 No.2931367

File: d83314b4ee70b76⋯.jpg (12.54 KB, 250x250, 1:1, 652.jpg)

>>2931332

>>2931332

why are you linking that shit here?

>>2929802

>And I already said, women are fucking stupid. Violence and barbarism are the most expedient answers, and sexuality is the realm of the superficial. Are you seriously arguing we should base our whole worldview, ideology, and praxis on the basest of instincts, one that routinely destroys our own lives and causes nothing but misery? That's retarded, it's a self-defeating mechanism, and you're stupid for abiding by it. But it's at the heart of eugenics.

I am not saying that we should be basing our worldview and ideology around instinct, but that particular instinct should be harnessed and nurtured towards something wholesome and community-building, ie healthy, caring families and communities that create more people others would want to be around and emulate. This is more than your typical white-picket-fence stereotype the others would have you believe it is; but I am sure that we could all agree on important social factors, like the necessity of freeing biological drives from the trappings of the capitalist mode of production, right?


 No.2931370

>>2931367

There is no way to make that instinct "good" or harness it, as if we are automata to be manipulated (which itself implies some group, some class above the general public that does the manipulation). The superficial tendencies of sexual selection are just that, superficial. Our brains are working against us and our own best interest. The tendency towards nurturing the young and building communities are something apart from the instinct of sexual selection, and the latter has always been an obstacle to the former. In any event, even those less destructive instincts are flawed and we probably need to find a way to organize our reproduction differently to get around some very great problems like inheritance.


 No.2931408

File: 8f769cf152fabb2⋯.jpg (48.29 KB, 407x407, 1:1, 8f769cf152fabb28ef5cc73b87….jpg)

>>2931370

>There is no way to make that instinct "good" or harness it, as if we are automata to be manipulated (which itself implies some group, some class above the general public that does the manipulation)

As if biogenetic self-manipulation and controlled human evolution isn't something we have not been working towards with all the medical and prosthetic technology we have developed over the centuries, culminating in this dude:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies

and in this girl

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/guess-whats-cooking-garage/

Instead of being all defeatist about this shit, we should be worrying how to spread this and other types of technologies to as many people as possible who we can trust are responsible enough to not create the next smallpox, aids, or dollar flu.

Moreover, the best way to create such people is to create communities that value individuals and help them grow and not turn into assholes, which means forcefully socializing people like Elliot Rodger and other people around them in a way that teaches both parties to at least tolerate and live with each other, and to not be obnoxious to one another,. How many times have I seen black people just act all ghetto just to make white people feel uncomfortable, and then while they are gone just chill out and not act weird? Or gays blatantly flaunting their sexuality in pride parades, where there are children around? Or their parents? Speaknig of which,

>>2931376

>Porn is real

>Porn

>real

the vid related is for you


 No.2931412

>>2931408

Fuck when did they stop letting 8chan post vids?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ


 No.2931465

>>2931408

If you think the whip is going to make incels feel better, you're sorely mistaken. The reasons they are miserable failures are intrinsic to totalitarian hierarchical society making life literally unlivable. The only solution is to tell those people that it's never going to happen, and that they need to adapt to the new normal (since, for a lot of reasons, an egalitarian socialist society will not happen - not that it is impossible or requires a great technological leap, but the people who would need to step aside to allow that to happen will refuse to step aside, and their class solidarity as the educated class has already been formed and is solid as a rock). No amount of forceful socialization will solve the matter, nor would genetic engineering because the sex instinct itself becomes superfluous and burdensome in this social order. The only thing you have left in sexualism is to chase after a phantom in your own brain, and you can only engage in a kind of masturbation or some sick social ritual which reinforces hierarchical society or some sort of power exchange (witness the rise of fetishism and sadomasochism in modern society and its overwhelming prevalence, and how it is aggressively sold as somehow normal). There is nothing there, and appealing to those instincts is only a guarantee of continued failure. The only solution is to abolish the whole rotten structure, and you don't even need high technology or forceful integration to do that. It is already happening naturally, and what we are seeing is more and more people rejecting the sexual mores of totalitarian capitalism / eugenism and such ideologies in general. Part of what the incel ideology does is try to retain those failed systems and keep those men on the hamster wheel, so they can continue chasing after phantoms and continue to be fooled rather than do something more useful for themselves.


 No.2931467

This is supposed to be the anti idpol board you faggots. Both sex positives and sex negatives and terfs and girldick enthusiasts should shut their boipussies and talk about economics please and thank you


 No.2931475

File: f2e4f3aecb1fe49⋯.jpg (215.36 KB, 1074x1074, 1:1, 1560831984731.jpg)

>>2929367

now this is engaging!


 No.2931492

>>2929788

have sex my dude


 No.2931501

File: e01d801f1065461⋯.jpeg (219.41 KB, 880x880, 1:1, TheUprising.jpeg)

>>2931465

>The only solution is to tell those people that it's never going to happen, and that they need to adapt to the new normal

>lie down and rot

Fuck that shit, if I’m going places, I’m not doing so alone.


 No.2931506

>>2931501

Unless you're willing to propose a revolution against the eugenic order that has dominated for over a century, which would necessarily require 2-3 centuries of ruthless suppression and the slaughter of every eugenist and apologist for eugenism, you don't have any other options.

Even then, after such a program is enacted and succeeds, you're still left with the inherent problems of sexualism. It is very likely that we abandon sexual reproduction for artificial insemination and full genetic construction, so we can destroy forever the claim of eugenic legitimacy through heredity. Humanity as we know it would be extinct, the world would be left to some successor race (and "race" would be used in the anthropological sense rather than any biological sense, "race" and "species" would cease to be meaningful categories we could apply to these post-humans biologically).


 No.2931512

File: 05738594826b2f6⋯.png (16.36 KB, 200x152, 25:19, thumb_if-y-heezi-image-whi….png)

>>2931465

>If you think the whip is going to make incels feel better, you're sorely mistaken.

It's not a whip, more like dump them in the middle of someplace difficult to survive and see if they can help each other survive for a week. If corporations even pay to have their employees undergo team-building shit like that, you can tell that it works.

>The only thing you have left in sexualism is to chase after a phantom in your own brain.

You seem to mistake me for someone who thinks that sex is the end-all be-all of humanity, when I know that is not true

>Part of what the incel ideology does is try to retain those failed systems and keep those men on the hamster wheel, so they can continue chasing after phantoms and continue to be fooled rather than do something more useful for themselves.

I agree that incels are being manipulated by capitalist ideology, but experimentation in new sociosexual/gender mores, identities and relationships is not the solution. Romulus the founder of Rome had the right idea in regards to what happens when your followers can't find women:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

Also,

>eugenic order

It's like you don't know how into Benjaminian divine violence of the sovereign individual. At least the incel shooters had the balls to do that. But do you have the BRAINS and the balls to found a new society that escapes capitalism?


 No.2931522

>>2931512

"dump them in the middle of nowhere with the expectation that they will likely die" is cracking the whip. You might as well just say you're in favor of killing the weak along eugenic lines, that would at least be honest.

>rape is good

According to the legend, pretty much everyone descended on the Romans after the rape of the Sabine women and would have killed them. It is, of course, a legend, that should not be forgotten.

>divine violence

Wtf lol? The incels do stupid shit and kill random women because of feels. The net result of their violence is jack and shit, except for some dead people, usually random and relatively innocent people at that. If the incels were killing direct aggressors and bullies, I would think a little differently, but even that sort of violence doesn't stop the cycle. Very few have it in them to pursue the kind of bloodshed necessary to overthrow eugenics as a world system, because at a bare minimum eugenicists would either have to be all killed outright, or reduced to the legal and de facto status of slaves. The eugenist ideology does not allow for peaceful coexistence with any other, it is by definition a totalitarian world system. They are tortured and die, or we are tortured and die. The latter is what is happening now, through the system of psychiatric slavery and by many other means, and their will is enforced by legions of thugs that are irredeemable and cannot be reconciled with under any circumstances. At a bare minimum, you are talking about roughly 800 million people who would be irredeemably on the eugenist side, who must all be killed or enslaved, a process that is not easy especially given the balance of power.


 No.2931524

File: 6165f08fcaf962d⋯.jpg (86.05 KB, 832x1000, 104:125, 6165f08fcaf962dcad250cca4f….jpg)

>>2929367

>"The researchers took data from the 1972, 1974 and 1976 American National Studies surveys which asked people to evaluate the appearance of others and also explored participants’ political beliefs, income, race, gender, and education. "

>“All attractive people are not conservative and not all unattractive people are liberals,” said Peterson. But he added: “Attractiveness gives a person a small push in the conservative direction.”

lmao at least read the study before posting it retard. not only is it from 1972, it also speculates and projects a lot, doesn't give exact numbers and doesn't give sufficient information relying only on a 1 single survey and not giving a more detailed answer that compares the differences that a different region, gender, education and income have


 No.2931545

>>2931535

Jesus, you incels, you indulge too much in vanity and faggotry. It literally doesn't matter to the system whether or not you reproduce, the rulers don't care about whether you do or don't. What they care about is the mentality that they can create in your mind, that they can get you to contort your brain with so much ideology that you'll turn inward on yourself and engage in ever-increasing faggotry. That is what makes eugenics tick, how it regulates human behavior, by telling people to assign outsized importance to the sex act and to nature, so they can classify large swaths of the population as "toxic people", or some other signifier that marks them for reduced status and then, through laws and repeated application of violent force only possible in a totalitarian police state, sets them up for de facto slavery. This already exists with the psychiatric police state which explicitly marks about 20% of the population with specific legal restrictions, permanently and passed down through heredity.

It is not necessarily the sex act in of itself, but the elevation of the act to make it the center of the mind and of ideology, which is the situation we live under in the eugenic order and in fascism (evidenced by how much more important sexpol is to the right than to the left, and how the left is continuously just trashed by sexpol because it stupidly embraces the liberal or sometimes the fascist stance on it outright without criticism, or they are clouded by their own ideological and philosophical failures). I don't think the sex act can produce anything good though, because it's a disgusting process rife with its own problems, like birth defects, miscarriages, the difficulties of maintaining stable family relations even in good times. But the really bad shit is because of sexual politics and the ideology being taken to ever-greater extremes, because in the past religion and the realities of life were sobering influences, and even if those didn't work, sexpol could only travel so far before it dissipated. In modern, totalitarian society, there is no one to tell the raper "no", there is nothing to stop these continued displays of sexual aggression that are so rampant, and so on. There is no sobering influence, and thus the ideology can only spread and spread, unless it is challenged by some hitherto unknown resistance.


 No.2931552

>>2931522

>with the expectation that they will likely die

Fucking don't put words in my mouth now. Survival exercises could even be as basic as finding out if you can build a fire from scratch. That is literally how anthropologists and archaeologists look for ancient settlements for Homo Sapiens.

On a more personal note, I had to sleep outside once for such an event, without a sleeping bag next to a fire, that I had to build from rocks and sticks, and sleep next to another person for warmth; it was awkward as fuck, but picking awkwardness over getting overnight chills gave me some fucking perspective into the fact that there are people who have to endure similar conditions, and that for EONS our ancestors did the same. It gave me a huge confidence boost knowing that I can survive in practice, and empathy for those whom I know have much less than I do.

>According to the legend, pretty much everyone descended on the Romans after the rape of the Sabine women and would have killed them.

>rape is good

I did not imply that rape was good, I meant that committing a social crime like that, and later having to defend yourself against those who are angered by this is all part and parcel of enacting yourself sovereign against the eugenicists and Capitalism. I bet you pirated tons of shit on torrent sites over VPN; that is a de facto act of sovereignty against the state assertion that the record or movie companies had a sole right to distribute that content. Do not mistake the rhetoric of the freetards; one thing they absolutely got right was that Piracy is liberation, but they also forgot that a Pirate is also one who declares himself sovereign against the Empire at large, and Empires do their utmost to bring their entire weight down on the Pirates to punish their temerity to declare themselves sovereign. Unless you can cause the people or the state security apparatus to defect from the state, you are practically wasting your time.

>The incels do stupid shit and kill random women because of feels.

Yes they do, what matters is helping them figure out where these feels come from and enable them to solve the underlying cause of these feels.

>eugenics is totalitarian

OK I can agree with that, but stating that does not provide any meaningful insight into a potential solution, amd war as a solution against such a state as the present one is a non-starter. Defecting from it (which I mean to be liberating, hacking and repurposing technology and resources into the commons) is the real goal here. Once our material base is strong, wide and deep enough, we can survive most problems put upon us by the state and its minions.

>>2931535

>access to sexual reproduction is determined by attractiveness, which is determined by genes

Such an all-or-nothing worldview is exactly what's hamstringing you in your effort to get girls. How many ugly, skinny rock stars got tons of pussy because of how famous they were? Or violent criminals that later get crapflooded with fanmail from stupid women? You could say women are genetically predisposed to become aroused through violence or fame, but that is an assertion that you can't prove conclusively in a double-blind study.

https://www.oxygen.com/snapped/crime-time/groupies-loved-serial-killer-ted-bundy

Ted Bundy had groupies, to be sure, but did he fuck them? Certainly not: what truly made him attractive was more than just his violence, it was that he was able to become so notorious, but also sovereign in his choice to violate those laws in such a way. That is ultimately what makes a man attractive; the ability to take a stand and not back down in the face of the state, and ultimately force the state to have to do something about him: if you survive, that is an added bonus. Even Jesus had groupies too, but that is already too much to say.


 No.2931559

>>2931545

>I don't think the sex act can produce anything good though,

It does produce something good; a social bond between a man and a woman, signified by their joint responsibility over the resultant child, which is why cheating, rape and cuckoldry are so heinous; they damage the body politic through the damaging of the social bonds that comprise it.

>What they care about is the mentality that they can create in your mind, that they can get you to contort your brain with so much ideology that you'll turn inward on yourself and engage in ever-increasing faggotry

>the really bad shit is because of sexual politics and the ideology being taken to ever-greater extremes, because in the past religion and the realities of life were sobering influences

This is true, but you didn't post the solution; I think that what needs to be created is an outpost of counter-ideology that people can visit and recharge themselves to fight against the ruling ideology of faggotry. Families and churches are good places to start, which is why I hang out and help out there. Construction and maintenance of high trust societies are what we need in order to actually build communism: we make incentives for this like helping distraught young men find themselves in a group that cares about them and helps them build a community where they can find girls they like, and build up the courage to ask them out and have relationships with them, and to not get discouraged when this needs multiple tries. That's what the community is for in the first place.

>challenged by some hitherto unknown resistance.

That would be us here m8 hae some good feels with this music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8QH8zKNPb8


 No.2931563

>>2931559

>over the resultant child

< wanting to have children when what they will be left with is a shittier world than you likely ever knew

have sex dude, but don't procreate, necessarily.


 No.2931571

>>2931563

>have sex

jokes on you, I already have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1c6LxLV2RI


 No.2931578

>>2931566

According to whom? What you're looking for isn't reproduction, but validation by the rules of a culture that has rejected you, that has taken as a core value the values of eugenics which define your worth by "bioethics" and appeal to nature arguments. There are plenty of failures who reproduce, watch helplessly as their children are put through the meat grinder and marked as defectives, and are no happier or more successful for it; far from it, they've invested years of their life and much money just to watch the system beat them down into slavery. I know more than a few dudes who had their children taken away from them, or used as leverage by evil women who would torture and mutilate the child. They aren't winning anything.


 No.2931593

>>2931591

Nature does not care about us, or whether we live and die. Nature is nasty and brutal, it corrects populations by killing them en masse and it will repeat cycles of misery repeatedly because it does not care. Are you so faggoty to believe in nature worship? If so, you might as well just kill yourself now, because you will never be free. Nature worship is a dead end, appeal to nature is appeal to nothing more than continued misery. It also makes you an irredeemable enemy should you persist in nature-worship. Why you would continue to debase yourself in this way, I do not know, since it obviously isn't doing you any favors. But if you wish to insist on faggotry as something healthy, you can. Just don't expect to ever be any better off.


 No.2931773

>>2931591

Moder Nature is not a sentient being. Evolution has no thoughts and feelings. The only one who really cares whether you reproduce is you.


 No.2932024

Theoretically speaking how would sex work exist in a communist society?


 No.2932025

>>2932024

You mean prostitution?


 No.2932027


 No.2932036

>>2932024

From each according to their ability to each according to their need.

In all seriousness though, the sooner we can replace human partners with AIs the better. Sex work should go the way of all other work.


 No.2932047

Is state enforced homosexuality the solution to overpopulation?


 No.2932062

>>2932024

>Theoretically speaking how would sex work exist in a communist society?

Sex as work would not exist; the fact that things can be exchanged for sex is a state intervention into the "security" of women, to keep them secure in a world where a woman can be raped at any time if she does not belong to a group. This is why, if you observe women, they will naturally gravitate towards creating groups; support groups, trips to the bathroom,rumors, groupthink, shying away from group outliers like incels, etc.

Women are human beings with agency to be sure, but they also contain themselves the means of reproduction; this puts them in a tricky position of being subjects and objects at the same time, as are men; women and men objectify each other also, but for different reasons, mutually for sex and resources, properly it is the enjoyment of life: the more she can enjoy herself around you,and the more she is cognizant of the fact that if she loses you she loses the enjoyment, she will stick around and pay for it with sex, which leads to the massive imbalance of sex today as most of the resources go to the top men, and the women follow those men.

To solve this, every man will have to win for themselves direct access to means of production; groups of men will have to show initiative and organize among themselves to create something truly remarkable that will have to match the experience the rich people receive from their forms-of-life/lifestyles, on a lower budget, which is feasibly if you look for the appropriate loopholes, like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IDDnXy20hs

The point is not that he is faking being rich, it's that he is having fun doing this outrageous prank, and collecting followers, men and women, because they see he is hving fun and want to participate vicariously; thats how Pewdiepie got Marzia in the first place as well; she was attracted to his fame, even though Pewds acts like a total spaz in over 80% of his videos.

>>2932036

>In all seriousness though, the sooner we can replace human partners with AIs the better. Sex work should go the way of all other work.

That's where you are misrepresenting the nature of work and sex m8. Sex as such is meant to be a pleasurable activity that brings a man and woman together to make children; in a hunter-gatherer or an agricultural/patriachal society, the creation of new members of the tribe or clan is an unadulterated good, so long as there is enough resources to grow and nurture them to become full members of the community. Instead of making sex into "work", there should exist something that resocializes outcasts back into the community again; them even making their own community is its own good. If we don't create a strong society that protects people, we are done.

>>2932047

>Is state enforced homosexuality the solution to overpopulation?

Jokes aside, you are framing people as problems, which is your first mistake.

Your second mistake is entertaining the idea that homosexuality is something that unites people beyond an eclectic, idiosyncratic cultural movement geared towards mutual self-pleasure (whose social connections ultimately dissolves out of partner boredom).

Your third mistake is that you think that reducing population is ok; due to the length of the one-child policy in China, there is a problem that has resulted both in a population inversion and a surplus of men. Either these men will do something to occupy themselves with that gives them meaning and a long-term purpose, or they will destroy communist China or the world as an army of damaged, lonely young men. Incels would gladly join such an army here, given the chance.


 No.2932064

>>2932047

You can't ENFORCE the gay, or else people will get all finicky and mad. You need to gradually inculcate people using the following formula: Dickgirl -> Femboy -> Cuteboy -> Man


 No.2932066

>>2932064 (me)

The lesbian equivalent, of course, is Cuteboy -> Butch -> Femme


 No.2932067

>>2931408

>which means forcefully socializing people like Elliot Rodger and other people around them in a way that teaches both parties to at least tolerate and live with each other,

LMAO the liberalism in communists always comes right out when it comes to incels. Incels are misanthropic because they've been rejected by EVERYONE ELSE in society, with a few exceptions from incels with legit mental illnesses and handicaps.

And they've been rejected because of superficial capitalist values, like "being ugly" or short. Many people are surprised at how pedestrian many incels look, but they're not being rejected because of some static objective standard of beauty and status, they're being rejected because of their RELATIVE beauty and status. Elliot Rodgers himself wasn't that bad looking but he was a Hapa, and Asian women are racist against their own men, dating outside their race 40-60 percent, more than any other race.

Being the wrong race will work against you as well. Regardless these men are being rejected on everything BUT their character and when they say so the entire society screams at them they its their moral failings, including leftists.


 No.2932074

>>2931773

>The only one who really cares whether you reproduce is you.

And? Why do leftist always hold up this anti-natalist argument like if BTFOs people's desire for their own children.

I never see these crypto lib feminists scolding women who already have their own bio children, just men that have yet to. It's just a shaming tactic to cuck betas into continuing to happily forfeit their labor to raise Chad's children either via taxes, or marriage to a single mom. Its low key eugenics.


 No.2932078

>>2932067

t. gets absolutely seething when he sees someone uglier, dumber and more awkward than him with a hot gf because they have excellent social skills


 No.2932086

>>2932067

A lot of women reject incels because of the own incorrigible misogyny which makes them unable to view women as independent subjects. I have never dated a man who could be described as some kind of alpha/Chad but I also stay clear away from men who have genuine issues with women.


 No.2932090

>>2932062

>Sex as such is meant to be a pleasurable activity that brings a man and woman together to make children;

Humans are all flawed and subtly different. Most people are just about compatible enough to remain married under ideal circumstances, but everyone makes compromises in a relationship. If you're more of a sexual outlier then your chances of finding a compatible partner are vastly reduced and any relationship will require even more compromises.

I sincerely believe that most people would be much happier living with a simulation of their ideal partner in virtual reality than having to make all those compromises to be with a real partner.

>>2932074

>I never see these crypto lib feminists scolding women who already have their own bio children

Rest assured, I have at least as much contempt for them as I have for other breeders.


 No.2932113

>>2931465

>Part of what the incel ideology does is try to retain those failed systems and keep those men on the hamster wheel, so they can continue chasing after phantoms and continue to be fooled rather than do something more useful for themselves.

