All do respect why are atheist people in this forum God please place me next to them at judgment day lol so many perverted versions of christianity only one acceptable version you either believe in Jesus and live for him or perish in hell
Re: twoxroasties wants you to be a compassionate cuck when your wife cucks you, births some chad's spawn, bails on you, and then leaves you to raise chad's spawn. women are a meme.
(C0nserve)
I had my suicide planned in case the day he would realize I wasn't worthy of his love because of my genetics would come
Roastie on leddit experiences 1% of the hardships of incel lifestyle and wants to rope already
(Brainlaid)
If you ever ascend, DNA test your kids.
Anyway, women don't have consciousness or empathy, she just isn't fucking capable of putting herself in someone else's shoes. It's all about how SHE FEELS and what happens to her.
(Administrative_Worth)
In their minds, them tricking yiu into rasing offspring is actually moral. You see that kid needs resources, it's a kid, it's pure, it's innocent, it deserves fulfillment. Plus she knows it's hers. Therefore she has even more bond to see it succeed and receive resources. Always get your kids tested. Honestly even chad should. Believe me, women cheat, a lot. If they think they can get away with it, and the guys worth it, they cheat. Fact of life.
(Deoxysxx)
I cant even call that man a cuck, he is more of a man than the real father
I'm happy to read this comment in this sub. I also wouldn't leave a little child behind if I have taken care of it for so many years. Cuck or not, if people can show mercy to random people through charity, then you can take care of one more kid. It's not the kid's fault.
Random charity does not mean being legally financially tied against your will to a person you were deceived into believing was your biological offspring. Don't even compare the two. They are nothing alike.
(grilledcheesaroo)
I can. He is a fucking cuck that willingly took unnecessary stress & partially ruined his own life over a whore's bastard daughter.
And you're no better, you fucking cuck. If you don't kick both the whore & her cheat trophy out; you are a fucking cuck. I have no respect for either.
His older parents tried speaking sense into this father but they raised a soft little feminized wimp.
(41PercentIsNotEnough)
Lmao all the comments defending him, this sub is infested by normies, fakecels, and cucks
To each their own
[A peace sign in rainbow colors]
Every color has its place. An ethnic home for every race.
Chicago Tribune Article Today: "'Prison is not where women need to be': All-female task force wants to cut Illinois’ female prison population in half"
(JStheHammer)
“Prisons were made for men, and they are made to traumatize,” said Celia Colon"
(lostapwbm)
“Prisons were made for men, and they are made to traumatize,” said Celia Colon, who teared up after sharing with the group her history of abuse. “They were not made for healing.”
Traumatizing men is perfectly acceptable. Traumatizing women (who got to prison by traumatizing others) is not acceptable because...women are equal to men?
“Prison is not where women need to be,” said Benedict, a partner on the National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. “Even if prisons were highly functional places, they don’t belong there. It’s a train wreck, to be honest, a train wreck.”
If women commit felonies, then prison is exactly where they need to be. As a matter of fact, women commit felonies and gynocentric judges and prosecutors often REFUSE to send them to prison.
Margaret Byrne, an attorney who for 35 years has represented countless women who fought back against abusers, agreed. Many women call 911 to report the violent crime they’ve just committed on a partner, Byrne said, but they fail at proving the difficult self-defense theory in court.
Probably because you can't 'self-defense' a man while he's sleeping, or when his back is turned, or when he's not presenting an immediate and credible threat.
By the time she was 16 and living in South Chicago, Colon had drifted into gang life, drawn by its offer of support — and guns for protection.
“I saw a lot of hurt and bloodshed,” Colon, 42, told the other women gathered at the first meeting. “Things that are never gonna be erased. It does irreversible damage.”
You mean you validated cholos and gangbangers by giving them pussy.
Those who insist that they cannot be held responsible for their own actions, that they are merely leaves floating along the winds of economic circumstances, ore are victims of societal programming, should not enjoy the right to affect or influence public policy or the use of public money.
(HeForeverBleeds)
I've got a long list of articles where people try to argue for female criminals getting lenient sentences or no jail on the basis of being female. A long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long list. I guess this one can be added
I think part of why it's such a popular idea is because gynocentrism is prevalent in both of the main ideologies. Feminism says females are always the oppressed victim to the point where even female criminals are truly the victims and therefore prison is "victimizing" them again. Traditionalism stereotypes women as helpless, innocent, childlike, and basically too weak to be a threat; therefore she's not really responsible for any crime she commits
Both tend to perceive women as morally superior. Both tend to perceive the well-being of the female in any given situation (whether she's the victim or the perpetrator) as more important and more worthy or in need of being protected
(fractureegg)
Yep. And proof of your argument can be found from a statement made a hundred years ago by Chicago attorney Agnes McHugh. In 1906 she said, “A man-jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man.”
Turns out that having a female prosecutor or judge or females on the jury doesn't make any difference.