I think the opposite is true. Incels insisting they their plight is systemic is slowly forcing the hierarchy to change. Did you see the incel debriefing that the Air Force is now giving new recruits. The military is especially vulnerable to the blackpill, no one gets cucked more than troops.


 No.2932116

>>2932078

t. Liberal that gets butt mad anytime a low status man refuses the bullshit narrative that women insert capitalism are giving low status men a good faith chance.

>>2932086

>muh personality detector

The UN estimates 30 percent of women will get beat by their partner at some point in their lives. That's a lot of misogynists are getting laid by women

>>2932090

This is a flat out lie.


 No.2932119

>>2932116

*women inside capitalism are giving low status men a good faith chance at a relationship.


 No.2932120

>>2932090

>Rest assured, I have at least as much contempt for them as I have for other breeders.

Name some hit TV shows that mock women for having bio children then.


 No.2932121

>>2932113

What's interesting about the incel dialogue is that it's confronting people with the concept that men can be subjected to systemic problems as men. The reigning ideology on gender holds that women are victims of the outside system only (ignoring their capacity to act) and that men are victims of their own choices only (ignoring their capacity to be acted upon). Feminists give lip service to this kind of sexism but almost universally swallow it themselves, and it really shows in the analysis they do. Even something relatively banal like the rigors of dating get colored as a systemic problem when it affects women and a personal problem when it affects men. The ideal synthesis recognizes the subject and object in both men and women (and others) rather than splitting these aspects along gender.


 No.2932128

>>2932121

It's because so much of capitalism is built on male disposability. Capitalism needs new babies to grow and replicate itself.

But humans don't need all men for populations to grow since one man can have many children simultaneously.

The surplus men are pressed into perpetuating the violence necessary to defend private property. This is the most efficient human reproductive system for capitalism. Chad's having all the babies and betas doing all the fighting and work. And it's the exact same social relations feminists have pushed since the sexual revolution.


 No.2932134

>>2932121

>The reigning ideology on gender holds that women are victims of the outside system only (ignoring their capacity to act) and that men are victims of their own choices only (ignoring their capacity to be acted upon).

But that's not the reigning ideology here, which is probably why people find them so annoying. There's plenty of mocking femcel cat moms with problem glasses.


 No.2932140

>>2932067

incels give off bad vibes, unironically.


 No.2932155

>>2932140

Agreed, low socioeconomic status has many easily identifiable physical signs that can be described as "bad vibes".

You all should check out the Tinder experiment where someone trying to disprove incels' argument that only looks, posted the the picture of a male model but in the profile wrote that he was a child molester. He wound up trolling himself as 100s of attractive thirst girls threw themselves at him fully knowing he diddled kids.


 No.2932159

>>2932134

>But that's not the reigning ideology here,

That is absolutely the reigning ideology, and the state upholds it with biased family courts, child support debtors prisons, the draft, and longer sentences for crimes.


 No.2932162

>>2932134

>There's plenty of mocking femcel cat moms with problem glasses.

Among /pol/ to be sure, but certainly not among the feminists; they are celebrated, or at the very least, their problems are taken far more seriously than men's are, at least in terms of relationship problems. They certainly have more pull socially speaking, because of their innate value as potential people-producers and sex/pleasure-givers to heterosexual Capitalist men at the top of the economic pile. >>2932121

>Even something relatively banal like the rigors of dating get colored as a systemic problem when it affects women and a personal problem when it affects men. The ideal synthesis recognizes the subject and object in both men and women (and others) rather than splitting these aspects along gender.

Except there is real gain to be made here by women to keep analysis focused on them at the expense of the men, even those men who do not have any sexual relationships with women. Granted, I have women in my immediate family, which compels me to care about their problems as women, as well as their friends and neighbors, but fuck if I am going to let the state make me personally responsible for a woman and her kid of whom I receive no benefit from as either a father or husband.

I want to be a dad, a husband, someone who takes care of the woman and the child; it is the closest thing most people achieve towards any sort of sublime, and I believe that we have been dispossessed of the sublime of it as men, through this ideology of "liberatory" feminism. We care enough about women that we fight and die for them, and kill each other over them, but that is almost never appreciated by women, because those men who care do their utmost to keep them from this sort of violence, until the violence spills into the home and hearth, and then it is too late and they don't have anyone to turn to. The unattractive men are nothing more than work and fighter golems to them, pure and simple.

>>2932140

>incels give off bad vibes, unironically.

Bad vibes are caused by emotional distress and a lack of ability to introspect caused by a psychological deadlock.

This is because of their deliberate cutting of themselves off from a society that they think has wronged them, and which they think they have no power to change outside of a desperate outburst of violence. They are to be pitied, but also reintegrated if possible, because they won't be needed, then they will become the bitterest of enemies. They need to learn how to calmly and healthily handle emotional distress and forming friendships with others; then they will give off good vibes and solve their problems with society: if they become demonized by society and they decide to hit a critical point that brings it down, then the society will have only itself to blame.


 No.2932169

>>2932162

I think that part of the problem here is that women do not want to be taken care of and fought over, they want to be seen as equal subjects to men. A lot of men have this very distorted vision of what women are, and that vision does not necessarily line up with reality.


 No.2932170

>>2932159

>>But that's not the reigning ideology here

>>2932162

>Among /pol/ to be sure, but certainly not among the feminists

When I said here I did not mean the place among the feminists - I meant the board.


 No.2932279

>>2932261

>Without “breeders” you wouldn’t be alive.

>implying anon wants to suffer this existence

breeders are scum and if you breed children then you are also scum.


 No.2932284


 No.2932285

>>2932169

You are mistaking feminist propaganda for reality.

Women absolutely do want to be taken care of and fought over. They also want to be seen as equal to men. Those two desires exist simultaneously and aren't seen as contradictory.


 No.2932320

I had to look up what TERF and essentialism meant

Still confused on essentialism(a little)

Being a genuine old fag and bisexual my whole life(62 yrs old and grew up in working class environment) and definitely feeling more feminine internally, I would not have transitioned even if I could completely have passed as female(I could have as I as a pretty boyin my younger years)


 No.2932321

>>2932320

missed most of my posting text when copying

I had to look up what TERF and essentialism meant

Still confused on essentialism(a little)

Being a genuine old fag and bisexual my whole life(62 yrs old and grew up in working class environment) and definitely feeling more feminine internally, I would not have transitioned even if I could completely have passed as female(I could have as I was a pretty boyin my younger years) because I saw the way women were treated not just in a working class home..among other reasons like no support system.

Now essentialism, this is a can of worms fron the short peek I just had reading about it

No, the existence of trans people doesn’t validate gender essentialism

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/no-existence-of-trans-people-doesn-t-validate-gender-essentialism/

This was the best I could find in 10 min of web searching

I realized that I've had these ideas yrs earlier(god damn David Bowie influence a 13 yr old boy and looking so pretty)

Being influenced by eastern thought through out my life, I saw female & male as yin/yang and both being within us with one being dominant, and that there was a female & male dualistic quality to the Universe, but both being the same thing and this quality being able to flip more easily in some individuals like my self.

Universal consiousness looks into the mirror of it's self and say '''I am" and then needs to split it's self into a companion (because It's lonely being the only being once one has seen one's self), so it chooses a gender and splits into another being and gender assignment is made on a very basic level)

……………….Haha..hee

This happened to me

all the time when I was younger


 No.2932331

>>2928056

>And here I thought he was redeeming himself, coming around to the Strasserpill. Anti-antisemitism is truly an infectious mental disease. Look how this shit destroys peoples perceptions of real issues. As you said, Jews who make up 0.3% of the population dictating what 99.7% should do or say - sounds similar to bourgeois rule.

The above would be you in the 1930s..

How about you go have a long bath, comrade.


 No.2932348

>>2932169

>I think that part of the problem here is that women do not want to be taken care of and fought over, they want to be seen as equal subjects to men.

>>2932285

>Women absolutely do want to be taken care of and fought over. They also want to be seen as equal to men. Those two desires exist simultaneously and aren't seen as contradictory.

This is the exact beef incels have with feminists, that we cannot get over without some sort of negotiation or terrible war where on side will force the other to submit. Women wish to have their cake and eat it, in terms of what they say and actually respond to.

Watch this clip and understand who is receiving the most attention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d28usWdvmSg

and this shit was from 1992. The more attention you get the more play you get.

Also don't worry transtards, we will still be able to fix your idiotic choices later on in your life if you want:

https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/military-benefits/health-care/2016/01/31/lab-grown-testicles-give-new-hope-to-wounded-vets/


 No.2932362

As an Incel and bi male, how do I stand to benefit from a /leftypol/ regime?


 No.2932366

>>2932362

Fuck the regime half the movement would probably fuck you with no drama.


 No.2932368

>>2932366

fuck me how?


 No.2932373

>>2932368

Leftists are more likely to have casual sex and be bisexual haha


 No.2932377

>>2932373

true, true, but I'm still an Incel though, it's not like anyone would want me.

I would love to be part of the leftist orgy


 No.2932378

>>2932377

The orgies are just a meme because some weirdos in Brooklyn got a load of coverage for having a half a dozen person poly relationship and selling it as radical. Leftists are normally monogamous, they just like to put it around when they're single because why not tbqh.

Orgy would be pretty sick though.


 No.2932382

>>2932378

i hate you


 No.2932384

>>2932378

I just want to be loved


 No.2932386

>>2932169

>I think that part of the problem here is that women do not want to be taken care of and fought over, they want to be seen as equal subjects to men.

I think the actual problem here is that women are people who want different things depending on their personalities, and you can't have your cake and eat it to re: equality and being taken care of by the other gender. Women can't be fully liberated as a whole until the women with reactionary/conservative ideals get despooked and stop wanting men to take care of them (especially when they rehabilitate this as "empowering" to make men pay for shit or whatever). Our culture puts a lot of value on youth and encourages infantilism, but there's a lot more opportunity for it to influence women, not because of some fundamental difference between men and women, but because of what remains of traditional gender roles.

>A lot of men have this very distorted vision of what women are, and that vision does not necessarily line up with reality.

Yeah, that's what distorted means. Women tend to have a distorted view of men (as someone you can offload your problems onto and is way tougher than reality). A lot of people also have a distorted vision of what equality is too.

>>2932285

>Women absolutely do want to be taken care of and fought over. They also want to be seen as equal to men. Those two desires exist simultaneously and aren't seen as contradictory.

The only reason it's contradictory to be taken care of and equal with men is because it's unconscionable to these people that society would take care of men.


 No.2932387

>>2932384

It's cool man, we're all gonna make it


 No.2932389

>>2910416

Cute

>>2910301

Hot


 No.2932390


 No.2932395

File: 00e6ee49a41c84c⋯.jpg (29.26 KB, 768x560, 48:35, 25_Shinji_Chair_Plead.jpg)

>>2932390

>>2932387

thanks, but again, I doubt it. thanks for caring


 No.2932399

File: f3da6b05ded4ebd⋯.png (38.2 KB, 779x342, 41:18, virginity_adult.png)

>>2932384

If you are a male above 22 or so chances are you won't. Scumbags will try to string you along so you pay for their bastards with your labour through taxes and single mother welfare. The reality is that love is limited supply, and a few pwople are taking a lot of it while others go empty. Just look at the piece of shit in this thread who casually implies multiple relationships and "just sex" in between them, for everyone of those that lives a luxurious life of plenty there will be many like you with nothing.


 No.2932400

>>2932399

I just turned 22 this June.. so I'm screwed then? how do I cope with this?


 No.2932402

>>2932395

You're fine, we've had incels come through here for years and they're totally unlikeable, you're not an incel you're just a virgin. Just try and become more outgoing by working on improving yourself and you'll figure it out. And definitely stop talking to the incels, they aren't just virgins, they're shitty people who are virgins because they're shitty people. You're just a bit awkward/lacking confidence/can't tell when a girl is throwing themselves at you.

>>2932399

Nobody will ever fuck this guy when he carries on like this, for example. I believe in you anon.


 No.2932403

File: 090a52c84d4bdf0⋯.jpg (58.32 KB, 926x635, 926:635, isis_incel.jpg)


 No.2932407

>>2932402

I really don't want to make the same argument for the 1000th time, but the crux is that this poster is an idealist who believesn in the just world world fallacy.

<Nobody will ever fuck this guy when he carries on like this

Maybe i should start raping and killing teenage girls so that I can get fan mail from admirerers too? If he wasnt in prison they would already be fucking him.

>Revealed: How notorious Belgium paedophile who raped and murdered four girls is being sent fan mail…. by teenagers

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564494/Murderer-Marc-Dutroux-gets-fan-mail-teenagers.html


 No.2932409

>>2932407

>Maybe i should start raping and killing teenage girls so that I can get fan mail from admirerers too?

THIS IS WHY NOBODY WANTS TO FUCK YOU


 No.2932410

while all that is true, there is also a physical dimension to this that you can't completely disregard.

>5'1"

>4.5" penis (erect)

>ugly face

>eating problems

>small hank hill ass

even for guys I am physically unattractive. sure I've been getting better at socializing, but I can only push my chances so far. that is my problem. I am limited by my things I cannot change


 No.2932412

File: 674f36961b5d12a⋯.jpg (100.11 KB, 605x807, 605:807, Brenton_Gf.jpg)

>>2932410

just play /pol/ game


 No.2932415

>>2932412

wtf that guy is actually good looking


 No.2932418

Does anyone else find gay marriage to be a sick joke, in a time when functional straight relationships are placed under more restrictions than ever and eugenics reigns? I'm in a situation where for all intents and purposes, I'm legally barred for marriage, not that I would want to reproduce in a world like this but it is quite telling.


 No.2932421

>>2932415

He also killed 50 innocent people in cold blood, Mr. Feminist here tells us that women would never have even touched a human being for far lesser crimes. The image therefore must a fabrication.


 No.2932433

>>2932410

>5'1"

That's too bad man, but I've known short guys who do well and not all girls care about that, it's a meme. Guys want to fuck short guys

>4.5" penis (erect)

If this makes you so uncomfortable you can jelq (RTFM or you'll break your dick), but if you can't get laid the problem isn't your dick size, it's your confidence about your dick size. Nobody knows your dick size until you're in the middle of fucking and you aren't going to get told to leave when somebody wants the dick. You're bisexual and short anyway so you can just let a dude fuck you

>ugly face

Tell a barber you don't like your hair and want something to compliment your face, barbers are chill guys. Exercising and eating properly fills out your face and will likely make you look better too (t. used to never eat and was addicted to drugs and once got buff and I looked like two different people, and looked like another different person when I did neither). I looked hotter as a druggie tbh but chances are the whole not looking after yourself is not working for you.

>eating problems

>small hank hill ass

Start snacking to make your stomach expand so you'll be hungry more often, then starting eating regular meals. Then you'll be able to exercise (and you can get a bubble butt if you want I guess lmao)

The real protip here is you're bisexual so get yourself in an better shape and go find a dude to fuck you, it's good and you won't regret it and he won't care if it's your first time. Not to mention guys standards are way lower and we're way more chilled out about fucking and we're for the most part better in bed.

You're a cool guy anon don't let the incels drag you down, most of them are complete cunts and you deserve better.


 No.2932442

While shitposting in other anti-trans thread I got curious: has anyone met or know of young (< 24) MtF with female sibling? I did some rudimentary research on South Koreans and I could not find any, at least from people who were posting on fringe trans forum/public interviews.


 No.2932443

>>2932433

thanks and capped, I'll be referring to this. any thing you want add?


 No.2932447

File: b8b9eb3e0774db2⋯.jpg (18.33 KB, 306x367, 306:367, kissless_virgin.jpg)

>>2932443

remember to shower and give the female a firm handshake and you will get love/sex for sure

he is right about the gays though, like just install grindr

>>2932433

>literally get a haircut

what should this gentleman get?


 No.2932456

File: 12af3ca70ebe27b⋯.png (610.57 KB, 839x650, 839:650, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2932348

>that youtube video

Jesus Christ, it's like some kind of dystopian fiction. No wonder people don't let these ideas get airtime any more, because it highlights the conflicts too starkly.

Also, Ross has extreme Stirner energy.


 No.2932458

>>2932443

Haha really? I've tried giving advice to "incels" before but they just give me shit all the time, this is why I think you'll do fine man.

Yeah I'll add getting fucked in the ass is way easier and more fun than fucking some limp bodied girl who is shit in bed (a good chunk of them). Just embrace being a bottom my dude it's lit, and I've tried the lot.

Just try to make yourself look presentable, if you want to go all in on having a guy fuck you get into "in shape" territory (takes a month with dedication to three meals a day, running and weights), keep your body hair trimmed to what you think looks good, take some good photos on your phone in good lighting in a clean, tidy room and hit up grindr and you'll be getting dicked by the end of next month I give you my infa 100% guarantee.

Also it's important to be honest with the guy you fuck, just say it's your first time and you're nervous in the messages, and ride him cowboy (if you're under him you have legit no control of how much you're getting fucked lol).

Good luck dude!


 No.2932459

>>2932447

Shortish peroxide blonde hair with a front fringe, like emo. He's muscly/fat so he needs to lose some weight (can tell by neck, doesn't suit his face).


 No.2932462

>>2932443

Oh yeah and don't talk to incels, they're a self loathing cult.


 No.2932463

File: 2f81b0b7bf732a9⋯.gif (1.47 MB, 353x448, 353:448, 1561679106018.gif)

>>2932411

>>2932433

Lol at all this faggotry. No wonder nobody takes the left seriously when this is your advice.

>>2932458

>Yeah I'll add getting fucked in the ass is way easier and more fun than fucking some limp bodied girl who is shit in bed (a good chunk of them). Just embrace being a bottom my dude it's lit, and I've tried the lot.

ComradeYui is that you, you insufferable faggot?


 No.2932466

>>2932456

>Jesus Christ, it's like some kind of dystopian fiction. No wonder people don't let these ideas get airtime any more, because it highlights the conflicts too starkly

push it harder so we get the real acceleration :)


 No.2932467

>>2932463

Top kek at how mad you are I'm teaching someone how to get laid while you sit in your little incel corner.


 No.2932470

>>2932462

I'd prefer to find someone the hard and old-fashioned way, only because I tried grindr for a day and I got stood up and I may have talked to someone for about 2 weeks and pussied out

>>2932458


 No.2932472

>>2932433

>>2932410

>>2932458

>The real protip here is you're bisexual so get yourself in an better shape and go find a dude to fuck you, it's good and you won't regret it and he won't care if it's your first time. Not to mention guys standards are way lower and we're way more chilled out about fucking and we're for the most part better in bed.

>Yeah I'll add getting fucked in the ass is way easier and more fun than fucking some limp bodied girl who is shit in bed (a good chunk of them).

Another bi guy here. The typical gay/bi man (A) has more experience with sex and (B) also has a male body so will be better at sex than 90-99% of women. The women who are at all good at sex are the ones who enjoy it enough to git gud. Most women just let the man do whatever he does, and the result is often worse than masturbation (for both). A major reason why lots of women suck at sex is that they cannot take any criticism, which makes it impossible get better at anything.


 No.2932474

sex is not calculus holy shit, if anything I want someone with less "experience" becuase it means they are not as whorish, used, degraded, and incapable of paibonding


 No.2932475

>>2932472

that and I've read somewhere that men care more about you finishing while women care more about themselves finishing


 No.2932476

File: 0c7052caa444f53⋯.png (204.98 KB, 207x253, 9:11, 1451577675818.png)

>>2932474

>whorish, used, degraded,

spooks

>incapable of paibonding

lmao you don't know anything about sex, love, or even lust dude


 No.2932479

>>2932475

Wouldn't surprise me considering how men and women are socialized. It's assumed that men will finish, and it's incumbent on men to postpone that until the woman has finished. Also, women can enjoy sex even if they don't cum. There's no female equivalent to blue balls, so they can't relate, they just prefer to have an orgasm.


 No.2932480

File: 38e0d20acc330c4⋯.jpg (32.72 KB, 385x400, 77:80, common_sense.jpg)


 No.2932483

>>2932467

>Top kek at how mad you are I'm teaching someone how to get laid while you sit in your little incel corner.

By telling him to get fucked in the ass? Like what kind of bullshit is that?

Also don't call me an incel, I have had girlfriends and I have had sex. It took me a shitton of self-introspection but I did achieve this state.

>>2932410

Other guy, don't listen to this faggot, being able to date women is much harder, but much more fulfilling and meaningful. It actually has long term perspectives, especially if you find a woman willing to support revolutionary goals to help achieve communism.

>>2932472

>The typical gay/bi man (A) has more experience with sex and (B) also has a male body so will be better at sex than 90-99% of women.

Like that is something to be proud of; most women keep away from this type because she figures she won't satisfy him, nor does she want to be exposed to the horrible STDs endemic to the gay population. Gay men frequently get giardiasis and other nasty parasites from eating each others' asses. Also PreP doesn't prevent you from being exposed to HIV or HPV either:

Read this and weep:

http://www.newnownext.com/ive-contracted-my-third-gastrointestinal-parasite-from-rimming-and-i-cant-be-the-only-gay-man-suffering/01/2018/

He is too far gone in his ideology to examine that maybe his sexual behavior is what is making him contract these illnesses rather than a lack of education from doctors. Solipsism at its purest


 No.2932485

>>2932470

Honestly man you run the risk of always be chasing The Perfect One and won't be able to pick up sexual cues as easily while still carrying your V card, but it's totally up to you. What I will say though is that you'll probably be far happier taking my advice of just fucking some guy considering it's bothering you enough that you're hitting up anons for advice, no offence.

Like this chat has probably made you feel better about yourself, but nobody would hold it against you, that's what losing your virginity is like. It seems important to the person who has worked themselves up over doing it, but nobody really cares.

Just saying though, not trying to pressure you into following my advice but I do think you'd be happier taking it as it would be a weight off the mind.


 No.2932487


 No.2932488

>>2932483

>By telling him to get fucked in the ass? Like what kind of bullshit is that?

He's bi, the only person that cares about that here is you, Christcuck.