I don't have any stats handy but it's possible that female accountability vis a vis the justice system has actually grown over the past few decades. In patriarchies the main female "sin" is adultery, which is often severely punished; but they get away with pretty much everything else. (In some primitive fundamentalist religious societies, "witchcraft" is also severely punished).
But I guess it was inevitable that after a brief flirtation with the idea of treating women as semi-adults, feminists wouldn't be able to resist exploiting gynocentrism to increase their privileges even more. But women are still supposed to be treated like equals somehow. Zero logic or sense of justice, as usual.
(VantagePoint2018)
Generally, people look at the motives and background of female criminals whereas they just assume male criminals are uniquely evil.
(Razorbladekandyfan)
This is why we need a mens movement.
This is actually a good point. The Mexican government made a really bad move allowing white settlers into their territories. The Whites didn't assimilate into Mexican culture and government and eventually demanded sovereignty. This caused Mexico to lose a huge chunk of her land.
The same will happen to the United States if we allow large numbers of immigrants and especially immigrants further and further away from western european values and genetics.
I live in Australia, on the east coast and we use Australian Eastern Standard Daylight Time (AEDST). On the night of September 11, 2001 I was enjoying watching the Bob Dylan documentary from 1967, 'Don't Look Back' on ABC TV Australia.
At that time it must have been about 11.00 pm because the documentary hadn't been on for long. This made the time in New York city just then about 9.00 am. (The first plane having hit at 8.46 am.)
A shockingly worded message suddenly came across the top of the TV screen, telling me of a disaster occurring right now in New York city where two planes had crashed into both of the twin towers.
Immediately, I thought to myself, 'Wow, one plane crashing into the towers might be just an accident, but two? No way! This can't be anything other than a deliberate attack!'
The Dylan documentary quickly disappeared and a live broadcast of a scene of the twin towers came on screen, however, I was surprised to see there was only one plane set smouldering, embedded in just one of the two towers, and not two as just reported a minute or so earlier. I thought maybe the news must have made a mistake, since it had only just happened and sometimes news reports are a little blurry when they first report details of an event.
I watched this surreal scene in a state of growing shock and about two minutes later a second plane came into view and slammed into the side of the other tower.
Soon my best friend rang me, starting off the conversation with the words, "Are you watching this..?" Most of our conversation from then on was just silences and expletives peppered with the occasional 'I can't believe this!' as we watched for the next hour or so and the whole awful series of events took place.
At the time, I didn't really think too much about the odd discrepancy in the reporting of the fact that two planes had struck, even though when they began broadcasting what I assumed was live footage of events as they unfolded, there appeared to only be one crashed plane and the other one crashing didn't happen until after the transmission had begun.
I've done some research and a live broadcast from NY to Australia today in 2018 has only a seven second delay and I don't understand why there would have been any more delay than that back in 2001, since live satellite broadcasts were common place back then.
If that was a live broadcast of events as they happened with no delay present, I really can't explain why there seemed to be this foreknowledge of the event of the second plane crashing on the part of the ABC TV Australia news reporting services and so, the whole thing as it unfolded back then today looks more and more very much like a major glitch in the matrix.
I wonder what could have caused the news of the twin towers seem to report the second plane crashing before it actually happened?
TLDR: In Australia, news of the twin towers seemed to report the second plane crashing before it actually happened.
The Genetic Similarity Theory claims that parents of mixed race kids love their offspring less than parents of monoracial children.
Of course it is taking place mostly on a subconscious level.
This is caused by fact that a mixed race child has a lower genetic similarity to either of his/her parents than a monoracial child.
An ethnically mixed child is autosomally less similar to his/her parent, than any random member of this parent's ethnic group.
"Perhaps the most important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny — Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group — is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of a member’s distinctive genes than even his own children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of his children."[6]
In the face of a superior foreign power, appease them with women. It's a tactic. Nobody ever accused the Chinese of being a noble people. Only practical (if not somewhat shameless).
[Under "Turkey's President Erdogan lashes out in defiant speech, saying the actions of the US were threatening the two countries' longstanding alliance."]
@MrUnoDosTres
@Common_Scholar
tbh, I don't want to ally with a country that still pretends it didn't commit Genocide.
downvoters don't care about the Armenian genocide.....
I don't even support Erdogan, but your comment is just straight up retarded.
Unless you claim that the Jews had their own army/rebels which contained a couple hundred thousand people that collaborated with the enemy to have their own nation by capturing a part of the German Empire, the two situations aren't even comparable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_volunteer_units
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_fedayi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Armenian_Legion
And don't forget that you would have to admit that the Armenian victory during the Battle of Sardarabad is just a made up fable. Because remember, according to you it's a Holocaust. Armenians were just basically doing nothing like the Jews while the Ottomans like the Nazis just felt like killing them, just because.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sardarabad
Oh, you can't? Then STFU about topics you very obviously don't know shit about. And stop trying to use one sided sources which shows your extreme bias.
When Armenians talk about 1.5 million dead people they also count the ones that fled to the Russian Empire and the US (because people who are alive are actually dead, right?). Or the ones that changed their name and pretended to be Kurds (because again, people who are alive are actually dead, right?). Or the rebels that actively fought against the Ottomans. But hey, you obviously didn't knew this did you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Armenians
Ironically, countries like Germany who blame Turkey of an Armenian genocide never talk about guys like Liman von Sanders who was made into a field marshal by the Ottomans.
Or countries like France who used the Armenians for their own purposes to divide the Ottoman Empire.
Posted by ahmeterent27:
Tbh this had to be posted thanks lol
I’m not going to come up as a nationalist shitface since it’s 2k19 and nationalism has no use anymore but hey, why would they commit genocide? Aren’t there bigger problems like devaluation and incapability of competing with bigger forces for Ottomans rather than killing a bunch of Armenians?
This is exactly how Greeks feel like they were evacuated from their homeland back in WW1 because apparently West-Ottoman Empire was their property all along meanwhile all they did was to try to revolt with the aid of British-French invaders and they just blame Ottomans to have “stolen” their land when they try anarchy.
Yes, but european hispanics + other europeans will still become a minority in 3 decades.
The biggest problem with your argument is that non-whites want revenge. They hate white people and they are jealous of our wealth. If they gain enough power, they will kill us and take our money like they did in zimbabwe and South Africa.
[Note: Comments in the thread “Actually, no, I won't date or waste my energy on 'Trans Men' or 'Non Binaries'.” by ToughTelephone]
(scienceisarealthing)
Where? Your sentiment is hardly new. It gets posted here daily. What you say is true, but I don’t see anyone here supporting TIFs unquestioningly. I see people pointing out that young GNC lesbian women are victims of transactivism and patriarchy, but that’s not the same thing.
Radical feminism is about tearing out the roots of oppression, and the root is patriarchy, not female victims of the system. Fuck Aunts and handmaidens, but they are the symptom, not the disease. This isn’t letting them off the hook, it’s just not playing the patriarchy’s game for it by never looking beyond the puppets to the dudes pulling the strings.
OP is right, unfortunately I don't have specific links but I have seen often on this sub where women here are berated for not being sympathetic to misogynistic TIF’s or considering them our “sisters”. It's not tearing down female victims of the system to not sympathize with women who actively harm other women.
The vast majority of women have some level of misogyny just from living under patriarchy. I wish all women could wake up from it and question those beliefs. I am sympathetic to confused women who are told to transition without being given other option for healing. The system is broken, thanks to the idiot activists and those in the medical industry wanting to profit. I’m sympathetic to people who suffer from all kinds of illness.
I’m not sympathetic to people who think they are better than other women because they are men now.
I have not seen someone being berated for not accepting a TIF. what kinds of threads does it come up?
I agree we should have sympathy for gnc women who are socially pressured into transitioning or felt they had no other option. I've seen threads (sorry don't have specific links) where women were told they were infighting, tearing apart the sisterhood, or being manipulated by the patriarchy, (and other things along those lines) for not supporting sexist, maladjusted TIF's.
To me, it seems like guilting women into performing emotional labor for misogynists with personality disorders, and I think it's a symptom of female socialization to have endless sympathy towards people who hate us and even want us dead. I think we can all agree we want feminism to benefit all women, even the horrible ones, but there's a limit to the amount of patience & attention women should give to manipulative, harmful people.
(georgiaokeefesgrotto)
Not from me. I've seen the Tifs and their idea of women as 'junk and udders'. I welcome them back into womanhood if they smarten up but many are cruder than truckers in a rest room on a long haul. Eff them.
(1984stardusta)
“The only reason everybody is talking about transgenders is because white men want to do it.”
Chappelle received lots of criticism for rhis joke, and more, for pointing that Mexicans or blacks wouldn't get the same treatment, genderism is a white problem.
I see no problem in people dressing up or behaving like the opposite sex, this is far from new, but I can't accept a bunch of privileged white men endorsing violence against women they will rebrand as TERFs and advocate for punching into silence. Normally women who identify as men won't do the same, so it is easier to talk with women.
But I can't start a conversation with anyone who will acuse me of feeling hate against a whole group, this is a coward accusation, without burden of proof, deeply ingrained in privilege of narrative and self entitlement from whom is so spoiled by their lack of real problems that they need to turn any dissenting voice into an imaginary enemy, they need to destroy competition, they need to be the leader of oppression Olympics even if it means to demean women.
So, being a person of color is a hard life, adding to the equation the false accusation that black women are killing white men when we don't say they are women whenever they feel like to be called so is unbearable.
Right? As a woman I’m tired of being silenced for saying anything about the trans community that isn’t “these people are the best people in the world”. This has a horrible effect on my mental health and view of self. Why are these bizarre new groups that everyone wants to talk about protected to the point that it’s hate speech to criticize or even question anything about them or what they say and do?
About transcommunity?
I can't say anything about myself.
When I say I am a biological woman I am offensive to who is not a woman and wants not only self identify as such, but also take leadership, precedence and dominance over my objective reality. On the same vein I should not use words as menstruation, breastfeeding and vagina but I need to accept meekly to be called a menstruator, and listen about chest feeding and fronthole.