 No.2932502

File: 20557b3ffeb3250⋯.jpg (55.31 KB, 447x604, 447:604, Free Shrugs.jpg)

>>2932480

That's not "pair bonding" is "stockholm syndrome" lmao. If you don't understand what you're missing you're more likely to think your shitty partner isn't that bad.

>>2932483

>By telling him to get fucked in the ass? Like what kind of bullshit is that?

Yeah, the prostate is up there. Women can't hit that (except trans women, and btw trannies who don't have personality disorders are pretty cool).

>being able to date women is much harder, but much more fulfilling and meaningful

This is what marketers refer to as "post-purchase rationalization." Something being harder (more expensive) to acquire doesn't make it better, your brain just prefers to see it that way to fucking cope with the lost investment.

>It actually has long term perspectives, especially if you find a woman willing to support revolutionary goals to help achieve communism.

Way more likely to get that from a man, especially a gay or bi man. Women are way more risk averse (that's actually got scientific support btw), and when he out-group (i.e. different ethnicities) start getting rights women are the ones most likely to freak out and want to go back to the old system (speaking from experience with multiple generations here).

>Like that is something to be proud of;

Listen to you "like having lots of sex is something to be proud of" fucking hell get your ideology straight.

>most women keep away from this type because she figures she won't satisfy him,

Yeah because of an extremely justified inferiority complex. The women who aren't scared away by bi dudes are either going after rock stars or are themselves actually into sex and see it as something to participate in rather than something to let men do with their bodies.

>nor does she want to be exposed to the horrible STDs endemic to the gay population.

That's a matter of how promiscuous you are. Prommiscuity isn't an inherently LGBT thing, it's just that gay men have the capacity to have more sex that way because of how people are socialized, so gay man sluts just have more potential than most to hook up.

>Read this and weep:

Yeah, these guys are doing hookups in New York City. No shit they'll contract some parasites when they eat the ass of an immigrant who just got off the plane from the third world. This isn't bad doctors, and it's not gay sex. Hell, it's not even promiscuity. It's being a retard and not knowing how to have safe sex.

>>2932485

>nobody would hold it against you, that's what losing your virginity is like. It seems important to the person who has worked themselves up over doing it, but nobody really cares.

Men don't care, but there are a lot of women who'd take the opportunity to shame you for it. Lots of women would be fine with it though, probably if they see you as like a sick puppy they get to help.


 No.2932509

>>2932502

>Men don't care, but there are a lot of women who'd take the opportunity to shame you for it. Lots of women would be fine with it though, probably if they see you as like a sick puppy they get to help.

Men are bros and we know how it is, too bad I conditioned myself to not get attached to them because my parents were mean to me lol

Good lays tho


 No.2932525

>>2932483

Then what the hell should I do?


 No.2932527

>>2932458

>Haha really? I've tried giving advice to "incels" before but they just give me shit all the time,

That's because your advice is just liberal apologia for the status quo.

Incels may not be against private property but they're crypto leftists none the less since their insistence that their loneliness is not their fault undermines a liberal cornerstone, that we're all free to compete.


 No.2932532

>>2932485

>Honestly man you run the risk of always be chasing The Perfect One and won't be able to pick up sexual cues as easily while still carrying your V card,

Lol sexual attraction in dudes works completely different for men than women no matter what trannies and fags have to say.

You have a sex drive in the first place to have babies. Women have sex drives that oscillate with their ovulating, while men are always horny.

The only insight about sexual attraction you're going to learn from fucking a dude is how to pick up dudes.


 No.2932537

>>2932527

>Incels may not be against private property

>implying

Seriously though given his social status his statements are exactly what you would expect. Another proof that the social position of people make their ideology.


 No.2932541

File: 30a2b7507e14052⋯.gif (1.16 MB, 480x358, 240:179, stop it.gif)

Simple advice for incels: masturbate regularly to relieve tension. In the meantime, make friends. Make at least a handful of friends, and in general try to spend lots of time with them, doing interesting things or just relaxing.

Friendship is easy to build if you're not terribly autistic or just a shitty person, doesn't require you to look good, and is a good way to take your mind off of grill-related teenage angst.

Once you've built strong and healthy friendships, you can now use your improved social skills (and willing wingmen) to go and pursue women again. That's the best advice I can possibly give.

Also, never talk to self-described incels. If you already do, then pic related.


 No.2932542

>>2932527

>That's because your advice is just liberal apologia for the status quo.

Nah you're just a shit person lol, the reason everyone talks to you like you're a cunt is because you're a cunt. Look at how decent everyone was to the incel who wasn't a cunt (besides yourselves, you cunts).

>Incels may not be against private property but they're crypto leftists

No, you're not crypto anything, you're tolerated purely because you fit in this thread. Nobody likes you because you are legitimately awful people.

>>2932532

Thanks for the facts about fucking, guy who does not fuck and will continue not to fuck if he doesn't knock this autistic shit off.


 No.2932552

File: c273b60e818faef⋯.png (35.41 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 1457406772919.png)

File: b111f0de28d4686⋯.png (480.62 KB, 474x712, 237:356, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2932542

>Nah you're just a shit person

begone spooks

>the reason everyone talks to you like you're a cunt is because you're a cunt.

That and because people buy into the eye-for-an-eye ideology. Incels may be lashing out in an extremely antisocial way, but that's not coming from nowhere. If you were one iota the materialist you'd like to think you are, you would want to investigate what situational factors would lead to behavior like that, but you're hopped up on some run of the mill liberal ideology, nigga. Men don't become meanie doodoo head incels because of a personal choice out of the blue. Sure they suck but them being assholes doesn't absolve you of the social responsibility to recognize social problems and try to understand them. They may be "legitimately awful people" as you experience them, but they're still people, and their violent language (occasionally actions) is a failed expression of their emotional problems. Any kind of trend like this can't merely be the product of personal choice. Even where personal choice is involved, there simply must be common factors that enable, prompt, or encourage that choice. The use of incels' odiousness as an excuse to dismiss them entirely is a coward's cope to escape from the fact that gender and relationships are actually pretty fucked up.

Read Rosenberg.


 No.2932553

File: 340f59cf2eec365⋯.jpg (32.03 KB, 500x500, 1:1, cure.jpg)

>>2932542

>insulting the critic, not the agument

>if you don't want to be harassed, just submit like this poor guy

>assign the guy who ha the audacity to disagree as outgroup and as “evil”

>do what I say, or else

Diagnose: Cluster B personality, Sociopathy

Proposed Solution: Summary Execution for the public good


 No.2932563

>>2932552

>begone spooks

It stops being a spook when literally everyone believes it.

>Incels may be lashing out in an extremely antisocial way, but that's not coming from nowhere. If you were one iota the materialist you'd like to think you are, you would want to investigate what situational factors would lead to behavior like that

No shit, Oscar Dirlewanger was a product of his environment combined with an unending stream of shitty choices, but funnily enough none of the other German soldiers from the front in WWI ended up being responsible for first hand involvement in the murder of tens of thousands of people and rape of thousands. Stop trying to shirk all personal responsibility.

>but they're still people, and their violent language (occasionally actions) is a failed expression of their emotional problems.

Thank you Oscar, very cool!

>>2932553

Yeah sorry chief but this isn't the way it's going to go.


 No.2932566

File: 116599be1d33591⋯.png (99.22 KB, 973x448, 139:64, 116599be1d33591548bfcd54e6….png)

>>2932563

I know, we live in world were sociopaths thrive. I just wanted to warn people.


 No.2932568

>>2932563

>It stops being a spook when literally everyone believes it.

No it doesn't.

>Stop trying to shirk all personal responsibility.

I'm not an incel. I'm not talking about me here.

>but funnily enough none of the other German soldiers from the front in WWI ended up being responsible for first hand involvement in the murder of tens of thousands of people and rape of thousands.

Then it's not much of an analogy for a fairly widespread trend, is it?


 No.2932569

>>2932566

Yeah you're right it's literally everyone else that's the sociopath and not the guy who is so lacking in emotional empathy he wants the entire world to revolve around how incapable he is with women rather than change himself.


 No.2932571

>>2932566

Bullying is a good thingif you get bullied you're doing something poorly


 No.2932574

>>2932568

>Then it's not much of an analogy for a fairly widespread trend, is it?

Is it not? Hundreds of thousands of people were stuck in the trenches and most of them went off to live normal lives. The tens of millions of us populating the English speaking internet have decided to adjust to the world, yet the incels absolutely insist, for years, that everyone must do what they want, or god forbid they'll start hurting people.

>>2932407

>Maybe i should start raping and killing teenage girls so that I can get fan mail from admirerers too? If he wasnt in prison they would already be fucking him.

This is regular from them. Why side with them when they utterly refuse help at every opportunity?


 No.2932576

>>2932525

>Then what the hell should I do?

Start by collecting skills in activities in which you can participate in a group setting; something like cooking, crafting or sports can work, avoid solitary activities, porn or video games. As you progress you meet people who are both better and worse than you in all sorts of activities, and you gain perspective by talking to them and learning from them; the nicer the are and more open ones you can hold onto as good people to talk to when you are down. Collect and remember good jokes to use in different settings, and use them to open up girls to talk to them. Create your own jokes and be funny that way too.

This way you figure out what you like in a person and progress closer towards your ideal person that you want to spend time, and eventually the rest of your life with. You want to have sex with people you like, not necessarily depend upon, but too many young people are idiots and don't know that. What's more is, both of you will need to learn how to cultivate and care for each other and your relationship, which means spending time together and doing things that don't involve sex. Your relationship cannot revolve around sex, which is originally why we have such involved childcare regimes naturally imposed on us.

>>2932488

>He's bi, the only person that cares about that here is you, Christcuck.

You don't come back from taking it in the ass. Males who let themselves be used that way are rightly seen as surrendering their virility and their status as respectable men; such men cannot be depended upon in battle nor as people to share secrets with; they are a liability. Homosexual sex is usually seen as surrendering because of perceived difficulty, which is a disgrace: it is our nature as men to overcome obstacles:

>inb4 spooks

When Stirner wrote The Ego and Its Own, he had to reach a particular understanding of philosophy in order to be able to write that book, which takes effort; even organizing one's thoughts to write that book took effort. All of this was a level to overcome for him, not unlike young men trying to figure out how to find a good woman to marry and bed. It is a rising above and subduing of the Other that men must do; every choice we make towards reaching a greater sense of the sublime involves this exact mechanism; anything that surrenders that drive towards the sublime is a catastrophic failure. Such I regard homosexuality.

>>2932502

>All that sentence finger-fucking/get your ideology straight

It never was about sex for me, it was about finding a person I could relate to who could appreciate me, and I her, so we could help each other get over our respective bullshit. But that seems to be too much for young women and LGBT+ people these days, who are either to wrapped up in an orgiastic dance towards oblivion with their imperative to subdue men as subjects out of misplaced revanchism.

>Inferiority complex

>The women who aren't scared away by bi dudes are either going after rock stars or are themselves actually into sex and see it as something to participate in rather than something to let men do with their bodies.

The first point easily demonstrates your abject selfishness and your drive to enjoy without regard for the sensibilities or emotional state of others, not unlike exhibitionist titty-streamers who do that for cash and validation from a male audience. Also, the women who would be into having sex for its own sake are exactly the ones to avoid since they don't necessarily care about the person they have it with; for them, the first thing is to enjoy, less so the rest.

>That's a matter of how promiscuous you are.

>Prommiscuity isn't an inherently LGBT thing, it's just that gay men have the capacity to have more sex that way because of how people are socialized

Like they wouldn't take advantage of that whole situation for their own selfish pleasure and schadenfreude as their partners realize what has just happened and undergo psychological breakdowns.


 No.2932577

File: 2e1b6c87e5c56ce⋯.jpg (108.98 KB, 900x673, 900:673, 56dff3aac36188d10a8b45c3.jpg)

>>2932569

No, it's just you, at least in this thread. It's also interesting that you mentioned dirlewanger, I'm sure you would have understood each other splendidly.

>>2932571

This is pretty much always the first comment that comes up when the topic gets mentioned on /pol/, so I am surprised at your honesty here. But you know it is not acceptable to say so you don't speak it out loud in public and even spoilered it here, as sociopaths are masters of social interaction.


 No.2932583

File: 2749ce8d19fcd40⋯.png (90.3 KB, 1652x719, 1652:719, inceltears_onedown.png)

File: 916f50d611c5247⋯.jpg (59.84 KB, 702x960, 117:160, 62443464_193425874901657_6….jpg)

>>2932574

Except that he was pretty much the opposite of an incel. I You have made up a phantasm in your mind, they do not want charity,especially not from the likes of you as they regard the social order that put people in their positions as illegitimate. This makes them radical.


 No.2932584

>>2932576

>You don't come back from taking it in the ass. Males who let themselves be used that way are rightly seen as surrendering their virility and their status as respectable men; such men cannot be depended upon in battle nor as people to share secrets with; they are a liability. Homosexual sex is usually seen as surrendering because of perceived difficulty, which is a disgrace: it is our nature as men to overcome obstacles:

>>inb4 spooks

lmfao "cannot be depended upon in battle" are you serious lad? I'd argue with you over this but you'd discount anything I said as a compromised individual who is lying because of his sinful homosexuality. I bet you've never even been in a fight given how much of a well to do bitch you sound like.

>When Stirner wrote The Ego and Its Own yadayadayada

Nigger you're a fucking Christian, you don't get to talk down to me with Stirner, get back in your dustbin of history.

>>2932577

>No, it's just you, at least in this thread. It's also interesting that you mentioned dirlewanger, I'm sure you would have understood each other splendidly.

Keep the projection going, doesn't get you any further towards making yourself happy.


 No.2932586

>>2932583

>Dirlewanger

>pretty much the opposite of an incel

Yeah because you dumb emotionless apes are kept in check by not being allowed firearms and a warzone to walk around in. I like how you're trying to psychologically probe me while making this insane leap, like I don't know that Dirlewanger was raping hundreds of people and that I'm not thinking that you're that guy when given power.


 No.2932590

>>2932586

Great projection, classic tactic of the reactionary. I know that you know, but the point is that plenty of women had consenting sex with him in apart from those he raped, you know like any other sociopath like ted Bundy, the sachsensumpf guy etc. and you of course.


 No.2932595

>>2932590

This is why literally nobody will fuck you.


 No.2932599

>>2932595

So what you are saying is that a man's worth is proven by how many holes he fucked? My, how misogysistic of you.


 No.2932606

>>2932599

No I'm saying that's how you see the world and you'd be a little Dirlewanger if you had a gun and a warzone.

Keep posting though I'm sure the millions of people on leftypol at this hour will be turned to your way of thinking if you disingenuously reply a few more dozen times.


 No.2932612

>>2932606

Because you say so? You have provably engaged in antisocial behaviour right here, just against a "socially acceptable" target. If this was WW2 your targets would differ appropriately and you could do more and would not be restricted by a computer and anonymity but you are still a sociopath.

>keep posting

ok


 No.2932613

File: cdadeff8a97c51e⋯.png (37.28 KB, 386x520, 193:260, 1435509015626.png)

>>2932584

>lmfao "cannot be depended upon in battle" are you serious lad? I'd argue with you over this but you'd discount anything I said as a compromised individual who is lying because of his sinful homosexuality

As far as I know, I don't know how deeply you are invested into defending your particular form-of-life. So far as you are dependent on it for your particular pleasure or worldview-grounding, I know I won't change your mind because that is all you feel you need.

>Nigger you're a fucking Christian, you don't get to talk down to me with Stirner, get back in your dustbin of history.

>lazily implying Stirner meant every sort of sublime religious sense is a spook

Get better at this lad; not even Stirner was this childishly edgy

>>2932595

>This is why literally nobody will fuck you.

This is not about fucking, damn it. When you trivialize people's points like this

>>2932590

>Great projection, classic tactic of the reactionary. I know that you know, but the point is that plenty of women had consenting sex with him in apart from those he raped, you know like any other sociopath like ted Bundy, the sachsensumpf guy etc. and you of course.

How far will this edgelordery go? I don't know…

>>2932606

>No I'm saying that's how you see the world and you'd be a little Dirlewanger if you had a gun and a warzone.

>Keep posting though I'm sure the millions of people on leftypol at this hour will be turned to your way of thinking if you disingenuously reply a few more dozen times.

Go play some Rust and learn how people interact with one another when fighting over trivial bullshit like virtual game items; the only thing that game is missing is all the implied sex stuff that happens in a desolate ex-warzone


 No.2932620

File: 437752bda41740e⋯.jpg (29.58 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1551822062803.jpg)

>>2932613

>Go play some Rust and learn how people interact with one another when fighting

This is the guy telling me I can't be relied upon in a fight because I fucked a dude lmfao

This is a really good bit, it's far funnier than any of the seething incels who are getting mad at people fucking


 No.2932624

>>2932620

why don't you include the rest of the sentence and provide proper context, you tendentious twit?


 No.2932633

>>2932624

Haha no because it's fucking pathetic. You're talking about your life experience through video games and telling me I can't be relied upon in a fight, when you've clearly never been in a fight in your life.

I want to believe you're a good troll but given the people that visit this place I'm not sure if you're trolling or just retarded.


 No.2932635

>>2932563

>It stops being a spook when literally everyone believes it.

What! Are you kidding me! That’s when spooks are at their spookiest!

Reminds me of the “South Park” episode where it became fashionable to stuff food up your ass and shit out your mouth. And everyone kept doing it because everyone else was doing it.


 No.2932639

>>2932635

Nazi Germany was spooked out its mind and still managed to kill tens of millions of people. It's a material issue at that point.


 No.2932661

>>2932633

>You're talking about your life experience through video games

You deliberately misrepresent the point yet again; its about how people will get fucking mad and waste hours of their lives just to get even over pointless bullshit that doesn't even matter in the final analysis; all the while chasing after pointless enjoyment when they could be doing something with their lives. While that last may seem hypocritical, it's not; I mean to relate this to the politics of the personal. I honestly have not see anything good come out of the identitarian deconstruction of sexuality/gender politics. I honestly believe that the championing of alternative lifestyles was a wasteful distraction over the last several decades that took leftist revolutionary radicals down a blind alley.

Furthermore, if you think I'm just trolling, why do you respond? Who is the dumber person, the troll or the one reacting to him?


 No.2932667

>>2932661

Have you ever been in a fight or not? Stop trying to bore us all to death.


 No.2932674

>>2932639

>Germany turning Nazi served anyone but German porkies Ego.

A worker literally can’t be more than when they turn fash.


 No.2932678

>>2932661

>Have you ever been in a fight or not?

Yes actaully, several. I almost mamed a man while sparring, was not pleasant. Glad we had insurance though.


 No.2932685

>>2932678

>I almost mamed a man while sparring, was not pleasant

lmao, is this the "almost raped" of tough guys?


 No.2932695

>>2932678

>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little ªcleverº comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.


 No.2933451

Am I the only one that thinks letting kids transition is kind of fucked?


 No.2933476

>>2933451

No, but it's more complicated than that.

On one hand, there are trans people who figure it out when they're kids and if you gave those people hormones to go through puberty differently that could actually help a lot in dealing with being trans.

On the other hand, there are kids who are confused or questioning (which is fine on its own) who are getting pushed to do puberty blockers (different from hormone replacement but still a type of hormone treatment) and can/does cause sterility even if they go through the typical puberty later. This is fucked up, and it also doesn't help actual trans people much because they would rather go through puberty at a normal time, just a different one from what their body would do on its own. So the whole puberty blocker thing is highly suspect to begin with. On top of that you have attention whore parents pushing their kids to identify as trans so they can get woke clout out of it. Honestly I see the whole thing as more of a medical concern than anything, and the fact that it's become so hotly politicized is the real harm being done here. Ultimately the only political issue that should be relevant here is bodily autonomy, that people should have the final say over what happens to their own body, and figuring out what the age of consent for permanent alterations should be. The concept that parents get a say in this kind of thing at all needs to be done away with, and is the product of an extremely narcissistic culture that encourages people to see their kids as property rather than people.

Ideally we'd eliminate the current form of "parental authority" entirely, but it's more important to take away parents' power to make body mod decisions for their kids ASAP. This crosses over into issues of body/genital integrity as it affects male or intersex infants.


 No.2933495

>>2933476

I know it’s complicated, which is why I think it’s fucked people promote it wholesale. I don’t care if people do it after 18, but I really don’t have a problem restricting it before then. The autonomy thing isn’t even an issue for me, because kids can barely act autonomously anyway, and their brains are still developing. Having a bunch of kids undergo a life altering surgery because they’re a bit confused for the sake of that one kid who may not regret the decision when they’re older is wrong headed. But yeah, I think a lot of money is behind this trend, which is why you see an influx of “woke” parents promoting it. If there was a scientific instrument to parse out the difference with near 100 percent accuracy, that might be different, but as of right now I don’t trust it.


 No.2933743

>>2933495

I mean, tbh I've seen enough teenagers get harassed or even beaten by their parents for showing even the slightest hint of nonconformity. You really can't evaluate this on anything but a case-by-case basis.


 No.2933886

>>2933743

>teenagers get harassed or even beaten by their parents for showing even the slightest hint of nonconformity

>teenagers get harassed or even beaten by EACH OTHER or showing even the slightest hint of nonconformity

FTFY


 No.2933889

>>2933451

It is pretty fucked up, more even because kids that are under the age of 12 have not even cognitively developed enough to actually THINK like adult human beings.

Around the age of 12 we have the necessary cognitive constructs to continue the development into normal human beings.

Even if we go down a more lenient road and say that the stages of cognitive development aren't strictly hierarchical and that we can skip a stage, we still don't have what's necessary for rational thoughts.

In other words, little kids are complete RETARDS in the regard of thinking, which is fine and normal because they will develop out of it, but transitioning a kid that thinks the waterboiler is sad or that the sun was a burning rock thrown by someone in the sky, is pretty retarded.


 No.2933890

>>2933451

And a note on that:

Most children who identify as something other than their biological gender usually go back to identifying with their biological gender after puberty sets and whatnot.


 No.2933892

>>2933889

>It is pretty fucked up, more even because kids that are under the age of 12 have not even cognitively developed enough to actually THINK like adult human beings.

A question I've had, that I haven't had answered just yet, would be whether they're any more qualified to decide to undergo puberty "naturally." Of course, this is how it's always happened, but, once it becomes a choice due to technology, then the question becomes whether the natural was in fact correct.

This seems to be an argument for the pro side, but I wouldn't say I'm either pro or anti. The pro side for this has a different "nature" problem, namely whether one any more arrives at a "natural" or inherent gender identity by delaying puberty than by not delaying it. I think the questions are interesting, but the arguments for one seem loaded with equations of the natural and the good, and for the other with a notion of the evolution of selfhood and identity that is impossible to believe.


 No.2933895

>>2933892

It's the natural way because nature wants to properly settle you in for the life of a XX or XY chromosomed person.

Had our species been something else, where we were all the same until puberty and then randomly chosen by nature to become male or female, then I think your argument could world.

But our species already have a framework set in place long before puberty.


 No.2933896

>>2933892

But how will it become a choice with the advancement of technology, I am not sure if I'm following you here.

Do you mean that at some point children will develop faster and be able to make such a choice at a younger age?

The thing is that cognitive, physiological, emotional all go more or less hand in hand for children that had a stable upbringing.

We could say the same for children still in the egocentric stage not wanting to cross into concrete operational stage, children DON'T know what changes await them, but if it was somehow possible to speed up the cognitive development, then I imagine such a thing would be OK, but we are talking sci-fi nonsense now, not something I expect to be the case in the near future.

I am not sure, since I didn't do any research on this, but I feel more often than not, this is parents pushing some sort of agenda on their kids.


 No.2933906

>>2933895

>It's the natural way because nature wants to properly settle you in for the life of a XX or XY chromosomed person.

Nature doesn't "want" anything. We can definitely say that these chromosomes tend toward certain phenotypic representations, but talk of nature having desires and the like is part of the problem I'm describing. The idea of "nature" isn't being treated in a properly materialist way, which also leads to these further equations of nature and correctness.

>>2933896

>Do you mean that at some point children will develop faster and be able to make such a choice at a younger age?

No, I mean that it is, through these puberty blockers, already a choice in actuality. I'm not saying that children are any better able to choose, but that this is the choice that exists already, regardless of how able they are to choose.

>I am not sure, since I didn't do any research on this, but I feel more often than not, this is parents pushing some sort of agenda on their kids.

I'm of a similar mind on this, though. Or, rather, the trans-identity is, like all identities, a reflection of the social environment and certain notions of inherent selfhood based on the collection of attributes held by the identity categories of "male" and "female" (as practices, yet essentialized to some extent here).


 No.2934164

>>2932542

Nah you're just a shit person lol, the reason everyone talks to you like you're a cunt is because you're a cunt.

I'm not an incel. Doesn't the fact that you say I'm a woman hater but still still getting sex prove that women don't sleep with incels because they're misogynistic.

>Look at how decent everyone was to the incel who wasn't a cunt (besides yourselves, you cunts).

Lol, putting a happy face on your liberal ideology isn't decency. Regardless decency from us isn't what he wants. He wants a girlfriend.

>>Incels may not be against private property but they're crypto leftists

>No, you're not crypto anything, you're tolerated purely because you fit in this thread. Nobody likes you because you are legitimately awful people.

Yes they are crypto leftists because their ideology, namely the "involuntary" part of their celibacy goes against liberal propaganda that the status quo is a meritocracy.

Why do you keep trying to socially ostracize me. I don't get any social validation on this Mongolian fingetpainting enthusiasts anime board, you need to go back to Twitter where people actually care about e- social climbing lol.

>Thanks for the facts about fucking, guy who does not fuck and will continue not to fuck if he doesn't knock this autistic shit off

I do fuck though. This isn't talked about but their is a significant amount of bigotry against straight males from LBGTQ community members. It manifests itself in misandry like this where lonely straight men are flippantly told to just go gay.

These are the same hypocrites that would reel in horror if you told a gay person struggling with their identity to just go straight.


 No.2934167

>>2934164

*misformatted green text

>Nah you're just a shit person lol, the reason everyone talks to you like you're a cunt is because you're a cunt.

I'm not an incel. Doesn't the fact that you say I'm a woman hater but still still getting sex prove that women don't sleep with incels because they're misogynistic.


 No.2934180

File: 546b1b93f18f8b8⋯.jpg (19.22 KB, 258x344, 3:4, 258px-Brenton_Gf.jpg)

>>2932586

>Yeah because you dumb emotionless apes are kept in check by not being allowed firearms and a warzone to walk around in. I like how you're trying to psychologically probe me while making this insane leap, like I don't know that Dirlewanger was raping hundreds of people and that I'm not thinking that you're that guy when given power.

It's a good thing your keeping all those incels in check. Ladies men never go on shooting sprees that take the lives of dozens of innocent victims.

Pic related: The Churchchrist Shooter


 No.2934189

>>2933886

Both are true.


 No.2934328

>>2919953

cant believe im replying to a weeks old comment, but you hit the nail on the head. racism and sexism in this era are fronts for the 1% to keep the masses infighting so they can stay in power.


 No.2934329

>>2934328

>>2919953

Also, a lot of the analysis of feminism only ever applied to "middle class" women. Poor women were always leaving the household to work, and even "middle class" men have always done housework too (just different kinds). Most feminist ideology is shaped at a fundamental level by bourgeois white women, and ironically they never really did housework because they just hired maids for that.


 No.2934398

>>2932574

>Is it not? Hundreds of thousands of people were stuck in the trenches and most of them went off to live normal lives.

Wow, you really don't know your history. The generation that fought in WWI was known as the "Lost Generation".

They were named that because they start so traumatized after the war that they were incapable of holding jobs, integrating back into polite society etc.

Also much of your fascist culture comes from PSTD WWII vets. Take bikers for instance, who were originally disaffected WWII soldiers angry at the betrayal they felt from American society after WWII. They even made a movie about it called "The Wild One".


 No.2934529

>>2933743

>>2933743

Child abuse is a whole separate issue, and they are very cautious about false reports. It’s not very analogous to the current situation as the line is still ambiguous between children who are experimenting and those who will identify as the opposite gender the rest of their life. Even with child abuse, the child is still reliant on the will of the state and not completely autonomous.


 No.2935049

What if i like men and just want to be a good revolutionary, never talk about gayness and haven't been to a gay parade or anything in my life?

Where do i fit in?


 No.2935894

I found this really interesting thread about the incel question on libcom:

https://libcom.org/forums/general/incels-celebrate-recent-killing-spree-some-thoughts-leftist-failure-25042018


 No.2935897

It's just old feminist diatribe.

>Anne Marie D'Amico, who worked for an investment management firm, was one of 10 people killed in the [allegedly incel] van attack on Monday afternoon in Toronto.

based


 No.2935899

File: 8659285f57c79a9⋯.png (422.51 KB, 780x439, 780:439, porky.png)

>>2935897

>D'Amico was an employee at Invesco, a U.S.-based investment management firm.


 No.2935902

>>2934529

>Child abuse is a whole separate issue,

Not really. All abuse is related. Most abusers were themselves abused at one point. There's an important cyclical element to abuse that's usually ignored.

>>2935049

You sound like a comrade. Being gay isn't really relevant.

>>2935894

>It is a reaction to the very real, effective work that feminists and progressive people have done around issues of sexism, misogyny, homophobia and patriarchy. It is predictable that, faced with the perceived disappearance of power that they thought was their birthright, many men will react with violence to try to re-assert that power.

This is such a cliche. These men were born after feminism has reshaped culture. They didn't have some expectation of power, because not only had that kind of power eroded, but most of them grew up in an environment dominated by women and saturated with feminist messaging about how it's important to respect women. These boys/men weren't raised to think life was like Mad Men. That's just stupid.


 No.2935912

File: a34d1848b268af7⋯.jpg (8.26 KB, 284x284, 1:1, is this nigga serious.jpg)

>>2935894

>There is no movement that addresses toxic masculinity and other ways males are harmed by patriarchy.

Incredible. Maybe start by considering why your framing of gender issues isn't helping men if it's not flawed. Men are about half of people, so isn't it a little weird for a movement based on liberating people from their gender roles fails to help all those people with that?

>Feminism occasionally deals with it but it's not a major focus, nor do I think it should be.

Ah, ok. So despite the apparently dire and violent consequences that this is a response to, it's not really that important.

>This is something that men need to take the lead on for themselves, or they won't accept it.

There are many different attempts at it, and whether it's men or women leading (the leadership of the men's rights movement has a lot of women), it's not men who won't accept it. It's feminism.

>And there's nothing like that happening.

Sure there is, it just gets written off as toxic masculinity regardless of whether it has merit.

>Out of this vacuum we get the men's rights movement but they deal with male issues but from a sexist position.

And no matter how much an MRA might try to accommodate feminism they'll still be seen that way. It's nothing to do with the specific ideas or methods that's objected to. Feminists object to the core concept. The ones who don't tend to stop being feminists when they see how others react.

>So the vacuum remains. There is no anti-sexist men's movement.

Sure there is. A lot of MRAs aren't feminists (any more) because they're "not allowed to be." Meanwhile, feminism excludes men from consideration in the question of gender politics, a priori. Most MRAs consider themselves egalitarian and think women and men should be equal. The primary confusion here is how many women's issues MRAs believe are still a problem, and why. For example, MRAs don't oppose equal pay; many just assert that because pay discrimination is illegal that there's nothing more to do on that front. That might be a limited or insufficient view, but it's not sexist. Especially not in comparison to feminism's exclusivity.

>When it comes to dealing with the male side of gender liberation, the left is failing. I mean, we're failing at a lot of things but it seems like on this one we're not even making an attempt. (With rare exceptions aside, but there is no movement to speak of.)

More like most on the left are actively hostile to the concept, especially self-identifying feminists.

>I'm a woman so I can't really do anything about this.

Yet it's men's responsibility to be feminists.

>And even if I were a man I don't think I'd know what to do to get something like this started.

A good start would be to honestly evaluate what's going on currently and being said by the various parties.

>But I hope it happens. I think it's the only way to address the issue of hateful, violent, and emotionally wounded men.

Well the fucked up thing here is the violent cries for help by incels seem to be working.


 No.2935964

>>2935902

>This is such a cliche. These men were born after feminism has reshaped culture. They didn't have some expectation of power, because not only had that kind of power eroded, but most of them grew up in an environment dominated by women and saturated with feminist messaging about how it's important to respect women. These boys/men weren't raised to think life was like Mad Men. That's just stupid.

I agree, but there other valid points in the thread.

>>2935902

>so isn't it a little weird for a movement based on liberating people from their gender roles fails to help all those people with that?

In a movement focused on woman? Not at all.

>So despite the apparently dire and violent consequences that this is a response to, it's not really that important.

She do not say that, she say that the feminist movement is more focused in the woman, its not saying that is not important.

>There are many different attempts at it, and whether it's men or women leading (the leadership of the men's rights movement has a lot of women)

Nope, there is not, there some woman in the movement, but their are not in the leading position, and thats alright, could you imagine a black movement nowadays lead by a white guy/girl?

>Sure there is, it just gets written off as toxic masculinity regardless of whether it has merit.

>And no matter how much an MRA might try to accommodate feminism they'll still be seen that way. It's nothing to do with the specific ideas or methods that's objected to. Feminists object to the core concept. The ones who don't tend to stop being feminists when they see how others react.

Do you visit any of this communities, they are straight up misogynists, it is toxic masculinity.

Also, as the other guy said in the thread, the political climate is not best to do this type of thing with most of those organization being coopted by the alt-right.

>More like most on the left are actively hostile to the concept, especially self-identifying feminists.

I agree, it is something that is seen with a lot of prejudice from the left.

>I'm a woman so I can't really do anything about this.

>Yet it's men's responsibility to be feminists.

She was talking about starting a anti-sexist men's movement, its is something that men need to take the lead.

Also, read at least the first page before replying to the thread, there are things that are you complaining about that was addressed in thread.>>2935902

>A good start would be to honestly evaluate what's going on currently and being said by the various parties.


 No.2935967


 No.2935983

>>2935902

Wtf? Do you really want to frame the issue of kids transitioning under the same label as child abuse? lmao

I’m still not seeing how they’re related, as one is a mostly medical and psychological concern.


 No.2936024

>>2935983

Misinterpreted the context. I thought it was talking about sexual assault or abuse of adults. No, I don't think framing childhood transitioning as abuse is a good idea, outside of cases where you have Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

>>2935964

>I agree, but there other valid points in the thread.

The person who made the post wasn't even saying that. It's just such a common thing that comes up I felt compelled to respond to it.

>In a movement focused on woman? Not at all.

Yeah, that's my point. By being focused on women, feminism is unsuited to dealing with men's problems. It would be fine if feminists accepted that and allowed space for other ideas, but another tenet of feminism is that feminism is the only game in town.

>She do not say that, she say that the feminist movement is more focused in the woman, its not saying that is not important.

This is in a larger context where it's often said "feminism helps men too." Feminism currently has an internal conflict over whether it should (nominally) help men too or ignore/deny men's problems.

>Nope, there is not, there some woman in the movement, but their are not in the leading position, and thats alright, could you imagine a black movement nowadays lead by a white guy/girl?

I haven't kept up closely with the MRM in several years, but last I saw them they had prominent voices who were women, doing both analysis and organizing.

>Do you visit any of this communities

Do you? I check in with their subreddit now and then. They're mostly a bunch of liberals or libertarians who are engaged in culture war shit. There are a few people who say hateful shit, and they usually get downvoted or banned. They're ripe material for hearing about class conflict and material analysis, but most left-wingers avoid them like the plague because people keep saying they're problematic.

>they are straight up misogynists, it is toxic masculinity.

It's easy to get this impression from second-hand accounts by people like Dave Futrelle (mentioned in the comments). People like him make their living by following another movement around and selecting whatever they can to make them look bad, often by misrepresenting what they see. It's the equivalent of SJW Cringe Compilation shit.

>Also, as the other guy said in the thread, the political climate is not best to do this type of thing with most of those organization being coopted by the alt-right.

That's why it matters to address these topics. Every other identity issue gets acknowledgement from the left (and liberals), but men are half the population. Why would you abandon the recruiting tool of saying "yes, these are real problems, and we have a class analysis framework that they fit into"? When people say "the right wing is doing this, we better stay away" they are simply giving up on battling for that ideological space. You don't make revolution in white gloves. If you can't even bear to walk into an online forum where right wingers go, how are you going to handle the conflicts involved in organizing labor, much less anything like a revolution?

>I agree, it is something that is seen with a lot of prejudice from the left.

In large part because what exists still gets written off as "toxic masculinity" and "misogyny" without substantiation.

>She was talking about starting a anti-sexist men's movement, its is something that men need to take the lead.

She was talking about leading, and the MRM has had female leaders before, even if they don't now. Not really a major point, it's not like she's going to do that anyway.

>Also, read at least the first page before replying to the thread, there are things that are you complaining about that was addressed in thread.

I've been reading and posting ITT for a while, I don't know what you think I missed. Some of the posts on the first page are mine. If I'm repeating myself it's only to respond to specific things in the link here >>2935894

I check in pretty regularly because these topics interest me.


 No.2936331

File: 49283df537be63c⋯.jpg (17.28 KB, 335x378, 335:378, tumblr_mjkfjrIFyZ1s8r2c1o1….jpg)

Women who post outrage screenshots of hookup requests are social conservatives who don't understand or resent the fact that hookup culture exists, and they should be called out for shaming sexual practices they don't like.

Change my mind.


 No.2936335

>>2936331

>>2936331

It's a good thing. Exposing hedonists their "culture",especially when combined with social ostracism punishes them and thus can correct behaviour as the libertine will have to wage potential sexual gain with fear of losing social standing.


 No.2936340

>>2936335

Why is hookup culture bad, and how does thinking that square with wanting "sexual liberation" that the same people often espouse?


 No.2936347

File: 5ebacfd75cccc6e⋯.png (52.42 KB, 600x600, 1:1, michel-houellebecq-just-li….png)

>>2936340

They only want to messaged by men of higher status than you, if you were more attractive they would not mind.


 No.2936355

>>2936347

>They only want to messaged by men of higher status than you, if you were more attractive they would not mind.

Oh I understand that. For the record, I don't do this. Nobody has to do this to see the screenshots getting posted and shared on social media. I'm just sick of seeing this it over and over. There's a transparent "look how much attention I'm getting :3" element to it, but women I know IRL will make these posts specifically to identify and shame men who DM them totally benign "hello" messages.

>sexual market

good thing we're socialists and there's no reason to think sex would be a market in socialism


 No.2936375

File: c0bb2e5c00483d7⋯.png (400.67 KB, 712x978, 356:489, SSGFs.png)

>>2936355

>good thing we're socialists and there's no reason to think sex would be a market in socialism

based


 No.2936378

>>2936375

highly plausible argument my dude


 No.2936396

>>2932571

So what you’re saying is that the people that would beat queer teens to death to the applause of their peers were actually correct and homosexuality is wrong?


 No.2936403

>>2934329

Exactly, second wave feminism is inherently bourgeois and only appeals/appealed to bourgeois white women

While white girls were burning bras, black women were in the Panthers arming themselves and organizing for the revolution or were otherwise marching for freedom alongside black men


 No.2936409

>>2936403

No argument with the main point, but I will say bras are actually bad.

They're a classic example of companies manufacturing necessities, and the use of "training bras" are an insidious way of both convincing women from an early age that they need this cosmetic product and a way of shaming them for having a human body. The purpose of bras was to shape breasts in a way that was fashionable, and the idea that there's some practical purpose was made up later. There's some evidence they may have negative health implications on top of that, including circulation problems, increased cancer risk, and so on.


 No.2936699

>>2935964

>Nope, there is not, there some woman in the movement,

There's no women in the MRA movement because MRA seek to destroy the unfair competative advantage the state gives women over men via child support debts prisons, sentencing, the draft and around 3 times the amount of services via the welfare state.

Once MRAs get the rights they seek women and men will be fully proletariatized, and having a vagina won't give women any edge under capitalism.

I'd say half the female MRAs are actually right wing grifters that are probably petite bourgeois that will benefit from a further liberalized labor market. A woman that arrived in the MRA movement via disciplined intellectual honesty and far between.

Mocking the MRA for barely having any women in it is like mocking a fisherman for not having fish jump into his boat.


 No.2936725

>Do you visit any of this communities, they are straight up misogynists, it is toxic masculinity.

>You're not allowed to get angry at the group you get marginalized by.

Since 30 percent of women get hit by their boyfriends at some point in their life doesn't that make the men they are dating much more misogynist. You feminists are so desperate to obfuscate women's reactionary sexual partner selection that they'll paint incels as misogynists because of angry internet rants that could just as easily be attributed to frustration, that don't deserve to have women while women voluntarily date men that actually beat them.

>Also, as the other guy said in the thread, the political climate is not best to do this type of thing with most of those organization being coopted by the alt-right.

>Any group that the fash take interest in are lost causes

t. fash sympathizer


 No.2936733

>>2936699

*A woman that arrived in the MRA movement via disciplined intellectual honesty are far and few between.


 No.2936734

>>2935983

>Wtf? Do you really want to frame the issue of kids transitioning under the same label as child abuse? lmao

Fuck yeah I do, this trans shit is just a new name for eunuch, and doing it to kids is just as bad as diddling them.


 No.2936743

>>2936699

>There's no women in the MRA movement because MRA seek to destroy the unfair competative advantage the state gives women over men via child support debts prisons, sentencing, the draft and around 3 times the amount of services via the welfare state.

Nothing about this is true, except for those things being men's issues. It has nothing to do with "competitive advantage" but instead "can you please stop fucking my/our shit up?" This isn't an MRA take. It's a MGTOW or PUA take.

>You feminists are so desperate to obfuscate women's reactionary sexual partner selection that they'll paint incels as misogynists

incels =/= MRAs =/= MGTOW =/= PUAs

Just because they are focused on men and critical of feminism doesn't mean they're the same. The come to wildly different conclusions.

MRAs are largely liberals or jaded and disengaged from politics some conservatives joined after some cynical website owners decided to market toward the "intellectual dark web" dipshits. They have real material gripes over social issues and actual on-paper discrimination.

Incels are full blackpill, and so are some MGTOW, with the rest (the ones who don't make whiny screeds) are just disengaged. These people are the only ones who think women are trouble (whether because of nature, nurture, or both), the difference bing incels want to be with women and MGTOWs don't.

PUAs are basically Randian objectivists who think they can manipulate women to fuck them (and the attractive ones can).

All of these groups dislike feminism but for completely different reasons too, other than the tendency for feminists to scapegoat men.

>because of angry internet rants that could just as easily be attributed to frustration, that don't deserve to have women while women voluntarily date men that actually beat them.

Bruh, if women want to make shitty choices it's not for you to stop them. Instead of whining about that figure out the material conditions behind the current situation - hint: it's social atomization due to precarity collapsing normal relationship and family structures.


 No.2936757

>>2936743

>Nothing about this is true, except for those things being men's issues. It has nothing to do with "competitive advantage" but instead "can you please stop fucking my/our shit up?" This isn't an MRA take. It's a MGTOW or PUA take.

Like hell it doesn't. MRA protests have all been disrupted by self avowed feminists. The same social dialectic that animates feminists to protect women's state sponsored concessions over men is the same one that animates racists to protect state back white supremacy.

And no it's not a PUA/MGTOW/Incel take, all those ideologies are devoid of any materialist analysis.

>incels =/= MRAs =/= MGTOW =/= PUAs

Indeed, but they are all critical of the soft matriarchy we live in in first world countries.

>MRAs are largely liberals or jaded and disengaged from politics some conservatives joined after some cynical website owners decided to market toward the "intellectual dark web" dipshits. They have real material gripes over social issues and actual on-paper discrimination.

Guilt by association logical fallacy, what difference does it make if they're liberals, so are the feminists you're so vigorously defending.