I need to teach my kids to hide what they know about human biology, because I was taught it was replaced by wishful thinking.
I need to teach them to hide their knowledge, and shrink their passion about this subject to fit obscurantism.
And I need to pretend that black women and black men are subjected to more likelihood of being murdered then white men, even when they wear dresses.
I
(SCREECHES_AT_HERSELF)
I couldn't agree more. In my experience, trans men & female nonbinaries are commonly emotionally abusive, narcissistic, and hold some really gross beliefs. Some FTMs even go as far as to become stereotypical "women have it easy, it's men who suffer!" MRAs.
People like that are not worthy of my energy. They might be biologically female but that doesn't mean I owe them anything.
As for dating... I'm not attracted to male secondary sex characteristics (even if they're artificial) so no, I'm not interested in trans men. Plus the whole misogyny and "your personality dictates your sex" things are huge dealbreakers anyway.
Begone with this stupid belief that us women should have unwavering compassion for everyone, especially people who view us as lesser. No, I won't support trans men. No, being nonbinary is no better. No, I'm not going to get on my knees and kiss the toes of that "gender critical TIM" that people all think is such a gift to feminism.
(greynose_algebra)
I transitioned several years before I discovered radical feminism and became gender critical. I don't know if you would rather not hear what I have to say, but for what it's worth, I think your points are valid and I get where you're coming from.
No one is obligated to include trans people in their dating pool. No one is obligated to support/lift up/perform emotional labor for anyone at all.
No one should have to waste their time or energy on emotional vampires, no matter what their sex or gender-feelz.
You're not a bad feminist.
(Enjolraic)
It would depend on their beliefs on gender. I'm Internet friends with a TIF and she believes that biological sex is real and she's against calling women TERFs or advocating for violence against us. Basically she's a gender critical trans person. But she's a Marxist, and ideologically sound Marxists are hard to come by these days. Most TIFs seem to believe in tumblr politics, hate radfems and expect gay men to date them just because they cut their hair. Even if I was physically attracted to one, I would want nothing to do with someone with a completely different world view to mine.
I'd never want anything to do with NBs. It's one thing to have dysphoria about your sexual characteristics or be transed because of homophobia, but the entire notion of 'non-binary' is based purely on sexist stereotypes.
(Lemortjoyeux)
Some of them are just predatory as TIMs, usually the GAI BOIZ type who are basically straight women who wanted more oppression points or were so obessed by yaoi they decided to live out this fantasy. They get angry when only other TIFs date them because gay men don't take that bullshit. Local horrible TIF in my city is also a YouTuber spewing lies and distracting from others arguments because she doesn't have any argument other than "not accepting my gender identity hurts my feelings". God I hate her and she's one of the main reasons I don't associate with the local gay community.
(thewilloftheuniverse)
The only Transman i personally know was a friend from high school, who is a second generation Desi. I was especially struck at the fact that the male name she took was "Todd," exchanging her Indian female name for a white male name.
At the time it only made me confused and sad for her. Now it makes me angry too.
(Burnbookburner)
I know a Todd TIF... do you think they realize any grown man named Todd is a huge red flag?
(CatLadyActually)
How so? Is it like Chad?
Actually, no, I won't date or waste my energy on "Trans Men" or "Non Binaries".
That seems to be a way for people to make themselves more palatable to gender believers, to be a 'Good TERF' - "it's just Trans Women I have an issue with, I'd totally date a Trans Men or Non Binary Person, I fight for them too". Well, not me.
Are they biologically female? Yes. Have they also chosen to massively and offensively degrade biological femaleness and throw all other women under the bus because they are Not Like Other Girls 2.0? Yes.
I'm a lesbian, I'm also a working class second generation Desi immigrant. I have no time for these people that are overwhelmingly White and seemingly entirely middle class or rich. Nor do I see it as safe to encourage or shame women into dating them under the "well technically" guise and I can only imagine so many people here do because they never have and have no real intention of actually doing so - or else you might actually realise how emotionally and homophobically abusive that situation is to lesbians, to be expected to include in their dating pool people who actively disparage and disown the very idea of femaleness.
These people are just as dangerous as the Trans Women this sub discusses. Maybe not to you with the luxury of Whiteness or middle class opportunities, but to those of us that are poor or non White? Women who are struggling to survive off of food banks, single mothers trying to raise children while their benefits get taken away, girls who cannot go to school because they do not have menstrual products, WOC navigating a racist Western society and their own ethnic communities, we literally do not have the time or resources. It is specifically our rights and our voices and our safety as poor women and WOC that are ignored and are the first to be sacrificed. And not just by Trans Women, by Trans Men and Non Binaries too, because they all want to take our places in organisations and divert attention and funding away from us in favour of themselves, and none of them will ever understand what it is to be us. Especially as we are under represented in this conversation anyway because we are under represented full stop and aren't the ones being transed in huge numbers - if you are a poor woman, especially poor WOC, you know that's what you are, you know you cannot identify out of that because the rest of the world makes sure you know. But yet there are plenty of people on this sub who would berate us for not supporting our "sisters" who are so comparatively privileged and self-obsessed they had to make up an oppression to feel special and would have the nerve to say that the women working three jobs, these mothers struggling to support their children, these girls who can't afford school supplies, victims of forced marriage etc., are the real privileged ones.