>All of these groups dislike feminism but for completely different reasons too, other than the tendency for feminists to scapegoat men.

The opposite is true, they largely have the same critiques of women which they call "hypergamy" where women, with the approval of the state, use men as disposable stepping stones to higher socioeconomic stratas. They differ only in their coping strategies.

>Bruh, if women want to make shitty choices it's not for you to stop them.

Lol says who, and regardless we only beginning to see the long term effects of the sexual revolution. Between being raised by single mothers and living most of their 20s and 30s alone men are being conditioned by material dialectics to live alone for their entire lives. Those men are going to start rebelling against the welfare state and shut it down since it won't benefit them. When that happens and you have legions of destitute cat ladies and single moms, women themselves are going to hang 3rd wave feminists like you.

>-Instead of whining about that figure out the material conditions behind the current situation - hint: it's social atomization due to precarity collapsing normal relationship and family structures.

Hint, proles can become less precarious by screwing each other over.

Hint, the superstructure is stil telling these incels they have a good faith chance at a relationship and all their failings are personal ones

You get butt hurt at incels even though you say you nominally agree the causes are outside their control because you are a liberal.

And sorry, but women are more than spooked by feminism, there's no throngs of women even superficially advocating against misandry. Buy plenty of women ready to tell you it doesn't exist.


 No.2936767

>>2936757

You might want to read the entire post instead of replying to each minor point sequentially. It'll keep from bloating the responses.

>Guilt by association logical fallacy, what difference does it make if they're liberals, so are the feminists you're so vigorously defending.

How am I defending feminists? I think they're very wrong about men's issues. Just because I disagree with your incelposting doesn't mean I agree with feminists.

>The opposite is true, they largely have the same critiques of women which they call "hypergamy" where women, with the approval of the state, use men as disposable stepping stones to higher socioeconomic stratas.

Some of them in each group think this, but it's a minority with MRAs, MGTOWs, and PUAs.

>They differ only in their coping strategies.

Or as I'd put it in their conclusions.

>Hint, proles can become less precarious by screwing each other over.

Depends. You're not gonna get too far trying for alimony or child support from a poormie.

>Hint, the superstructure is stil telling these incels they have a good faith chance at a relationship and all their failings are personal ones

Completely agree.

>You get butt hurt at incels even though you say you nominally agree the causes are outside their control because you are a liberal.

I think the cope is flawed. I'm sympathetic not butthurt, and I completely agree outside factors outweigh personal ones here. The thing is, though, once shitty conditions have shaped you, you are shaped, and now it is a personal problem (in part) because only you can deal with your emotional troubles.

>And sorry, but women are more than spooked by feminism, there's no throngs of women even superficially advocating against misandry.

Well yeah they stand nothing to gain from it, and there's a lot in the way of them even being aware that men have problems, including…

>Buy plenty of women ready to tell you it doesn't exist.

No argument here. Even the few who give nominal support to men's issues tend to say it's because patriarchy hurts men too or some dumb shit.


 No.2936803

>>2936767

>Guilt by association logical fallacy, what difference does it make if they're liberals, so are the feminists you're so vigorously defending.

>How am I defending feminists?

By misrepresenting any mens issues you don't like as PUA MGTOW bullshit.

>Just because I disagree with your incelposting doesn't mean I agree with feminists.

This is another example of your feminism. Anybody that doesn't recognize you as a gatekeeper of "real" mens issues is LOL AN INCEL. Once again reinforcing the idea that men get sex based on some type of meritocracy when 30 percent of women are willingly sleeping with the worst type of misogynists, i.e. wife beaters.

I'd tell you I'm not an incel if I didn't know you'd just come back with LOL COPE.

>Some of them in each group think this, but it's a minority with MRAs, MGTOWs, and PUAs.

They all think this. Where are you going to inform yourself on what these groups think? I myself go to r9k r/mgtow r/braincels and r/whereareallthe goodmen

>Or as I'd put it in their conclusions.

No nimrod, they all believe in hypergamy. They just have different strategies. PUAs and MRAs think the toxic dating culture women have helped create can be gamed, incels and MGTOWs don't.

>Depends. You're not gonna get too far trying for alimony or child support from a poormie.

Bushit, the amount of child support paid each year by men numbers into the 10s of billions.

>>You get butt hurt at incels even though you say you nominally agree the causes are outside their control because you are a liberal.

>I think the cope is flawed.

No your a liberal coming at the issue of incels with a pittance of a concession. You're admitting that incels have a point, b-b-b-but women weren't culpable for any of it even though they directly materially profited from. Gosh they were just lost little lambs, you disaffected men can stop being angry now.

And through omission, denying that the status quo can be changed. Sorry toots, men as a class are past the negotiation stage and its going to nothing but escalation until every demand is met. Feminists destroyed every real material advantage men had over women. Now its women's turn.

>I'm sympathetic not butthurt, and I completely agree outside factors outweigh personal ones here.

Hello fellow MRAs

>The thing is, though, once shitty conditions have shaped you, you are shaped, and now it is a personal problem (in part) because only you can deal with your emotional troubles.

Bullshit

>Well yeah they stand nothing to gain from it, and there's a lot in the way of them even being aware that men have problems, including…

Exactly, which is why psuedo intellects like you aren't going to be able to solve this by diplomacy.


 No.2936806

>>2936803

*misformatted

>Just because I disagree with your incelposting doesn't mean I agree with feminists.

This is another example of your feminism. Anybody that doesn't recognize you as a gatekeeper of "real" mens issues is LOL AN INCEL. Once again reinforcing the idea that men get sex based on some type of meritocracy when 30 percent of women are willingly sleeping with the worst type of misogynists, i.e. wife beaters.

I'd tell you I'm not an incel if I didn't know you'd just come back with LOL COPE.


 No.2936838

>>2936767

>You're not gonna get too far trying for alimony or child support from a poormie.

Tons of people fucked over by child support are poor as shit and many of them have killed themselves over it.


 No.2936879

>>2856439

Misandrists are not necessarily reactionaries though. Just misguided people who confuse their hatred for the patriarchy with actual hatred for men.


 No.2937105

>>2936879

Misogynists are not necessarily reactionaries though. Just misguided people who confuse their hatred for the matriarchy with actual hatred for women.


 No.2937213

>>2936879

Bullshit, I can prove that male disposability is an underpinning of capitalism. Which sex comprises of the majority of the police, military, intelligence and other persons that actually do the violence necessary to uphold private property.

Are there throngs of women reeling in horror at this state of affairs? Are these women staying out of these positions as a form of protest, and seeking to do things that slow of frustrate capitalism from perpetuating itself like not being consumerist whores?

Or are women more than happy at receiving the benefits of empire, and reveling in the fact that the state allows them to have their own little indentured servant in the form of a beta orbiter, child support debt serf or brow beaten husband that never protests out of fear of being rekt in divorce.

Women aren't arbitrarily misandrist, it's the superstructure that emerges from misandrist material conditions.

>>2937105

>being mad at the identity based caste system is bigotry.

I bet your one of those Heglians that think that slave masters are the real slaves.


 No.2937217

>>2936806

nigga you the one gatekeeping

I'm saying there are MRAs who aren't like you


 No.2937219

>>2936879

Misandrists almost invariably balk at the concept of "not all men" which would be a big yikes from the wokies if you applied that logic to basically any identity. Constructing and validating a stereotype that way is also essentialism, which is definitely reactionary.


 No.2937239

>>2937217

I never said they were like me. You said hypergamy was some fringe belief among them. When the vast majority of them believe it dipshit. I don't think I've ever talked to a MRA, incel, PUA or MGTOW that didn't believe in hypergamy.


 No.2937409

>>2937239

"Hypergamy" just means marrying up. Everyone knows women tend to do that. What sets you apart from other MRAs is the hysterical and conspiratorial shrieking.

>PUAs and MRAs think the toxic dating culture women have helped create can be gamed, incels and MGTOWs don't.

MRAs aren't primarily concerned with dating. That's not a rights issue like the draft or bodily integrity. Unless you think you have a right to have sex, like an incel.


 No.2937451

>"Hypergamy" just means marrying up.

It means more, like rejecting men that are poor and dating men that are rich regardless of their character.

>Everyone knows women tend to do that.

The culture and laws don't recognize this. Many of these men didn't know this because they were endlessly propagandized to believe the opposite. They even have a term for it, it's called being "bluepilled".

>What sets you apart from other MRAs is the hysterical and conspiratorial shrieking.

What pray tell are these conspiracies that I believe. That women embrace 3rd wave feminism. That feminism is the biggest impediment to men's rights? That women are protecting the comparative advantage they get from the statue qoe that's backed by state violence?

>PUAs and MRAs think the toxic dating culture women have helped create can be gamed, incels and MGTOWs don't.

MRAs aren't primarily concerned with dating. That's not a rights issue like the draft or bodily integrity. Unless you think you have a right to have sex, like an incel.


 No.2937455

>>2937409

>MRAs aren't primarily concerned with dating.

They concern themselves with laws that govern sexual relationships like rape laws, child support, alimony etc, which directly impact dating.


 No.2937457

>Unless you think you have a right to have sex, like an incel.

Yet women are entitled to mens labor, entitled to making men become fathers, and entitled to mens commitment in a relationship.

And you don't work for something you feel entitled to. Regardless women will give sex out like Halloween candy to Chad's that beat them, but men feeling betrayed by dating are the real danger lol.


 No.2937465

>>2937457

>Yet women are entitled to mens labor,

They aren't.

>entitled to making men become fathers,

They aren't.

>and entitled to mens commitment in a relationship.

Only to the extent that the man is willing to promise commitment.

>Regardless women will give sex out like Halloween candy to Chad's that beat them

So, you're blaming abuse victims for consenting to sex with their abusers, even though it's more likely that they're violently threatened into it? Nice, very classy look.

Thank Marx there's a fucking containment thread for you smoothbrained crybabies.


 No.2937487

So, why is almost every single leftist woman polygamous, LGBT, and specifically probably born with a dick?

Because I really wanna date a commie girl, but, yeah……


 No.2937503

>>2937465

>So, you're blaming abuse victims for consenting to sex with their abusers

Yes, because the decide to date thugs instead of nice guys. That’s their fault.

>>2937465

>even though it's more likely that they're violently threatened into it?

If you live in a country where most people have internet access, then that’s only true for a small minority.


 No.2937508

>>2937503

>Yes, because the decide to date thugs instead of nice guys. That’s their fault.

So you're saying that women purposely seek out abusive men, because they like to be abused, and therefore it's 100% their fault that they get abused.

>If you live in a country where most people have internet access, then that’s only true for a small minority.

That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Every successive thing you are saying makes you look increasingly stupid. Please consider shutting your fucking trap; it will give you less opportunities to make a fool of yourself.


 No.2937524

>>2937487

the dick makes it better, you coward


 No.2937529

>>2937465

>>Yet women are entitled to mens labor,

>They aren't.

Yes they are, via child support debtors prisons, and the welfare state paid for primarily by prole men.

On average a man will pay 250k-300k in taxes, while only getting 100k back in government services, while while pay around 100k but gobble up 300k in services. Educating, housing and feeding all these single mother's children isn't cheap.

And over 50 percent of newborns are now born to single mothers.

Feminists screech endlessly about men not being entitled to sex but oh boy are women ACTUALLY entitled to men's labor.

>>entitled to making men become fathers,

>They aren't.

They are, if a woman become pregnant she abort it against the man's wishes, or she can keep it against the man's wishes and force him to pay for it for 20 years via state violence.

>>and entitled to mens commitment in a relationship.

>Only to the extent that the man is willing to promise commitment.

Wrong against, poverty is violence. Men know they can be destroyed financial in divorce court. This makes millions of men stay in otherwise failed marriages. Women can work, yet are still treated like it's the Victorian era and would be left destitute without the half the assets of a man.

>So, you're blaming abuse victims for consenting to sex with their abusers, even though it's more likely that they're violently threatened into it? Nice, very classy look.

DAMN STRAIGHT I AM

Not all "Chads" are abusers. Women CONSCIOUSLY seek out high status men and many will CONSCIOUSLY enter and remain in abusive relationships because they are making a calculation that staying with an abusive man is better than staying with a loving low status man. It's so common there's a phrase for it in China. It goes

It is better to cry in a BMW, than smile on the back of a bike

>Thank Marx there's a fucking containment thread for you smoothbrained crybabies.

Yes thank goodness, so your liberal hypocrisy can be revealed for what it is.


 No.2937531

File: 53f7fbf75e9669e⋯.jpg (51.46 KB, 280x766, 140:383, wife beater.jpg)

>>2937508

>So you're saying that women purposely seek out abusive men, because they like to be abused, and therefore it's 100% their fault that they get abused.

I saying women seek out high status men, and are willing to stay with an abusive man if they raise their socioeconomic status. It's a calculated risk, and a conscious decision.

>That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

There's no excuse to let yourself be "fooled" by an abusive lover with so much information, resources and help available to women. Therefore if you remain in a relationship like this it has to be because you want to. That doesn't mean you want to be abused, just that being abused doesn't out weight the benefits being in an abusive relationship with a man. And that's almost always because he grants the woman upward mobility.

>Every successive thing you are saying makes you look increasingly stupid. Please consider shutting your fucking trap;

Make me

>it will give you less opportunities to make a fool of yourself.

That's like your opinion….man……

pic related, it's women pinning over a man that tortured his pregnant girlfriend, sucker punched a woman in the head, and beat a gay man within an inch of his life.


 No.2937537

>>2937487

You will never find a "normal" leftist female that is until it actually becomes a mass fucking movement that is a real threat to capital. Don't bother looking for one. Just try to find someone who can be intellectually honest and keep an opened mind.


 No.2937538

>>2937524

Dicks are gross. If a girl has even had a dick in the past it’s a immediate deal breaker


 No.2937539

>>2937538

Hey, there's no accounting for poor taste.


 No.2937540

>>2937487

date a liberal chick instead


 No.2937597

You guys realise that transgender people are just crazy right?

And brainwashed.

There is no way to force society to unilaterally accept a surgically castrated person as the opposite sex, nor reason to consider them so beyond mere ideology.

I think it would be better if instead of being labelled as "gender dysphoric" that children who play with "the wrong toys" should be left alone to do as they wish.

I mean, saying a boy who plays with girls toys has a "female brain" is like, a step further than calling him a sissy, it's tantamount to saying "you aren't butch enough to be a man, so be a surgically altered science freak instead"

And keep all this The FUCK out of schools while we're at it.


 No.2937624

>>2937597

The schools make it a point to track students they suspect of any sexual deviancy. There's no getting it out of the schools because they thrive on this sort of shit, even when they know the damage these sexual ideologies are causing.

Honestly I don't understand the obsession with "wrong toys" or gendering the activities people do beyond those activities that are necessarily based on sex (and even then, who cares). The concept of this ridiculous degree of genderization / sexualization only makes sense to people who have a certain ideology of the relevance of social roles in the first place.


 No.2937637

So what's the MRAs (or whatever) take on the mostly vocal male TRAs in their fight with gender critical feminists?

I don't think that they take pity on those women who want to keep women-only spaces (or fair sports). But they got to feel some embarrassment for the fact that the (again mostly male) TRAs are the ones making irrational claims ("beta-arguments"), while the women here appear as the rational side. Step aside and learn how to argue like alpha-man, whose task is beating women in logic.


 No.2937819

MRAs could grant that trans-identifying males (TIMs) are victims (they're fellow males after all), who are just ideologically brainwashed into thinking that they're following some genuine deeply-held wish, or more cynically, "wise" opportunists going along with (or active stormtroopers of) the feminization by capitalist society, which, as an act of pure ideology, is not in their material interests, but still is also a mere comforting illusion covering up the dire objective situation they face as men in today's society.

On the other hand, since TIMs are in conflict with (a minority group or vanguard of) gender-critical feminists, who are claiming to be the at the forefront of women's liberation, you'd expect the MRAs to be sympathetic with the TIMs as a political force, even though not with all of their actual positions (since TIMs often also claim to be feminists themselves).

I believe there's a third option, and that is that the TIMs have a more radical position than the MRAs, namely a rarely expressed goal (still only in some porn fantasy stories) of the destruction of women, but at the cost of having to claim to be women themselves, which, unlike most MRAs, is the high price they're willing to pay to win in the "battle of the sexes", that is to establish the superiority of shemale goddesses ("real females") over the mere biological genuine women (who menstruate and all that). It's like replacement theology.


 No.2939186

Does anyone have any good material or articles that are critical of Transgenderism that are based on actual science and empiricism?


 No.2939225

>>2937637

>So what's the MRAs (or whatever) take

You're casting a wide net here. There's no orthodox position on anything, but I'll bite.

>on the mostly vocal male TRAs in their fight with gender critical feminists?

"Gender Critical" feminists tend to be essentialists reifying muh two genders as a biological essence. It's exactly as much of a misnomer as feminists claim "men's rights activist" is. How MRAs feel about trans issues varies a lot, but it's usually ranging from indifferent to supportive. The opposition to trans activism is usually based on where it deals with children. IMO, "gender critical" feminists are just social conservatives/reactionaries trying to use feminist terminology to rehabilitate their retrograde views on gender. In theory "gender critical" positions would be progressive, but in practice they're not. They try to reinforce the gender binary, which is the opposite of what they claim. One would think trans people and "gender critical" people would get along because trans people are transgressing gender norms. Sure some binary trans people tend to fall into stereotypes, but that's partly because of trying to fit in partly because the people who are the most extreme toward the "wrong" gender are obviously going to transition. Since gender is a "spectrum" you get extremely feminine MtF trans people (and the converse), but you also have a lot of non-binary trans people. "Gender critical" feminists generally ignore the non-binary trans people who would presumably be exactly what they're looking for in a trans person, but they don't. They usually get ignored or mocked as weird deviants, as if the non-binary gender presentation they have is a transgression against the sacred idea of sex, which "gender critical" feminists reinforce as a strict binary (also ignoring intersex people) that not only defines your biology but also the most socially constructed aspects of "gender" like what bathrooms you use or what you wear. It's the complete opposite of what it claims to be.

>I don't think that they take pity on those women who want to keep women-only spaces (or fair sports).

MRAs are generally against segregation, with exceptions for things like sports or medicine where the difference is materially significant. "take pity on poor wimmin" is a sexist trope that most MRAs find extremely tiresome, as it's often used to oppose the efforts of the men's movement to secure benefits or protections for men. Such efforts get cast as harmful to women, e.g. shelters for battered/abused/raped men/boys get treated by "poor wimmin" feminists as an attempt to steal government money from women's shelters.

>But they got to feel some embarrassment for the fact that the (again mostly male) TRAs are the ones making irrational claims ("beta-arguments"), while the women here appear as the rational side. Step aside and learn how to argue like alpha-man, whose task is beating women in logic.

Facts and Logic(TM) isn't really an MRA thing. It's mostly conservatives who use that frame of thinking. Actual scientific evidence is far more complex than There Are Two Genders rhetoric, which is an ahistorical take based on religious thought imposed on the world through violence. Anthropology shows that prior to colonization (first of Europe then the rest of the world) by the Abrahamic religions (mostly), cultures all over the world had/have a more complex view of gender and sex. The idea of two genders/sexes doesn't originate with empiricism, but with the religious belief system of some bronze-age nomads in the middle east.


 No.2939228

>>2937819

>MRAs could grant that trans-identifying males (TIMs) are victims (they're fellow males after all), who are just ideologically brainwashed into thinking that they're following some genuine deeply-held wish, or more cynically, "wise" opportunists going along with (or active stormtroopers of) the feminization by capitalist society, which, as an act of pure ideology, is not in their material interests, but still is also a mere comforting illusion covering up the dire objective situation they face as men in today's society.

Most MRAs don't take the position that trans people aren't really transgender. The majority are largely indifferent in a lolbert "live and let live" kind of way. They're not preoccupied with this at all, and would regard this kind of thinking as weird, except for the chunk who got recruited from social conservatives (who also tend to be pretty against a lot of men's rights and only nominally MRAs). MRAs tend to be more concerned with trans men, who live as men and deal with men's issues, which are primarily social issues.

>On the other hand, since TIMs are in conflict with (a minority group or vanguard of) gender-critical feminists, who are claiming to be the at the forefront of women's liberation, you'd expect the MRAs to be sympathetic with the TIMs as a political force, even though not with all of their actual positions (since TIMs often also claim to be feminists themselves).

The only people who think "gender critical" feminists (TERFs) are at the forefront of feminism are those people themselves. This whole line of questioning is like someone from Washington DC going to Mexico and asking the people there who they support for mayor. You dramatically overestimate the relevance here.

>I believe there's a third option, and that is that the TIMs have a more radical position than the MRAs, namely a rarely expressed goal (still only in some porn fantasy stories) of the destruction of women, but at the cost of having to claim to be women themselves, which, unlike most MRAs, is the high price they're willing to pay to win in the "battle of the sexes", that is to establish the superiority of shemale goddesses ("real females") over the mere biological genuine women (who menstruate and all that). It's like replacement theology.

None of this has anything to do with what any of these people believe. It's entirely the product of TERF brain rot projecting sexual psychosis onto other groups. Trans women aren't trying to "destroy woman" (fucking lmao), and neither are MRAs. As variable as MRAs are, one of the most popular positions is that it's a mistake to regard gender issues as a "battle of the sexes" and that it's deeply regrettable that feminists resist advancing men's rights when most MRAs are supportive of women's rights. The MRM is itself a splinter group from feminism, which formed because the MRAs realized that men have issues too, but mainstream feminism won't abide that discussion.


 No.2939234

Interesting article about how wonderful "sex work" is:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/22/trouble-in-paradise-rise-and-fall-of-germany-brothel-king-jurgen-rudloff

>Ibrahim admitted forcing women into prostitution at Paradise, setting them a daily target of €500 a day and beating them if they didn’t bring enough money home. He would hit them on the head, rather than the body, he explained, so that no one would see the bruises. He also tattooed his name on to women’s bodies and ordered women to undergo breast enlargement surgery.