No. Just no. Maybe you can afford to fight that fight and if so go ahead, that's your prerogative. But the sheer racist, classist gall you have to have to try and tell other women that we should too lest be we be bad women or bad feminists.
I think something the Alt-Right is failing with is letting the Antifas monopolize the Autocaust. And when I say the "Autocaust" I mean Heather Heyers death.
While Heather was certainly in the wrong with her actions on that day, being on the Antifa side in a protest, she was still a European-American woman who lost her life. The European-American community still lost a young white woman essentially to leftist brainwashing and she could have turned her life around if the leftist oppressors weren't in power.
It wasn't a Jewish-American or African-American who died, it was a European-American woman.
Also, imagine the horror and rage Antifa would react with if we started rolling as if we were the victims of the Autocaust, and the attention it would generate by the confused and horrified rage.
A 14-year-old Afghan mother washing her new baby
image
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and defend Afghan culture. Here come the downvotes.
14 years old is not the same there as it here. Their whole whole conception of what it means to be an adult and a child are completely different than ours. They don't have arbitrary lines defining when it's ok to vote (18), to drive (16), to drink (21), etc... because they don't have any of those things. They also don't have mandatory public school or college like we do, so they don't see a 14 year old as a "child" like we do. A 12 year old girl probably has all the same responsibilities in a household as an adult woman would have because she has nothing else to do. Now, I'm not defending sex with pre-pubescent girls, but if you want to understand what they're thinking, you have to understand their surroundings.
This can't be blamed completely on Islam. This type of thing is also partly (in my opinion, mostly) due to living in a tribal culture with no real law, institutions, media, education, etc... If you go to any backwards tribal culture you will see things that horrify you. I personally think the stuff that goes on in China is much more horrifying than this.
It's common to hear Westerners say things like that men over there "hate" women, "oppress" women, etc... You can disagree with how men treat women over there, but in their mind they think they are protecting and loving women. Now, once again, you can disagree with what they're doing, but ascribing it to evil motivations is wrong in my opinion.
I may be wrong, but this type of thing isn't common. I think this only happens in the most rural, uneducated, tribal areas. Educated city dwellers don't live like this, so it's not right to stereotype their entire region based on stuff like this.
Here's my most controversial defense: women are ready to have sex when they hit puberty. They're gonna do it no matter what. The American way is to have sex with people your own age clandestinely, oftentimes without your parents knowing or approving, and teenage pregnancy and disease is rampant here. At least there when they hit puberty they enter into a "loving" (you can obviously judge for yourself how loving those marriages are) relationship with a committed partner with approval from their friends and family. Girls in America get dumped a million times before they are 25, have sex with multiple partners, suffer emotional damage and self-esteem issues, etc... I'm not saying the way they do it is better, but it does have some positives that we overlook because we are so confident our way is better.
Lmao moving the goalposts, so fucking pathetic. I mean I get it, you feel like you got a bad deal in life and you react by affirming your identity.. its fine man do you. But if you're really gonna sit there and try to call the race that created nearly everything you own "inferior" it kinda paints you as a pathetic bitter insecure tard and basically invalidates what you're trying to do.
Re: Reminder we’re on these cucks minds all day
(NormiesSuckAtRating)
Holy fuck. These people aren't normal and that's coming from someone like myself. Imagine being this obsessed with incels you talk about it with your partner.
RENT FREE.
(Incelebrity)
They wouldn't do it if we were merely a delusional group. They could be talking about pedophiles, other kind of criminals, terrorists, but no - us, because what we represent is the truth and they deep down know it but try to suppress it. It bothers them to the very core. They are tryign to bond with eachother by putting as down all the while reassuring they are not like us. I'm glad their tiny minds occupy over us, let them.
(ThotSlayer44)
r/inceltears is obsessed with attacking us because white liberals only care about things that affects them directly. That's why they attack us, because we threaten feminism and the gynocentric western matriarchy where women have sex with alphas in their youth before settling for a beta provider.
It's also why they got the fatpeoplehate sub banned (most white liberals are fat soyboys and "body positive" fat feminists) but they never say a peep about the white supremacist subreddits on this site of which there are several calling for literal ethnic cleansing.
(GazzaRowe)
White liberals are even more hated than incels. Minorities hate them, socialists hate them, the right hates them, everyone except themselves hates them. Most of those people don't know we exist. They have better things to do than browse forums for depressed virgins.
(WahmenMustDIe)
Another reminder: IT Landwhales can still get boyfriends without any trouble. Foids can never be Incels.
(fuckbitchesman)
Do they really think we care that a bunch of landwhales and soyboy cucks are laughing at us?
This ain't highschool you retards and you're definitely not the cool kids.