>Augsburg’s chief police inspector, Helmut Sporer, says that the huge growth of the sex industry post-legalisation has fuelled a rising demand for women. German authorities have no data on the number of women who work in the domestic sex trade, but conservative estimates suggest 400,000. According to Sporer, more than 90% of these women come from south-east Europe and Africa, and half are under 21.

>“The majority don’t conform to the profile of the self-employed sex worker. They speak no German – or only very basic German. They have a limited education and they are travelling abroad for the first time. Many don’t even know which city they are in,” says Sporer, who says that all these factors make it likely that many are not working voluntarily in prostitution.

>>2939225

>"Gender Critical" feminists tend to be essentialists reifying muh two genders as a biological essence.

Nice Orwellian doublespeak you got there. GC is literally the opposite of what you claim it is.

Old conservative hard-liners: Given your body, you must change your personality to fit the man/woman stereotypes we believe in!

GC: Nah.

Current "open-minded and tolerant" trans ideology: Given your personality, you must change your body to fit the man/woman stereotypes we believe in!

GC: Nah.


 No.2939235

>>2939228

Thanks for confirming what my terven breathren have suspected for years. TRAs are just MRAs dressed up in wigs and godawful knee socks.


 No.2939250

>>2939234

Might as way say we should outlaw all work and point at sweatshop workers for evidence as to why. If weak and powerful people are allowed to exist the latter will always exploit the former, but I don't see you shedding your crocodile tears for male saison working on farms like modern plantage slaves. Nobody here defends pimps, they are literally capitalists or worse slavers, but that is what makes them bad not muh sex.


 No.2939253

>>2939250

>How can rape be bad if other things are also bad?

🤯


 No.2939264

>>2939253

Was that what you think >>2939250 said???


 No.2939298

File: 988711b75350d54⋯.mp4 (11.54 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Slavoj_Zizek_-_Hitler_the_….mp4)

>>2939234

>Old conservative hard-liners: Given your body, you must change your personality to fit the man/woman stereotypes we believe in!

>GC: Nah.

That is literally the opposite of what "gender critical" feminists argue. They assert that the body defines people and that people who transgress these boundaries (like trans people or nonbinary people) are trampling sacred ground.

>Current "open-minded and tolerant" trans ideology: Given your personality, you must change your body to fit the man/woman stereotypes we believe in!

That's completely not what trans activists say. Trans people by and large are conforming to what is comfortable to them personally. Trans activists argue they should be free to do that. You are reframing that as an imposition.

>>2939235

Yeah, I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what either of those are. Vid related.


 No.2939299

>>2939250

>>2939264

Once they start obviously ignoring what you actually say, I think it's time to disengage with these reactionary poseurs. They've outed themselves, they have nothing more to say, and they've demonstrated that arguing against them further won't get anywhere.


 No.2939315

>>2939298

Gender critical feminists believe that the only thing that defines your sex is your actual biology and that gender is a made up concept. Hence, you are free to present however you want; it's just that your presentation doesn't have anything to do with your actual sex. That is pretty much the opposite of gender essentialism.

Believing that a preference for femininity actually makes you a women is pretty much the definition of gender essentialism though.


 No.2939317

>>2939315

>Gender critical feminists believe that the only thing that defines your sex is your actual biology and that gender is a made up concept.

The key here is that social constructs like bathrooms get wrapped up in "sex."

>Hence, you are free to present however you want; it's just that your presentation doesn't have anything to do with your actual sex. That is pretty much the opposite of gender essentialism.

No, the idea that sex is some clearly defined aspect of a person is pretty essentialist. Sex usually falls pretty well within the binary, but there are plenty of people who defy it because of how they're born, or who defy it based on behavior.

>Believing that a preference for femininity actually makes you a women is pretty much the definition of gender essentialism though.

That's not what trans activists believe. It's a question of identity. You can have masculine trans women or feminine trans men, or non binary trans people. The question of gender identity is separate from presentation, which is just more noticeable with especially feminine trans women because for some reason trans men pass easier and androgynous people get read as androgynous.


 No.2939329

>>2939264

That shit with Might as way say we should outlaw all work… was written in response to a post quoting an article saying: Ibrahim admitted forcing women into prostitution at Paradise, setting them a daily target of €500 a day and beating them if they didn’t bring enough money home.

>>2939298

>[TERFs] assert that the body defines people and that people who transgress these boundaries (like trans people or nonbinary people) are trampling sacred ground.

I invite you to transgress the boundary of your self-imposed filter bubble and lurk on https://old.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/ There is a little infograph on the right, what does it say, hmm? You can also read plenty of posts there about the experience of lesbian teens getting told that they are really boy souls in girl bodies. Of course, there are also a few posts that fit exactly your expectation, so if you just want to be mad you can focus on those and pretend that's all there is to it and share some heavily cropped conversations with friends, so you can all be mad together. That's why the internet was invented.

>>2939299

>Once they start obviously ignoring what you actually say, I think it's time to disengage with these reactionary poseurs.

Once again, just for you: Ibrahim admitted forcing women into prostitution at Paradise, setting them a daily target of €500 a day and beating them if they didn’t bring enough money home.


 No.2939333

>>2939317

Can you define gender identity for me? What makes a person feel like they belong to a gender identity? Where does the concept come from? Because all I'm getting from trans activists is pretty essentialist concepts as "female brains" or "femalte feelings" or stuff like that?

Also, sex is not a behavior it's a set of primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Ascribing behavior to those characteristics is pretty much the definition of essentialism.


 No.2939339

File: 46689b3af79f811⋯.png (69.35 KB, 295x300, 59:60, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2939329

>I invite you to transgress the boundary of your self-imposed filter bubble and lurk on /r/GenderCritical/

I have. This is one of the sources of my impression.

>There is a little infograph on the right, what does it say, hmm?

Yeah it's just wrong about trans activists. Almost all of them say you should transition to whatever degree you're comfortable with, whether that involves biological changes or not. That infographic is plain lying.

>You can also read plenty of posts there about the experience of lesbian teens getting told that they are really boy souls in girl bodies.

wow that doesn't sound made up at all

>Of course, there are also a few posts that fit exactly your expectation, so if you just want to be mad you can focus on those and pretend that's all there is to it and share some heavily cropped conversations with friends, so you can all be mad together. That's why the internet was invented.

Pretty rad how you make this claim when you also link to /r/GenderCritical and specifically an infographic that is even more dishonest than you're claiming me to be. All the theory in the world doesn't mean shit when what it amounts to in practice is harassing marginalized people and fearmongering that they're degenerates or sex predators or whatever.


 No.2939350

>>2939339

>it's just wrong about trans activists

Mermaids UK literally tells parents of boys who play with dolls that they are actually girls on the inside and should transition.

>made up

Just say whatever you don't want to hear is made up.


 No.2939359

>>2939350

>Mermaids UK literally tells parents of boys who play with dolls that they are actually girls on the inside and should transition.

Even if that's true, that's one thing that one organization does. That's not enough to indict the discourse on an entire subject. It's exactly what's referred to here: >>2939329

>if you just want to be mad you can focus on those and pretend that's all there is to it and share some heavily cropped conversations with friends, so you can all be mad together.

>Just say whatever you don't want to hear is made up.

Substantiate it if you want me to even consider it. The fundamental dishonestly of "gender critical" activists has already been demonstrated by the infographic I was referred to, so it's implausible that you would tell the truth about something else.

>>2939333

>Can you define gender identity for me?

It's an internal psychological sense of who you are, something that most people don't think about because it's parsimonious with their body and experience. The exact mechanism is not clear, although its existence has a lot of empirical support.

>What makes a person feel like they belong to a gender identity?

An internal sense of what feels right to them. For instance, if your average person was suddenly seen as the "opposite" gender, they would find it to be a deeply unpleasant experience. Cis people (usually women) who pretend to be another gender tend to find the experience upsetting because it's against who they are.

>Where does the concept come from?

From trans people describing their experiences.

>Because all I'm getting from trans activists is pretty essentialist concepts as "female brains" or "femalte feelings" or stuff like that?

Body dysmorphia is a common element as well, which is pretty well established in other contexts too. There is no such thing as a male or female brain per se, rather there is a constellation of traits that are associated with masculine or feminine behavior. Someone's brain could be said, in total, to be anywhere on a spectrum, with any combination of those traits. Given the presence of body dysmorphia, some of those traits relate to the rest of the body. Whether it makes sense to refer to this configuration as gender is a philosophical question that rather misses the point that some people have a configuration that makes them want to live differently and/or change the rest of their body. The TERF perspective is that the desire to transition is something that is imposed rather than something that trans people would choose for themselves, which is largely baseless. Are there weirdos who try to evangelize being trans? Yes. Does that mean it's all a conspiracy? Does the fact that Hollywood has a lot of Jewish people mean "Jews control the media"? No.

>Also, sex is not a behavior it's a set of primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

The brain falls under secondary sex characteristics, and doesn't always comport with what's """normal""" for a person's sex. Shit, primary sexual characteristics don't always comport with someone's "biological sex" (intersex people).

>Ascribing behavior to those characteristics is pretty much the definition of essentialism.

Ascribing behavior to the fucking brain is understanding what the brain does. To separate behavior from biology is dualism, which is fundamentally essentialist since the non-material substance is an essence of "personhood" or "will."


 No.2939371

>>2939359

>>Mermaids

>Even if that's true

If?? So did you lie about lurking on r/GC or are you dishonest now?

>The fundamental dishonestly of "gender critical" activists has already been demonstrated by the infographic

Shows trans ideology as espoused by Mermaids.


 No.2939372

>>2939359

>There is no such thing as a male or female brain per se, rather there is a constellation of traits that are associated with masculine or feminine behavior.

Yes and compelling people to assume the identity of male or female based on these characteristics is essentialism. It's literally saying "you are not a woman if you like boy stuff, so go take testosterone now and alter your body accordingly.".

>Body dysmorphia is a common element as well

There are loads of (male) transgenders who don't even experience dysmorphia


 No.2939387

>>2939371

>So did you lie about lurking on r/GC or are you dishonest now?

Viewing a subreddit doesn't mean I've seen everything ever posted there. Last time I went was years ago.

>Shows trans ideology as espoused by Mermaids.

So you're just picking one shitty activist group and using that to claim this is the entirety of trans activism.

>>2939372

>Yes and compelling people to assume the identity of male or female based on these characteristics is essentialism.

Trans activists aren't compelling it. Stop lying.

>It's literally saying "you are not a woman if you like boy stuff, so go take testosterone now and alter your body accordingly.".

Whoever would say this is retarded. It's not what the vast majority of trans people believe.

>There are loads of (male) transgenders who don't even experience dysmorphia

Hence why I said "common" element, can you even read? What is the objection to presenting or identifying a certain way? For all the claims that "gender critical" (TERFs) support people doing their own thing, all that blows up the moment you see a "man" in a dress, and you react like Steven Crowder.


 No.2939586

>>2939317

>Biological sex isn't real

Biological sex is a clearly defined, binary aspect of every mammal.


 No.2939603

>>2939317

Sex by definition involves a male and a female for reproduction. If you're not talking about the male and female role, and the corresponding body parts for those functions, you're not talking about sex, you're talking about something else.

Excessive wankery about this is just a feature of an ideology that needs to rest its case of biological essentialism and appeal to nature. We wouldn't give this much of a shit if there weren't a perverse obsession with what people think and what people do with their bodies in the first place.


 No.2939604

>>2939586

Biological sex is real but it's not a binary. There are plenty of variances in secondary sex characteristics (which everybody recognizes) and even primary sex differences. Depending on how you define intersex people, they are more common than redheads.

>>2939603

>Sex by definition involves a male and a female for reproduction.

If you're falling back on argument from reproduction you better be against homsexuality too.

>If you're not talking about the male and female role, and the corresponding body parts for those functions, you're not talking about sex, you're talking about something else.

I am talking about those body parts (the roles are a separate thing), and they are not a strict binary. See: intersex people.

>Excessive wankery about this is just a feature of an ideology that needs to rest its case of biological essentialism and appeal to nature.

Questions of science should be based on nature. Referring to biology isn't "biological essentialism." That would be treating sex as if it does have some clear black and white essence, as with the notion that sex is binary. TERFs are the ones who are bio-essentialists. The fact that you think recognizing sex is more complex than a pure male or pure female is what's essentialist shows you're out of your depth.

>We wouldn't give this much of a shit if there weren't a perverse obsession with what people think and what people do with their bodies in the first place.

Ah yes, the perverse obsession with wanting personal autonomy. The people who want to be allowed and accepted to be sovereign over their own bodies and minds are the ones who are obsessed, and not the people who want to exert control over those people from the outside. You even go so far as to invent a whole threat narrative and enemy image that's virtually identical to the whole "faggots are going to convert our children" thing.


 No.2939619

>>2932410

bang an escort. if you value your time, then you should just cut to the chase with a sex-worker. fuck your spooks. we all have sexual urges and if you struggle with your appearance, then take appearance out of the equation. have sex with a sex worker. Problem solved. Note however, that this is a short-term solution, especially if you're low on cash. Lately i've been noticing a surge in sexually frustrated men that don't know that hookers are delightful to be with.


 No.2939622

>>2939604

Reproduction is literally what sex does. Homosexual sex is nothing more than glorified mutual masturbation.

The sex organs developed because of their function in reproduction, and because sexual reproduction is a pretty huge advantage in natural selection over asexual reproduction. Since there is no known process that we have observed involving three distinct "sexes", defining sex as a process involving a male and female (or at least, male and female organs) is perfectly fair.

>intersex people

Do not feature any structures that are not part of the typical male or female anatomy, and the sexed body parts respond in development to hormones the way one would expect.

Sex is not a spectrum, a given body part is either quite clearly male-developed or female-developed, even in intersex cases where this development is unusual.

>Questions of science should be based on nature.

Obsession over identity and feels has nothing to do with "science". We use the term "male human" and "female human" as shorthand to say "this human has the body parts and secondary sex characteristics of a male/female". Aside from the function of the body parts involved, there is no internal "sex", and what society thinks or what social roles are assigned doesn't really matter that much.

>That would be treating sex as if it does have some clear black and white essence

As I said, sex is by definition a process of reproduction, so if you're not talking about a male or female role in reproduction, you're not talking about sex, and that is ALL sex can describe (and therefore, all that "gender" can describe). A man growing breasts (which happens quite often as a result of environmental effects, certain drugs, etc.) does not make him "more female" in any meaningful sense.

>invent a whole threat narrative

It's only a threat to those people who get caught in a web of fetishism and obsession. I do believe that certain populations are being targeted specifically because they are generally scared about their bodies and their role in society, and there's a reason trans people are often on the autism spectrum or have other forms of serious mental disorders, especially male-to-females. I've tried to reach out to many of these people, not to convert them away from trans ideology but just to try and talk to them and let them know that they don't have to destroy themselves or let the bullshit get to them, and I've been seeing how this obsession with sexualism has been destroying them.


 No.2939624

>>2939619

These days a hooker is probably screening out incels, especially those who are markedly socially defective and poor, so this isn't a realistic option. If you do find such a woman, chances are whatever experience she offers would be a pale imitation even compared to what she offers her normal clients.


 No.2939625

File: 98288da899d6ba8⋯.png (440.24 KB, 668x473, 668:473, 1562728618214.png)

Why is essentialism false? There's basically nothing in the non-essentialism article on wikipedia, compared to the vast article on essentialism. What is the alternative? If it is social construction, where does the impulse to construct different things come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-essentialism


 No.2939631

>>2939622

>Reproduction is literally what sex does. Homosexual sex is nothing more than glorified mutual masturbation.

Most sex is mutual masturbation since most sex doesn't produce children. There's no sacred act here. It's just basic biology, and humans are specifically evolved to have sex for pleasure. Very few species have sex for as long as we do or as much as we do.

>The sex organs developed because of their function in reproduction, and because sexual reproduction is a pretty huge advantage in natural selection over asexual reproduction.

About a billion years ago. There's been a lot of evolution since then.

>Since there is no known process that we have observed involving three distinct "sexes", defining sex as a process involving a male and female (or at least, male and female organs) is perfectly fair.

Sex isn't a "process" in this context. We're talking about the configuration of human bodies, which do not strictly conform to a binary. Even people who are clearly one or the other may not be fertile.

>>intersex people

>Do not feature any structures that are not part of the typical male or female anatomy, and the sexed body parts respond in development to hormones the way one would expect.

There are people who have parts corresponding to both or neither, which makes them not clearly one or the other.

>a given body part is either quite clearly male-developed or female-developed, even in intersex cases where this development is unusual.

We don't take one single part, but the body as a whole, which may contain both a penis and a vagina for instance.

>Obsession over identity and feels has nothing to do with "science". We use the term "male human" and "female human" as shorthand to say "this human has the body parts and secondary sex characteristics of a male/female".

And it's not a clear binary which is well established at this point. It's not obsession, for example, to insist that doctors refrain from altering the genitals of babies to make them fit into a that binary better, which is a serious problem for intersex people.

>Aside from the function of the body parts involved, there is no internal "sex", and what society thinks or what social roles are assigned doesn't really matter that much.

Then you shouldn't object when someone wears clothes and identifies according to the opposite sex.

>As I said, sex is by definition a process of reproduction,

It's an arbitrary definition selected to support your point. Sex is a much more complex topic and has huge ramifications for social behavior beyond reproduction.

>so if you're not talking about a male or female role in reproduction, you're not talking about sex, and that is ALL sex can describe (and therefore, all that "gender" can describe).

You're contradicting yourself. Sex and/or gender relate to prescribed social roles as you said. It may be socially constructed but it's a real phenomenon you can observe and analyze.

>A man growing breasts (which happens quite often as a result of environmental effects, certain drugs, etc.) does not make him "more female" in any meaningful sense.

If secondary sex characteristics have anything to do with sex as you put it, then yes it does. Hell, male-sex people can lactate and in at least one case actually breastfeed, which is actually a crucial part of reproduction for mammals. That means even with your overly specific definition of sex you're still wrong.

>It's only a threat to those people who get caught in a web of fetishism and obsession. I do believe that certain populations are being targeted specifically because they are generally scared about their bodies and their role in society, and there's a reason trans people are often on the autism spectrum or have other forms of serious mental disorders, especially male-to-females.

Usually these people are unhealthy as a result of being mistreated. If they're autistic they're even more likely to be mistreated. You've got the cart before the horse.

>I've tried to reach out to many of these people, not to convert them away from trans ideology but just to try and talk to them and let them know that they don't have to destroy themselves or let the bullshit get to them

That is what conversion is you retard. You sound like a conservative trying to do gay conversion therapy - "I'm just trying to help, honest. By telling you what you say you are is degenerate trash, I'm not trying to convert you, I swear!"


 No.2939632

>>2939625

>Why is essentialism false?

It's not that it's "false" but that it's an insufficient paradigm for understanding the material world. Constructivism posits that our ideas about the world (which an essentialist would think of as an essence, a la Plato) are merely abstractions describing certain patterns and qualities that we observe through our own biased consciousness. The reality is that material is a vortex of complex physical interactions that are intractable to our minds. The lesson is to accept the limits of our cognition and understand that the models we use to understand the world around us are only models - they simplify reality to make it possible for us to deal with it. When a model starts to cause problems (e.g. if our theory of how sex/gender work doesn't match reality) we need to accept the fallibility of our theory-making and construct something better, keeping what was useful from the old theory, but accounting for what we have learned.


 No.2939633

>>2939625

Essentialism is not a position compatible with dialectical materialism, which is why it's a sticking point in some leftist groups.

At some point though you run into a problem if you don't have simples to break down an object into, and that gets into a philosophy shit pickle.

On this subject though, we define sexual reproduction in a way such that there is a male (inseminator) and female (egg-laying) role. There is no way to talk about any other role in this process and still be talking about sex in a meaningful way. Until the male can do the female role or vice versa, it is perfectly fair to say a particular person is male or female, for the purposes of reproduction (which, again, is the only real, material relevance of sex).

Since male or female development is genetically determined, it is fair to define sex in most humans chromosomally, even if their bodies are not functional for reproduction. The few exceptions of intersexed persons, even, are often recognizably male or female after an observation of their body's construction, by looking at the key body parts that would be relevant in reproduction, and there is no "third sex".

I think "social construction" has always been something of a strawman, or something cooked up by certain academics. Honestly, a lot of trans mtfs I find don't care that much about whether gender is socially constructed or a performance or whatever the hell queer theory states. They just like living their lives as the fairer sex, and if that's what makes them happy, I have no real argument to tell them they can't. It's much different if someone is telling a confused young boy that their problems will go away if they make themselves a sexually available transwoman, or these boys are sold a very distorted image of womanhood to aspire to.


 No.2939634

>>2939624

>These days a hooker is probably screening out incels

Nah. Believe me, hookers are not screening out 'incels'. Shit, most hookers probably don't even know what an 'incel' is. If you tried to explain what an 'incel' was to your local hooker, what would you tell her? "An incel is a man that can't get laid," you might tell her. And what do you think the hooker would think? Do you think she'd be perfectly comfortable banging incels, because "involuntarily celibate" men are a hooker's primary customers? INCEL = CUSTOMER to a sex-worker for crying out loud. Now, if you think most incels are psychopaths, then maybe you'd have a point. But most incels are not psychopaths. They're just sexually frustrated men. Every other idea of 'incels' is the projection of the collective consciousness of bourgeoisie journalists.

However, if you're african-american, then you might have trouble getting in touch with a sex-worker. In my experience, sex-workers avoid black men at all costs.

>chances are whatever experience she offers would be a pale imitation even compared to what she offers her normal clients.

Again, you're overthinking this waaaaaay too much bro. If you treat her/him with care, they will most likely return the favor. If you're concerned, then bring him/her a nice gift. They like feeling appreciated also. And they will appreciate you for it *wink wink* too.


 No.2939640

>>2939634

>However, if you're african-american, then you might have trouble getting in touch with a sex-worker. In my experience, sex-workers avoid black men at all costs.