Re: Femcels don't want cha...
(throwawayirl3)
Best believe she gets plenty of free opportunities, just not from Chad
(whatdoinamethiscrap)
She can get all the things she described from lots of men that looksmatch her. But she needs Chad so much she'll pay for him.
(ThotSlayer44)
This. Chad will pump and dump her but not treat her like a princess. If she wanted this pampering treatment she'd need to date an average looking guy but most women would rather die than date their looksmatch.
(ascend2pajeet)
They literally had a thread 2 days ago that said incels are bad people because they're ugly and Chads are good people because they are hot and they were serious. JFL "LOOKISM ISN'T REAL BRO"
(AnyReference)
JFL a lot of incels go for femcels who later reject them and yet they say that incels only want stacy...
(WahmenMustDIe)
And yet again these so called Femcels proved that they are nothing more than Chad chasing whores.
(kin_o)
"female incels" would rather buy Chad's time for a nice fucking, than to even be associated with you and your "baggage"
It's over.
(ThotSlayer44)
I just got banned from r/trufemcels for telling the girl who made that thread to make a Tinder account instead of paying for escorts.
Lmao women are the meme gender.
@oxford_karma
I agree totally with you. Moral relativism is ridiculous. There comes a point where you have to draw a line and say somethings are good and somethings are bad. Having sex with 10 year old girls is wrong no matter where you are (I can't believe that I actually have to argue the point). People, keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.
Are you Atheist? Are you rational? On what grounds do you make your moral claims? Intellectually speaking, what's the difference between having sex with someone who is 18, 16, 14, 12 or 10 years old? Why is one 100% morally acceptable while another is 100% morally objectionable? Why is the magic line drawn at 18 and not 16? Why 16 and not 14? Et cetera.
If your basis for moral judgement is zeitgeist, then you've given away the argument.
@oxford_karma
first, I can't believe that I'm being asked to justify my belief that child rape is wrong, but if you really want to do this, I will take the break. Physical: a ten year old is not physically mature enough to sustain a sexual relationship. Duh. Maturity: a ten year old is not emotionally or mentally mature enough to be "married," you dumb-fuck. This includes brain development. Sociologically: a society like this treats women as property, not people. This has a negative effect on human rights (which I guess is too "western" for your silly ass) and promotes victimization and oppession on a wide scale. If that is too abstract for your brain, then we can play this as a consumer problem where market forces are effected by widespread disenfranchisement. Could you imagine her bachelorette party? Fucking barbie themed for age appropriateness. Oh, and I love the "are you atheist" opening. Very self-righteous of you
You completely missed the point of my questions. Anyone can say that X is wrong, but why? In our culture we view marriage to a 10 year old as rape, but in their culture it's normal. Why is our moral perspective superior? Likewise, many in their culture may argue that abortion is murder and to let a murderer keep his life is unjust. Why is our morality superior in this case?
In order to claim our culture's moral values are superior you'd better have a strong, objective standard of morality to measure things by. Morality is either relative or absolute. If it's absolute, how and why? If it's relative, you've already lost the argument for your culture's moral superiority.
People have been giving their sons and daughters in marriage at that age for thousands of years. Any perceived negative consequences that you have are unique to modern Western culture. Your entire concept of marriage is different than theirs. There's a high probability that this girls mother, grandmother, sisters, cousins and female companions all had similar marriages. To them, it's normal. It's just the way things are. You're projecting your own Western values onto them and judging them when you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be born and raised in such a culture.
@cool_drank
Do you think a 10 year old has the same mental capacity as an 18 year old? What does being an atheist have to do with moral claims?
If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.
So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?
@cool_drank
If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.
So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?
Your reaction is a purely emotional one. I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy in taking a moral stance on this issue without being able to back it up.
Morality is either absolute or relative. If it's relative, then you have no argument. If it's absolute, then you need to explain how and why. Religious people claim morality is absolute and back it up with a "higher power" or some other foundational principle. I'm trying to get you to explain what foundational principle your "absolute morality" is based on.
Also, you still haven't answered any of my questions. At what age does this introduction to "rational thought" occur?
In Jewish culture going back thousands of years, you were an adult when you reached the age of 12, and betrothals and marriages at this age weren't unusual. Up to nearly a hundred years ago, most Western countries set the age of consent between 10-13 years old. In modern Spain the age of consent is 13. In several countries in Europe and most of South America sets the age of consent at 14. In several countries, including North Korea set it at 15. The most common age of consent for most countries is 16. In the USA it varies between 16 and 18 depending on the state. Some countries set the age of consent at puberty instead of a specific age.
Which countries would you accuse of supporting pedophilia? Why are your moral values superior to that of millions, if not billions, of people around the world? I'm just looking for you to provide some underlying foundational principle for your (rather bold) position that doesn't depend on feigning shock and painting me (or anyone else) as a pedophile supporter.
i always kind of thought on that myself. I mean, we; humans; make our puberty around 13 but society ants us to wait some more years that depend on where you live and people view it as wrong for a grown-up( like 35) to wanting having sex with teenage. But back when you were considered old at your 25s, wasn't it normal for us to breed no matter how long we had been living ? and with that i wonder if pedophilia isn't a problem created by moral ethics and laws.
I know my point of view is not really unanimous ( far from that ) but i think this is the truth biologically speaking
Nonononononononono pedophilia isn't a problem that was created by moral ethics and laws, it's a problem that's corrected and punished by moral ethics and the law.
Yes, it's biologically possible to have children like this. And as civilization has grown through thousands of years, maybe we've realized that an older person with vastly more developed maturity is very much taking advantage of a developing child when this happens. The difference is so vast that there isn't any semblance of a level playing field.
You know why redpillers love the young girls and teenagers? It's because the horribly uneven playing field makes it easier for them make people fall for their kind of thinking. 25 years old is 'too old' for them because very few 25 year olds are going to accept the red pill into their lives.
Yes that makes sense, but still, i think that biologically speaking there is nothing wrong in a 21 year old having sex with a girl that hit puberty and vice-versa. However i understand that my view is controversial and probably not widly shared but this thought was on my mind for too long so here it is, i have nothing more to say.
lets not kid ourselves. the best looking pussy is 14-22 depending on how hard she hit puberty. tits dont magically appear when she turns 18. pedophiles like girls who are PRE-pubescent, that term is just used to shame you for having a hot 19 year old girl. just-developed (or in the process) is the biological prime. the whole 18 thing is government sanctioned prime based on how long it takes to finish school in the United States, to keep girls from getting pregnant while she still in high school (outdated laws from pre-birthcontrol times). old enough to bleed, old enough to breed
Ohh fuck thank you so much. It pisses me off that this is the first time I've seen this opinion openly expressed on reddit.
I feel very strongly about the way pedophiles are treated. They are one of the only groups of people who cannot form support groups without fear of losing their jobs, their friends, or worse. Drug addicts and drunks are both allowed and encouraged to meet up, and we trust that they are actively seeking to deal with their problems, not encouraging each other to continue. Yet there is this fear of pedophiles, to the point that if non-offending pedophiles tried to meet up to talk about and deal with their problems, it would probably end in disaster. They also can't talk to a psychologist, for fear that that psychologist will allow their own feelings to get in the way and report the pedophile seeking help. Once the word is out, they're fucked.
The point is, calling someone a pedophile is arguably one of the worst insults someone could use, especially when you take into account all the things that are said about pedophiles: the death threats, the suggestions that they should all be castrated, the idea that all pedophiles will heartlessly rape little girls and damage them forever if they're allowed to live. When you call someone a pedophile, you're calling them a heartless monster who only sees children as empty vagina holes to fill in order to satisfy their perverted sexual deviancy. You're saying they deserve to be imprisoned, castrated, killed, ostracized, and hated. And that applies to people who have never offended. It's hating someone for the thoughts they think, even if they never express those thoughts in any way.
Now calling someone a pedophile when said "pedo" is attracted to a mature girl, with full reproductive capacity, who is dressing in such a way as to suggest that she is aware of her sexual nature... That's just disgusting. People demonize the idea of being attracted to anyone below the arbitrary line of 18, and flat out deny that anyone below 18 is attractive. I can't even begin to express how mad this makes me, so I'll just stop here.
It's incredible that one of the most hated subreddits is the only one where I can find some goddamn rational thought.
lets not kid ourselves. the best looking pussy is 14-22 depending on how hard she hit puberty. tits dont magically appear when she turns 18. pedophiles like girls who are PRE-pubescent, that term is just used to shame you for having a hot 19 year old girl. just-developed (or in the process) is the biological prime. the whole 18 thing is government sanctioned prime based on how long it takes to finish school in the United States, to keep girls from getting pregnant while she still in high school (outdated laws from pre-birthcontrol times). old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. bonus points if she dresses provocatively or posts suggestive selfies, means she is fully aware and knows what to do with it. ironically, here in the US the high school stock is fitter and tighter cos we have a thriving athletic culture. but by the time they go to college they are left to their own devices, eat like crap, and no longer active. get her while she's ripe and she'll stay fresh for that much longer. unless you have a fit bunny or a very petite slow grower, you will see early signs of the wall as early as 21. for short term enjoyment, fuck the youngest girls your country or state allows. however, keep in mind that that the younger she blooms, the sooner and harder she hits the wall. big tits at 13 lead to big thighs/arms at 17, to big belly at 22, to big face and used meat by 25. plus an entitled attitude, as she spent her formative years being "the hot one" who got all the attention. a wise long-term investment is to find the youngest legal girl who was an "ugly duckling" but became hot.
[on adults marrying 10 year olds in yemen]
It's wrong to my culture, but it isn't to their culture. I don't like that the world goes toestepping on other people's cultures because they don't think something is right or fair. As if their whining actually does anything. To me this isn't right. I'm not saying I agree with what goes on in other countries, I just don't think it's any of our business if it doesn't effect us.