Involuntary celibacy as an online phenomenon is mostly restricted to the white middle class, but I wonder if young black men with a middle class upbringing are proportionally over-represented within involuntary celibacy (as a fact, regardless of personal identification online with that grouping).


 No.2939642

>>2939631

>humans are specifically evolved to have sex for pleasure

Evolution doesn't have an "intent" for our bodies.

You can do whatever you want with your body and believe whatever you like, but for the purposes of any meaningful biological classification, there are only male and female reproductive organs, if we are talking about sexual reproduction. There is no evidence that I am aware of where a third sex exists, and if it did you wouldn't be talking about sex, you'd be talking about some hitherto unknown reproductive process.


 No.2939644

>>2939634

Anyone who shows signs of severe mental disturbances is an automatic blacklist, and yes they share notes with each other. The only way you're going to get anywhere is with a street hooker who's probably a slave to some pimp, which I suppose is a cure for what ails you, but it won't be a glorious experience, of that I can assure you.


 No.2939653

>>2939642

>Evolution doesn't have an "intent" for our bodies.

I said nothing about intent lmao. Keep reaching. We have specifically evolved to have sex for pleasure the way the peacock has specifically evolved to have bright feathers. It's a distinct trait of the species.

>You can do whatever you want with your body and believe whatever you like, but for the purposes of any meaningful biological classification, there are only male and female reproductive organs, if we are talking about sexual reproduction.

We're not talking about sexual reproduction. There's more going on with sexual activity than that. It crosses into non-reproductive sex as well as psychology. Sex (even specifically for reproduction) is intricately linked with psychology and physiology in other ways, meaning those aspects are linked. For instance, sexual response (the ability to get aroused or to progress through the stages of sex) is linked directly to psychology. You can force sexual response physically, but the "natural" way for it to occur is through psychological stimulation in significant portion. Your excessive reduction of sexual function to the binary role suggests to me you don't even have a passing familiarity with the biology involved, as in, not even a sex-ed level. That or you're playing dumb.

>There is no evidence that I am aware of where a third sex exists, and if it did you wouldn't be talking about sex, you'd be talking about some hitherto unknown reproductive process.

First you define sex as what reproductive role an individual plays. Then you acknowledge individuals who cannot reproduce. Then you say there could not be some third category beyond the two involved in reproduction. Do you see the contradiction here? You're not even keeping your own argument straight. You alternate between arguing that sex is defined by the role and arguing that even if one doesn't or can't perform the role, they can simply be sorted into one or the other on a just-so basis. If the latter is the case, then the former definition of the categories is not true.

In addition to this, there are hermaphroditic organisms which can play either role, or parthenogenic organisms where only the female role is necessary (but evolved from a species that reproduced sexually).


 No.2939662

File: 32cc90f1772846c⋯.jpg (67.16 KB, 640x938, 320:469, studiesb.jpg)

File: 4f45837fc2ab5bf⋯.jpg (506.33 KB, 1482x1975, 1482:1975, Average_Hispanic_Guy.jpg)

File: e38807914cec525⋯.jpg (395.72 KB, 829x1073, 829:1073, r9k_meme1.jpg)

>>2939640

>Involuntary celibacy as an online phenomenon

involuntarily celibacy is a phenomena not 'mostly restricted' to the internet, nor the white middle class. If you really think this, then you are unironically afflicted by 'white centrality' and cannot fathom the suffering experienced universally by sexually frustrated men.

>>2939644

>Anyone who shows signs of severe mental disturbances is an automatic blacklist

I would certainly hope so. But understand that what I'm saying is that most 'incels' are not 'dark' people. In fact, I wager that 'incels' are sex-worker's main customers and they understand this (i've spoken to several). But they don't refer to them as 'incels', do they?

>and yes they share notes with each other

I never got around to asking my sex-working acquaintances, but do you know why sex-workers are wary of black men? It really looks messed up. But who am i to judge?

>The only way you're going to get anywhere is with a street hooker who's probably a slave to some pimp

I think you're generalized very profusely and indiscriminately.


 No.2939667

>>2939653

>We have specifically evolved to have sex for pleasure

There are many people who do not find sex pleasurable, or for whom it is a psychological or physical compulsion that they accept as a vice. Your view is psychological reductionism of a vulgar sort, how people consider the sex act is much more complex than "durrrr sex is fun!", because even people who have sex find many sexual experiences unpleasant, nor are all people hedonists. You're just imposing your own narrow ideology and beliefs on the genetic code as a post-hoc justification, which is incredibly common.

Sexual rituals developed because sex is a potent method of psychological and social control, and obsession over sexualism is a ruling class thing more than anything else. The ordinary man or woman just wants to fuck, have their children (if they so choose) and get on with their life.

Pretty much anyone past the age of 30 eventually gets bored of hedonism as an end unto itself, no man can truly be satisfied with that. The men who cannot get over this are often psychologically stunted and trapped in their own vices and compulsions. (Women, as far as I know, basically become asexual past menopause, and it doesn't seem to be particularly bothersome.)

>We're not talking about sexual reproduction. There's more going on with sexual activity than that.

We're not talking about what people think and feel about sexual activity, we're talking about meaningful biological classifications. If you want to define "butchqueerdyke" as a gender, you're no longer talking about biological sex in any meaningful sense, you're talking about a lot of psychological constructs concerning what someone is attracted to and what rituals they observe in the act, and there is no real limit to how far this can be taken and what pantheon of "sexualities" can be invented.

> Then you say there could not be some third category beyond the two involved in reproduction. Do you see the contradiction here?

There could be a "third sex", but if there were, you wouldn't be talking about sexual reproduction in the manner we know it, you would be talking about some other process.

People who are truly "sexless" don't exist as far as I know, because sexual organs (even those that didn't develop due to unusual genetic conditions) are present in every human, and the closest thing to true asexuality (XO chromosome) is recognizably female even if they are nonfunctional.

>In addition to this, there are hermaphroditic organisms which can play either role, or parthenogenic organisms where only the female role is necessary (but evolved from a species that reproduced sexually).

And you've answered yourself what those organisms would be classified as, what is the point? No human can be a hermaphrodite even with all the advances in technology we have at the moment, and parthenogenic organisms where "only the female role is necessary" are by definition all female, simple.


 No.2939671

>>2939662

I'd argue that the pissy conservative-leaning men with money to buy hookers aren't the same as someone who is psychologically so damaged that relations are impossible no matter what. The former probably could find someone, if the environment allowed such a thing (it usually doesn't), the latter are truly beyond hope.

>do you know why sex-workers are wary of black men?

I dunno, I'm white and I only see some of the forum / social media posts of workers (typically camgirls, so I'm getting the view of working girls in generally more favorable conditions). I imagine a large part of it is simply because black men are usually lower class, or they get stingy with paying, and the almighty dollar is a consideration for these women.


 No.2939675

File: 4beadb34730f6a3⋯.jpg (324.35 KB, 1106x1113, 158:159, af3897d8-e97b-4e43-a51d-34….jpg)

>>2939662

damn that middle picture really bums me out.

i think im gunna die a virgin, i've never even held hands with a jirl


 No.2939676

>>2939632

I am not an academic, so I don't know the terminology, but I don't think that "essence" must necessarily refer to Plato's idea of forms. My understanding of what essence is is that it is the inherent and natural qualities of a thing that the abstractions are being made about in the first place. The judgements made on groups of things that are alike in most respects but different in other respects are generalizations that may be true or false, but have exceptions. The fact that our understanding of essence is imperfect doesn't negate the existence of essence, or necessarily mean we will run into problems severe enough to impede what we are trying to do.

>>2939633

>I'm using "coitus" for the act and "sex" for maleness and femaleness here to avoid confusion.

I agree with most of what you said. Hormones would be another material way to understand coitus, as coitus changes the hormonal balance of the individuals involved, so there is social utility depending on the desired character of the society, which will be effected by the hormone balances of the people in it. Sex has other characteristics than reproduction, generally, that suit the sexes better to different roles, but I don't know if you would dispute that.


 No.2939678

>>2939675

>i think im gunna die a virgin

No, you don't have to. If you're a decent person with basic hygiene, then any sex-worker would be happy to see you.

>i've never even held hands with a jirl

there is literally nothing wrong with this and nothing wrong with you either. Quit overthinking things.


 No.2939680

>>2939678

>buying gf


 No.2939690

>>2939676

The genes responsible for sexual development have other effects, as do the hormones, so yes generally you can speak of traits that men have, that women have. But, it is a mistake to think that those traits are somehow essential to the reproductive role. In general, as I said, biology has no "intent" for our bodies at all, and it really doesn't matter anyway because humans are tool-using animals that use said machinery to expand their capabilities and build the environment around them.

As for society and social utility, frankly you're coming at it the wrong way, because you're approaching society as an institution to be preserved in of itself, when it really should be the other way around. The institutions we create shouldn't be our masters, but they should serve a purpose. Unfortunately, political power doesn't work that way, and institutions ultimately are composed of people with their own biases and wants.


 No.2939691

File: dbd7d51ec372989⋯.png (77.45 KB, 336x259, 48:37, 1552456056961.png)

>>2939680

>thinking so highly of yourself that you'd choose to die a virgin instead

you're making me laugh buddy. If you don't let the virgins 'win' somehow, then you will sow the seeds of chaos. Either we QUIT shaming people for being incels/virgins, or we QUIT shaming people for paying for sex.


 No.2939700

>>2939676

>I am not an academic, so I don't know the terminology, but I don't think that "essence" must necessarily refer to Plato's idea of forms.

Not exactly the same thing, but it's a similar concept that an idea exists as a substance. E.g. sex isn't an abstraction of material processes but there is some elemental sex.

>My understanding of what essence is is that it is the inherent and natural qualities of a thing that the abstractions are being made about in the first place.

The point of constructivism is that there is no essence, and that essentialism is a mistaken attribution of the abstract ideas as the real thing and not merely our interpretation of it.

>The judgements made on groups of things that are alike in most respects but different in other respects are generalizations that may be true or false, but have exceptions.

The fact that there are exceptions should indicate that this isn't some element that you see in people, but it's an abstract idea that doesn't apply in all cases, because it was constructed based on limited observation.

>The fact that our understanding of essence is imperfect doesn't negate the existence of essence,

Why presuppose that essence exists other than as an abstraction?

>or necessarily mean we will run into problems severe enough to impede what we are trying to do.

Maybe not necessarily but the fact is we do. There's a direct conflict being discussed here, with some people saying this conception of things must stand even though it's against what other people say is in their interests. And it's not just here. You see this problem across science, because (surprise) the ideas people come up with aren't perfect and can be improved. If you accept them as some essential truth you preclude the possibility of refining the ideas because you take the idea as an elemental component of reality.


 No.2939704

>>2939662

>involuntarily celibacy is a phenomena not 'mostly restricted' to the internet, nor the white middle class. If you really think this, then you are unironically afflicted by 'white centrality' and cannot fathom the suffering experienced universally by sexually frustrated men.

I'm not saying it is, as a fact, restricted to the internet. I was saying that, insofar as involuntary celibacy is an online phenomenon (that is, insofar as we restrict the label to those who identify with it online), it's mostly comprised of the white middle class in the West. That's why I was wondering if, insofar as it actually exists (beyond those who identify with the label on the internet), young black men with a middle class background were proportionally over-represented in the cohort.


 No.2939706

>>2939704

I certainly knew black incels a decade ago.

The reason you see a race bias now is because a lot of incel groups built an echo chamber of ideology that appeals to a particular view of race, and if a black guy sees a bunch of drivel from people who talk about a conspiracy of Jews and black men to cuckold the other races (but especially the white race), they're a lot less likely to want to participate. Back when I was around, though, the primary incel board was liberal as fuck, and the reactionary stance of current incel groups came about specifically as a reaction to that particular board (which then got picked up by PUAs and sites like sluthate who saw an opportunity to sell some pure ideology to a ready audience).


 No.2939719

>>2939667

>People who are truly "sexless" don't exist as far as I know, because sexual organs (even those that didn't develop due to unusual genetic conditions) are present in every human, and the closest thing to true asexuality (XO chromosome) is recognizably female even if they are nonfunctional.

What does it matter if someone is "recognizably" anything if you already defined the categories based on their functional role? Quit evading this point. You are using two different definitions as it conveniences you to reach your predetermined conclusion.

>And you've answered yourself what those organisms would be classified as, what is the point?

Because you are using these (very poor) arguments as a basis to harass people and tell them they're defective, and presumably to deny them basic dignity in other respects.

>No human can be a hermaphrodite even with all the advances in technology we have at the moment,

Sex isn't exclusive to humans, but an artifact of evolution. Variations found presently in nature are relevant to discussing human biology because we are related to those organisms.

>and parthenogenic organisms where "only the female role is necessary" are by definition all female, simple.

They are not, because the roles of male and female are defined by their relationship to each other (as you said), and when one is not present the other becomes something different.

>There are many people who do not find sex pleasurable, or for whom it is a psychological or physical compulsion that they accept as a vice.

And that doesn't take anything away from the rest of us. There's variability in these traits. Same goes for people who don't neatly fit with conventional sex/gender.

>Your view is psychological reductionism of a vulgar sort,

We've been on the biology of genitals for a couple of posts now.

>because even people who have sex find many sexual experiences unpleasant,

I don't disagree. I'm not taking an essentialist view, so I have tolerances for variance in common traits and trends in behavior.

>You're just imposing your own narrow ideology and beliefs on the genetic code as a post-hoc justification, which is incredibly common.

No, I'm describing the obvious behavioral pattern where people have non-reproductive sex. That's not a justification. The process of sexual selection happened to select for recreational sex because there was some advantage to that. Most animals don't have sex for as long or as often as humans do.

>We're not talking about what people think and feel about sexual activity, we're talking about meaningful biological classifications.

The behavior of organisms is part of biology.

>If you want to define "butchqueerdyke" as a gender, you're no longer talking about biological sex in any meaningful sense, you're talking about a lot of psychological constructs concerning what someone is attracted to and what rituals they observe in the act, and there is no real limit to how far this can be taken and what pantheon of "sexualities" can be invented.

Why should there be a limit to how far you can go with it? Why are limits desirable? Human behavior is abnormally variable for animals, and it manifests in many different ways. The problem with your argument here is that you try to reduce any discussion of gender roles or performance to irrelevance so you can focus on sex, and now you're pulling out this idea that no actually they're different things. If they are different things, then why did you start by reducing the gender performance of, say, a trans person to the question of biological sex? I take the position (as do plenty of other people) that sex (the categories and the act) combine numerous biological factors aside from the sex organs. Sexual response affects the entire body, physiologically (hormones, blood pressure, etc) and psychologically (endorphins, psychological arousal, etc). All of this is ultimately biological and it's bound together with physical sexual function.


 No.2939724

File: be3d30a914fc86c⋯.jpg (91.69 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, download.jpg)

how can a white transgender targeted individual retaliate against gangstalking


 No.2939725

>>2939724

?

sorry…honest question for /leftypol/ if there are any comrades around to answer


 No.2939727

>>2939725

>>2939724

inb4 sex with blacks


 No.2939734

>>2939691

I'm not the guy you were originally talking to, but I think voluntary celibacy is more laudable than involuntary celibacy, prostitution, or promiscuity.

>>2939690

>But, it is a mistake to think that those traits are somehow essential to the reproductive role

That is true, but many of the traits aid reproductive success, i.e women tend to be attracted to traits of typically masculine men.

>biology has no "intent" for our bodies at all

Our natures (as kinds and individuals) are our essence and meaning.

>As for society and social utility, frankly you're coming at it the wrong way, because you're approaching society as an institution to be preserved in of itself

I wasn't saying that.

> The institutions we create shouldn't be our masters, but they should serve a purpose. Unfortunately, political power doesn't work that way, and institutions ultimately are composed of people with their own biases and wants.

All people have their own biases and wants, some of which are essential and most of which at least don't go against the grain of the essential qualities of people.

>>2939700

>The point of constructivism is that there is no essence

The table my computer is sitting on is solid. It is made of wood, which is essentially solid.

>it's an abstract idea that doesn't apply in all cases, because it was constructed based on limited observation.

Limited observation of the traits and tendencies of things, i.e essence

>Why presuppose that essence exists other than as an abstraction?

Observation of reality. We identify the essence of something when we state a fact about it.

>Maybe not necessarily…

This is more of a dogmatic, illogical form of essentialism, not what essentialism actually is. I should have been clearer in that by "what we're trying to do" I meant as a society. The fact that transgender people chafe against sexual norms doesn't wreck the society and keep it from functioning. The society could possibly be made better overall by being more accommodating, but there is a conflict of interest between the minority and the majority. It is far from obvious that the minority should take precedence.


 No.2939740

>>2939719

Trans people are not "defective". They can do whatever they like with their body. I know and like quite a few trans women, and their attitudes towards themselves are not some ridiculous reductionist argument.

There is so much relativism and pure ideology in this post that I can't even begin. You've adopted a fully sexual-reductionist view of the mind and society, and have assumed that sex has importance that it doesn't really have. It's grotesque and if you thought about for five minutes you'd probably recognize what a bunch of shit it is. But we all know you won't, because it's too essential to whatever ideology you believe in, and said ideology has wormed its way into every crevasse of society.

>And that doesn't take anything away from the rest of us.

<"If you don't hold the narrow values that I hold, you don't really count. Now shut up as I engage in some more pure ideology."

>The behavior of organisms is part of biology.

So you're implying that complex psychological behaviors are coded in the DNA or something? Because that's not really how it works. Psychological development is an emergent phenomenon. We often don't see it because most people are thoroughly socialized, but a feral human would develop much different psychological habits about sex (as what we know about humans who are institutionalized and not really socialized in a meaningful sense).

You're just like the fash who keep hinting that because "hint hint" there are certain tendencies in people, we must structure society in a particular way (a way which always implies a hierarchy of worthies to rule over the unworthy).

>Why should there be a limit to how far you can go with it? Why are limits desirable?

You're talking about constructions of dogma and pantheons. It isn't science, it's basically religion and a way to circumscribe all sexual behavior.

>discussion of gender roles or performance

Sex is not a "performance". I'm not "performing" as a man, to do so implies subordinating your sex drive to "society" or some construct outside ourselves (which is the implication of constructs like queer theory).

>now you're pulling out this idea that no actually they're different things

I said quite explicitly that if you're not talking about male and female parts, you're not talking about sex, you're talking about something else. "Social roles" are quite clearly something else. You again want to essentialize sex as part of the mind and social consciousness, in order to give it a place that it doesn't really deserve and doesn't really possess. We could just as easily go through our lives only regarding sex for the carnal purpose of reproduction, grow humans in factory-like conditions, and life would go on. There is no intrinsic reason why we need to preserve traditional sexualism, or the establishment sexualism of global neoliberal capitalism (which is what trans ideology and the "woke" stance on sexualism is, just another attempt to impose a set of rules and order on sexual behavior, except instead of condemning homosexuality, it is normalized and used in sexual rituals to reinforce social control and hierarchy).

>Sexual response affects the entire body, physiologically (hormones, blood pressure, etc) and psychologically (endorphins, psychological arousal, etc).

There is ample evidence that "normal, acceptable, healthy behavior" by the norms of modern society is incredibly, incredibly unhealthy. If this is supposed to be "our nature" and "the only way", what does that say about adhering to nature-worship when these mores that you want to enshrine permanently are causing demonstrable damage to a lot of people?

You're making the mistake that I'm some reactionary who wants traditionalism. I'm way, way past you, you're the one who wants to impose a new set of traditions, whereas I want to abolish the whole rotten edifice of these sexual ideologies that are so commonplace, so that people can actually live their lives and not have compulsive sex addicts shitting up the public consciousness with pure drivel.


 No.2939743

>>2939734

>That is true, but many of the traits aid reproductive success, i.e women tend to be attracted to traits of typically masculine men.

Sexual attraction is the realm of the superficial, where deception is king and lies run rampant. If you really think favoring a social system built on that is great, I don't think you're going to like the result. It will always be much easier to appeal by deception and half-truths to manipulate people than it is to construct something mutually beneficial in a sexual relationship. Anyone who has any familiarity with a relationship will tell you that it isn't easy, that you're under constant attack from the forces around you and that if you can't be strong, it's not going to last very long. But if you submit to the ideology of immediate sexual gratification and uphold those structures, in the end it favors a small minority of men who hoard status and reduces the rest of the men to cuckolds, and women to pieces of property to be inseminated. Such a world system isn't really a system that I'd want to live in, it's not a desirable one, and it's not even one that is favored by any sort of natural selection. It can only persist by continually dragging people down to the lowest denominator (thus, the aggressive push of ideology to degrade and diminish most of the population).

>Our natures (as kinds and individuals) are our essence and meaning.

Nonsense. This is just circular reasoning to encourage perpetual power structures and avoid ever questioning "the system", "Nature", or airy, spooky constructs that we make in our minds. There is no "meaning" to life, life as an end unto itself is a self-evident absurdity. If you really do what to take that route though, the fact that all life dies eventually, and that the universe inevitably tends towards heat death, should make it clear that such a motivation has no meaningful end-state.

>All people have their own biases and wants, some of which are essential and most of which at least don't go against the grain of the essential qualities of people.

The universe doesn't need us, and it doesn't need any one of us individually. Human history is full of men dehumanizing other men and subjugating them. There is no reason why we had to do it this way that is built into us. It is rather than immediate exploitation and subjugation were always going to be the easiest path to power and accumulation of resources, and that's where you see the origins of any kind of political economy.


 No.2939771

>>2939228

Why do you dismissively resort to "TERF brain rot projecting sexual psychosis", when confronted with the possibility of a rarely stated goal of TRAs, namely that of seeking their own superiority over bio-women? I don't cast judgement here on anyone (least of all on MRAs). If men can get off on choking women and other more extreme stuff, then a scenario involving the replacement of mere bio-women by "sexually superior" TIMs is thinkable (for better or for worse). With advancement in procreation technology, why would it be necessary to keep "gestators"? Wouldn't it be more emphatic to spare women the painful process of pregnancy, menstruation etc. by phasing them out entirely, or alternatively transform them into the stronger (and hornier) "shemale" sex, allowing them to experience the joys of a "female" dick and "female" prostate?


 No.2939819

>>2939691

>Either we QUIT shaming people for being incels/virgins, or we QUIT shaming people for paying for sex.

The former for sure.


 No.2939820

>>2939819

Honestly in 2019 there isn't that much shame in being an unsuccessful male any more. It's so common that even the just-world believers can't maintain the illusion any more.

For what it's worth normals never really gave me significant shit about being unsuccessful, but then in my case it's obvious just from looking at me, and no one would ever expect me to mate. It's come up a few times and always the men just assume I'm not getting any and say so casually, without much more malice than I usually expect from people. The only people who have ever given me shit about this have been men with their own obvious issues trying to score cheap social points by kicking down someone, and such efforts are so transparent that I can't even bring myself to be offended, nor have they ever caused me any serious harm.


 No.2939844

>>2856439

Trannies are braindead faggots

Just like Incels

Both are dissastisfied with their social roles through trauma and they channel it into sex issues

They are uselesss to anarchism or socialism


 No.2939891

>>2939743

>Sexual attraction… most of the population).

I find this mostly agreeable, but only because it's a response to something I was never saying to begin with. A society needs to facilitate sexual reproduction because that is how it perpetuates itself, but it does not need to be a hedonistic obsession or the cuckoldry of the poor by the super rich. Monogamy and chastity before marriage managed this functionally.

>This is just circular reasoning… end-state.

Nature is not a construct, or at least a human construct, which is why it is significant.

"The first and most basic tenet of the metaphysics of the Right is that there is a reality that exists independently of us. We might as well call this nature: it is the non-human world out of which the human emerges. We have not created nature, and it would continue to exist if human beings were completely wiped out. Nature is the reality that it is independent of our ideas, theories, emotions, hopes, wishes, or fears.

Nature is a world of individuals. These possess definite identities, which are not conferred on individuals by human beings, and which continue to exist even if human beings remain unaware of them, or deny them. Identity consists in possessing, or not possessing certain features. These include potentialities for behaving in certain ways, and for acquiring (or losing) other features. Since some individuals possess features in common, it is possible for us to speak about natural kinds. " *

I don't know what questions you wish to answer specifically with the idea of "meaning". I approach the issue straightforwardly like "Why do I exist?", "What is the purpose of my life?", "What was intended by my creation?", "What am I inclined to do?". These types of questions can be asked of various categories of natural and natural-cultural kinds one falls into at various levels. I see in people such as yourself an idea of meaning that is airy and dependent on the idea of eternal continuance to justify existence. There is no reason it must be, as far as I can tell, and this seems to me to just be a holdover of the death of faith in Christianity, a post-Christian worldview that despairs without the possibility of eternal heaven. I don't want to misrepresent you there, so tell me what you think meaning is, and then we can continue.

>The universe doesn't need us, and it doesn't need any one of us individually. Human history is full of men dehumanizing other men and subjugating them.

Correct.

>There is no reason why we had to do it this way that is built into us.

The reason we have done it this ways is in the statement. It is built into us. You can't get around the limits of nature on people, individually or as kinds, by lamenting them and feeling sorry for those who lose out. I don't see any possible end to the struggle for domination as long as there are people. Even in a couple or a pair of brothers, there exists a struggle of this sort.

* https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/06/what-is-the-metaphysics-of-the-right/

(Cleary's articles on the metaphysics of the left and right may interest you, since you seem interested in these questions. I'll warn you that there is a bit of unnecessary shit talk and based boomer cat memes in the ones on the left.)


 No.2939927

>>2939844

Actually growing tiddies just makes my pp hard. I don't even care about pronouns or presentation (beyond what looks acceptable to other people). I suspect a lot of us might be this way but we're socially pressured to make more acceptable justifications. I know I lie about my reasons for taking moans all the time - docs don't like people "abusing" 'moans after all. But maybe I'm projecting. Being able to orgasm from solo nipple play is a good enough reason to take my skittles, but I haven't met anyone that shares this view so who knows.

I'm also attracted to fat girls and muscular hunks so maybe I'm just a pervert vOv


 No.2939929

>>2939740

>NO U, the post

Uh huh

>You've adopted a fully sexual-reductionist view of the mind and society,

No, I'm saying that you're reducing sex to sex organs and ignoring its ties to other aspects of biology. I haven't said anything about a broader view of society because that's not what we're discussing.

>So you're implying that complex psychological behaviors are coded in the DNA or something?

All traits are some mixture of nature (genetic) and nurture (environment/socialization). This includes psychological ones. If you think psychology isn't impacted by genetics, you are going against empiricial evidence. We know that there are genetic predispositions to all sorts of things ranging from psychiatric disorders to basic disposition.

>You're just like the fash who keep hinting that because "hint hint" there are certain tendencies in people, we must structure society in a particular way (a way which always implies a hierarchy of worthies to rule over the unworthy).

That's pure projection. I think everybody should be considered without respect to some abstract hierarchy whereas you are arguing that there's something inherently wrong with trans people (trans women particularly).

>You're talking about constructions of dogma and pantheons. It isn't science, it's basically religion and a way to circumscribe all sexual behavior.

We're talking about classifications for a wide range of sexual behavior. That's not inherently dogmatic or scientific - that distinction is a matter of procedure, not the fundamental concept.

>Sex is not a "performance".

LMAO yes it is, in part. People play out the roles and mannerisms they're socialized to associate with their identity. It's not just a sex thing, it applies to all sorts of identities, including ethnic ones.

>I'm not "performing" as a man, to do so implies subordinating your sex drive to "society" or some construct outside ourselves (which is the implication of constructs like queer theory).

Maybe you aren't, but behaving as male, female, or something else as prescribed by society (e.g. wardrobe choices) is performance. This is an aspect of sex/gender as it exists in its social context. That's not all that these distinctions mean, but it is a part of how they work as constructed ideas. And you're here saying I'm the reductionist lmao.

>I said quite explicitly that if you're not talking about male and female parts, you're not talking about sex, you're talking about something else. "Social roles" are quite clearly something else.

Yet they are tied to genitals.

>You again want to essentialize sex as part of the mind and social consciousness, in order to give it a place that it doesn't really deserve and doesn't really possess.

If you want to define sex as the process of sex, then you can't ignore its involvement in psychology. That's a biological fact.

>We could just as easily go through our lives only regarding sex for the carnal purpose of reproduction, grow humans in factory-like conditions, and life would go on. There is no intrinsic reason why we need to preserve traditional sexualism, or the establishment sexualism of global neoliberal capitalism

And yet here you are REEEEing over somebody transgressing traditional sexualism in a way you don't approve of. What would not preserving this look like to you? It sounds like you're just doing mental gymnastics to bend "liberation" to mean "keep behaving and understanding sex the way we already were."

>(which is what trans ideology and the "woke" stance on sexualism is, just another attempt to impose a set of rules and order on sexual behavior, except instead of condemning homosexuality, it is normalized and used in sexual rituals to reinforce social control and hierarchy).

Bullshit. Trans activists are by and large saying "let people do what they want" whereas you're saying "No, this is bad. Don't do it."


 No.2939930

>>2939927

(In case you aren't a troll)

Watch less porn, go outside once in a while and stop taking hormones for sexual gratification.


 No.2939934

>>2939929

Gender roles and mannerisms are not the same as physical sex ffs. Conflating the two is really fucking sexist.


 No.2939939

File: 128c73853f5c88e⋯.jpg (63.55 KB, 605x558, 605:558, 0e0093d81d398c12a8d55ab0d1….jpg)

>>2939934

>Conflating the two is really fucking sexist.

This isn't twitter. I don't give a fuck if you're going to distort what I said to call me a bigot.


 No.2939950

>>2939939

I didn't call you a bigot. I said that your ideas were sexist, which they are.


 No.2939955

>>2939930

>implying

Been through the denial stage already. Doesn't work. I even did nofap for half a year - aside from having more time I didn't really get anything out of it. Well I suppose my taste in men got broader. I used to only like girly guys, but came to appreciate muscular ones more. Still like girly ones, though. Maybe it's projection?

I don't know why this bothers people so much. I get it's not their thing, but we all have different turn ons. Mine just happens to be gender bending.


 No.2939960

>>2939950

The ideas you presented aren't what I said, so that point is moot.

>>2939955

>>2939927

As long as you're not damaging your health or something, there is nothing wrong with this. Don't let TERFs tell you you're bad, and don't let trans people tell you you're taking something away from them. Fuck 'em. Go be a transhumanist asserting sovereignty over yourself.


 No.2939971

>>2939960

>As long as you're not damaging your health or something, there is nothing wrong with this. Don't let TERFs tell you you're bad, and don't let trans people tell you you're taking something away from them. Fuck 'em. Go be a transhumanist asserting sovereignty over yourself.

How very liberal of you.


 No.2939977

So why are there barely any woman leftists than aren’t crazy and weren’t born with a penis? Online I mean, IRL it seems way better, online tho they’re all either insane or transwomen.


 No.2939980

>>2939977

Most of us fucked off because the trans activists became unbearable. It gets exhausting to be constantly told what a woman is and isn't by people who has very little experience of what it means to navigate this world as a female human.


 No.2939984

>>2939977

You're basically asking "Why are online communities dominated by weirdos and not normies?"


 No.2939997

>>2939980

>It gets exhausting to be constantly told what a woman is and isn't

>by people who has very little experience of what it means to navigate this world as a female human.

I wouldn't say these two things are necessarily related. As someone who is gay, I hate being told what being gay means, even by other gay people, so I understand what you're saying. It's essentialism and needs to die.

somewhat related, I despise being told I behave a certain way because of my astrological symbol. fucking idealism, makes my blood boil.

I also hate this fucking thread, and can't stand all the idealist gender realist retards that inhabit it, so don't (You) me.


 No.2939999

>>2939971

>The problem with the left is it's not socially conservative enough

ebin

>>2939980

It's true that women in general are vastly more reactionary than men (because men are held accountable for reprehensible views and women aren't), so thank you for removing yourselves.

>>2939997

>so don't (You) me.

Don't tell me what to do. Being offended doesn't make you right.


 No.2940006

>>2939999

>It's true that women in general are vastly more reactionary than men (because men are held accountable for reprehensible views and women aren't)

[citation needed]


 No.2940011

>>2939999

>communism is when you alienate women

I'm not offended by your retardation, it disgusts me.

>waah don't tell me what to do, I'm an adult!

I can tell you whatever the fuck I want, go fuck yourself.


 No.2940012

>>2940011

>communism is when you alienate women

It's true though, women are liberals, the eternal centrists. They wwill go along with whoever wins because dominance is what they respond to.


 No.2940016

>>2940012

Are you the same person who claimed to not be gender essentialist upthread? Because, in that case, lol.


 No.2940018

>>2940016

You don't need to be an essentialist to recognize certain differing tendencies between genders.


 No.2940021

>>2940018

Saying that women responds to dominance is pretty much textbook gender essentialism lol.


 No.2940030

>>2940021

>This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23666352_The_Nature_of_Women's_Rape_Fantasies_An_Analysis_of_Prevalence_Frequency_and_Contents


 No.2940039

>>2940030

Yes? What point are you trying to make here?


 No.2940040

>>2940021

>Saying that women responds to dominance is pretty much textbook gender essentialism lol.

Not necessarily. It depends on whether the statement is that women will, in general and transhistorically, respond positively to dominance, or whether they only do so within specific historical circumstances. The former could be classified as essentialist, but not the latter.


 No.2940050

>>2940040

That's true insofar that you're actually trying to assert the latter. It doesn't sound like that, however, in the context of what you are trying to assert. I also don't think it's true that women (in this current historical context) do respond positively to dominance. This holds true especially when men are trying to tell them what to do.


 No.2940051

>>2939934

This. I can't even with that guy, he's been strawmanning me as a TERF since the start because he's so assblasted about his ideological castle.

Dude is an exemplar of how far fash shit has infected the left.


 No.2940057

>>2940051

One of the main problems in this debate is that everyone gets strawmanned as a TERF just for disagreeing. You don't even have to be a radfem or particularly trans exclusive; it is enough that you believe that humans are a sexual dismorphic species.


 No.2940068

>>2940057

Yeah. I mean, I know trans women (online, but still). I like them just fine and think they should be able to live their life. That has nothing to do with this very narrow gender identity bullshit with obvious implications, and a good number of the trans women I meet have no interest in this stupid "debate" - they're more interested in being able to live their life. Almost all of the "TRA" talking points have been a certain "pro-gay" section of the political right inserting themselves and taking advantage of well-meaning liberals and people who are desperate, and this "debate" has been carefully crafted to produce a desired narrative in order to set the environment in which we operate. Therefore, the cause of gay and trans people wanting to live their lives gets conflated with Desmond Is Amazing, where an autistic boy is abused on national TV and mainstream media is cheering it on (I think we had that conversation in this thread, if you don't remember it, that was some extremely disturbing shit and the take away I got is that it's the media announcing that autistic boys are fair game for anything).


 No.2940074

>>2940068

I fully agree.

It's disturbing that people cannot see this as the regressive ideology it actually is.


 No.2940085

File: 73c76c77cbb5c24⋯.jpeg (52.73 KB, 870x864, 145:144, 0a176bd621d532e1ef901ae30….jpeg)

>>2939891

>https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/06/what-is-the-metaphysics-of-the-right/

>"Left" metaphysics

>"Right" metaphysics

>Lol, look at how contradictory the "left" is when I take all these extremely differing ideologies and groups and try to resolve them. Leftists don't actually care for reality and liberals are the exact same as the far-left because they are really latent guilt ridden marxists. I don't like these things, so these things are what makes up the left. "Left" materialists and idealists are the same because they are contradictory and the left is contradictory which is why the left has both of these things. And they are contradictory because they are against reality.

>Now that we're done going over the "left", we can now clearly define the right because the "right" is what isn't the "left". I know there are divisions, but let me try to resolve those by making no absolute claims about it (except when I do in regards to the left) and not focusing on those differences because unlike the "left" we are not contradictory (as long as I filter out ideologies who would be). We are outside of nature because nature is whatever is outside of humans, but also some things are unnatural because they contradict what I find absolute and natural and we should follow what is natural (except when we don't). Let me just ignore also that Marxists themselves say that scarcity of resources is related to conflict and instead argue against my own version of the "left" where they are wrong because they are right regarding people under certain conditions but wrong under certain other conditions (???). We are the party of reality, now let me also explain why I will make no comment on the topic of spirits or gods because that would create division regarding my idealized, united, rational right.

Fucking wew. Straight into the physical garbage.


 No.2940089

>>2940012

>women are liberals, the eternal centrists.

[citation needed]

>They wwill go along with whoever wins because dominance is what they respond to.

non sequitor and a-historical.

>>2940030

what is this even evidence of? also, implying you haven't had a rape fantasy ever.

>>2940040

regardless of the veracity of this claim, this

>women are liberals, the eternal centrists.

is essentialism.

besides, you went along with capitalism just fine, despite being dominated by your boss, etc. do you respond well to dominance?

>>2940068

I have seen some nasty shit in the name of liberal "progress" (and TV ratings). Not entirely familiar with the incident you're referring to. I don't think sex reassignment surgery should be a thing, but to each their own, I guess.

Hormone therapy specifically, I don't know. I'm not sure what to think of young people (less than, say 18) that actively want to go through hormone therapy. Beyond age of majority, I think you should be able to do whatever you want. Of course no one should be forced into hormone therapy, that goes without saying.


 No.2940098

File: 9d975383795fad8⋯.jpg (21.12 KB, 300x300, 1:1, lucille-ball-9196958-3-402.jpg)

>>2940068

>Therefore, the cause of gay and trans people wanting to live their lives gets conflated with Desmond Is Amazing, where an autistic boy is abused on national TV

I didn't find anything wrong with the boy drag queen. I'm gay and didn't do drag when I was that age but was into these diva figures like Marilyn Monroe and Lucille Ball and identified with these actors. I'd watch old I Love Lucy episodes on TV Land and so on. That's basically what drag is.

The only way I can explain a boy doing drag is like a straight boy dressing up as Vin Diesel from the Chronicles of Riddick or whatever and doing the action moves while watching the movie. It's roleplaying a role model.

Drag queens for gay men (and boys) are more like inspiring, powerful role models who "don't take any shit" and so on. But the assertion that the boy is being abused for doing drag is that he is being sexualized. But gay men are not doing that. If you think about it rationally for one second, why would gay men find drag queens sexually attractive? It doesn't make any sense.

There are actual gay strip clubs but there's no drag in them. Gay strip shows will be like a muscle guy on stage doing bodybuilding poses while erect with a cock ring. The sex object is Vin Diesel!


 No.2940104

IMO I think straight people – and straight men in particular – see the drag queens as like "traps" basically, like the idea is to seduce straight men into desiring the penis-haver, because they see the female imagery in a sexual way. The boy dressed up as a girl is a double threat because the straight brain perceived this as attempting to trick the straight man into being sexually attracted to the boy-girl with connotations of "they're brainwashing / taking our children away." But this is all in the straight brain. Hence the reaction takes on the contours of a paranoic, reactionary moral panic.

In any case, if you're gay, unless you're really rich then I don't think you should try to assimilate into straight society and live by their standards. Why the hell would you? You'll just be repressing your own modes of expression and you'll kill your soul. If you want to see what that looks like, it's the vat-grown weirdo Pete Buttigieg. You think that's normal? The guy is a freak and you should loathe him. That man is the avatar of everything wrong with rich white gays assimilating into political and business power in 2019.


 No.2940118

>>2940098

The boy was simulating hard drug use. I could see the pattern a mile away, because I know what this sort of environment does to a kid with developmental disorders, and how he's being set up to make this scene his life - his entire life. He's not getting any education (of course he isn't, autistic-diagnosed people are denied any sort of education as a matter of course), and his learning is conditioning him to be made available to leering men.

What's galling about it is that the news media is glorifying this precisely because he's autistic, because they're sending a message that because of his condition, he's not really an actual person and therefore all of this is okay. I know the pattern because I have seen it all my life, and the level of outright HATE is so strong that it is undeniable.


 No.2940121

>>2940118

This is nonsense. Stop projecting your own problems onto this boy.


 No.2940130

So I left /leftypol/ after the BO had his epic spergout. I posted on the other politics boards every so often. Then a little while ago I heard that the /leftypol/ BO had resigned. I came back wondering if we could finally have free speech here again. But from reading this thread and a sampler of others it seems like there are still lots of redditors here demanding censorship and pushing feminist crap. This thread has no mention of how repressive American age of consent laws are, and this is the biggest problem with it. Unfortunately this thread also seems to have a surplus of libshit roasties from /r/socialism who will no doubt spew propaganda bullshit at the slightest suggestion that their moral panic isn't any more special or justified than anything Christian cuckservatives came up with because they're terrified that men wouldn't look at them if we were allowed to have the cute young girls we actually want.

>but but but muh unfinished brain development muh power imbalance blah blah blah

Bullshit. This was disproven by intelligence testing. Teenagers are adults. They get tried as adults in court every day. Fuck off with this shit.

>but you can't get somebody your own age

No guy wants disgusting roastie hags. We're rejecting you, not the other way around.

>I REPORT U FOR WRONGTHINK

Good luck getting any man who isn't a useless cuck to fight for socialism, then.


 No.2940133

>>2940130

>Good luck getting any man who isn't a useless cuck to fight for socialism, then.

Women and useless cucks are a large majority of people.


 No.2940140

>>2940006

>>2940011

I don't give a fuck about people's gender you mongs. It's called banter. I'm very happy for reactionaries like yourselves to leave communists alone. "Women tend to be more reactionary than men because of socialization" isn't even an indictment of women, just an observation of social trends. You really can't conceive of a material analysis of social behavior can you? Fuck.

>>2940016

No, they're not.

>>2940021

Women behave more or less how they're socialized to behave, same as anybody. Women are socialized to accept dominance. I don't particularly agree with the second statement, but nothing about that argument requires essentialism.


 No.2940142

>>2940130

The aoc is 14 in my country and it doesn't help me. All it means is that the high status men have zero chance of being punished instead of like 1% in the US. There should an end to the discrimination in favour of the naturally attractive and the age of prostitution should be lowered from 18 to 14 as well.


 No.2940153

>>2940133

The point of useless cucks is that they're useless. If you think the female fighters will beat capitalist armies full of men, just lol.


 No.2940159

>>2940153

The point is that most of the people that /pol/ and other purists consider to be "useless cucks" are usually neither useless nor cucks.


 No.2940164

>>2940159

I've seen people showing me Reddit threads where men are shamed for not accepting their wives cheating on them, so yes, they are cucks and are useless by default since anybody who would accept that is useless.


 No.2940167

>>2940130

>roasties

Please go back to r/braincels, you obnoxious motherfucker.

>This was disproven by intelligence testing.

Source. Also, Autism Level isn't proof of maturity or the ability to make informed consent. If you've ever met a real-life teenager, you may realize that no matter how intelligent they may be, they are basically underdeveloped and immature in many respects, to a very obvious degree.

>Teenagers are adults. They get tried as adults in court every day.

<How do I know that nigger raped the white lady? Well, they wouldn't have lynched him if he hadn't!

You're trying so fucking hard to get age laws lowered, it's unbelievably funny. I assume you're still salty about your name getting added to the registry and having to knock on all your neighbors doors…


 No.2940171

>>2940164

<saw it in a reddit thread, must be true for all of society


 No.2940177

>>2940167

> informed consent

Pure ideology. You just define this post-fact in every case so it fits your preconceived conclusion. If you weren't supposed to breed, you would not be able to nature makes a very clear distinction there.

Your stupid age idpol is disproven by the fact that there are plenty of adult people that are more immature than most who are not, unless you define "maturity" in this case as essentially age.


 No.2940180

>>2940171

It's almost illegal to make paternity tests here. They should be mandatory at birth.