(butyourenice)
It's fucking creepy because a 16-year-old is mentally underdeveloped and in many ways still a child, regardless of physical development. Hell your brain does not stop developing until your mid-20s, but teenagers especially lack the frontal lobe development that would allow them to accurately gauge risk and develop informed inhibition. If you think the distinction between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old is "arbitrary" (because what? They both have tits?), then yeah... Maybe you do belong on some list.
I've already addressed the difference between legality and morality in another comment. Your* entire rant relies on legality being the sole boundary between right and wrong, not to mention you've entirely missed the point of what I said in favor of listening to yourself harp about how adults should be allowed to have sex with kids
the reason my rant relies on the LEGALITY of a topic discussion LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT should be fairly obvious. Also you will note in my comment I state that I think an adult having sex with a 16 year old isnt right. I have taken a stance on morality. My comment was focusing solely on the legal aspect, and I agree with you on the morality part (which you would understand if you read my comment with any level of reading comprehension).My comment doesnt "rely" on the legality issue, i just decided that I would only join in on the debate on the legality side of things. That would be like saying a physics paper "enirely relies on the laws of physics". well no shit, its a specific paper that specializes in that one topic, that doesnt mean that I dont acknowledge all other fields of study just because I wrote something up about one of them.
But anyway, It doesnt matter what is morally wrong, or creepy, the law doesnt cater to your personal code of ethics. And that is my point. Just because someone else is immoral and unethical by YOUR standards does not mean it is immoral and unethical by everyone elses standards. And it certainly doesnt mean we should throw people in jail and ruin their lives because you, specifically you /u/butyourenice dont agree with it. The entire population of a country should follow exactly your moral code? get the fuck out of here you pretentious fuck. Is cheating on your spouse immoral and unethical? yes. Is it immoral and unethical to deny a hungry child food because he doesnt have enough money to pay for it? yes. Is it illegal to cheat on your wife or expect payment for your goods? Im not saying having sex with a 16 year old as a 65 year old ISNT unethical or immoral, what Im saying is that it doesnt matter. Legality is what the state has decided is right and wrong, and everyone living there is forced to follow it. Morality and ethics is how you personally chose to live your life. So if something is legal, then it doesnt matter whether or not you find it immoral, because someone else might not and they have every right to do so just like you. Im not saying having sex with a 16 year old isnt morally wrong, Im saying morality is highly subjective and personal, so if your morals say you shouldnt have sex with a 16 year old as an adult, then there is an easy solution. Dont have sex with a 16 year old as an adult. See? problem solved. And if someone else doesnt think that it is immoral and does have sex with a 16 year old as an adult, then guess what? they have their own set of morals and code of ethics that they chose to live their life by, and thats fine because they arent you, so your morals dont fucking matter to them! Its such an easy concept, but you people who think the whole world should cater only to people who share the exact same opinions and lifestyle as themselves are narrow minded and ignorant. Are 16 year old girls old enough and developed enough to decide if they should have sex? are you a 16 year old girl? Are all 16 year olds the exact same level of maturity? Yes it is something that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. And its a good thing that because it is legal, and rape is still illegal, then having sex as a 16 year old is a choice that they are free to make. If they have a parent/guardian who helps them make that decision, even better. But 16 year olds have a lot of decisions and responsibilities in their lives that require a much higher level of maturity than being allowed to have a penis inside of them.
Former Cecilia Junior High teacher pleads guilty, sentenced
A former St. Martin Parish teacher pleaded guilty in connection with improper conduct with a student.
Kaylyn Huval, 28, of Breaux Bridge was charged and pleaded guilty to one count of carnal knowledge of a juvenile, said Assistant District Attorney Chester Cedars.
Cue the faux outrage from morality fetishists who have no problem with priests molesting children but flip out when young adults get giggity with the hot teacher.
fucking hell, my grandmother had 2 babies and 500 head of cattle by the time she was 14, she had 3 babies and was widowed and sold the cattle to open a whore house when she was 16.
tell me again how a 14 year old is not a woman and I'll show 40 generations of my family that married and reproduced before they were 15.
That's great for her, but for every 14 year old girl like her, there are hundreds who get used by much older men and end up being scarred for life by it.
who are you to judge what's good for someone else? who are you to tell other cultures how to transfer land, fortune and DNA? Your judgement of people and desire to place your societal norms on others reeks of fascism.
someone else in this thread pointed it out better, millions of years of evolution can't be overcome by 100 years of societal change, the virility of youth is the whole point of discussion here.
What the fuck are you gonna talk about with a teenager?
Nobody gives a fuck what a young woman says anyway.
What possible fucking common interests could you have?
obviously the only common interest would be procreation, young men are not capable of maintaining a family and older women are not capable of creating a family.
Doesn't make it right. You really think your grandmother appreciated being used like a breed mare that young? Being capable is much different from being physically and emotionally ready.
oh shit, who are you to judge 40 generations of my family? Who are you to determine how mature a woman that died 100 years ago is?
And guess what.. she was the fucking MADAM, (you don't really think the owner of the whore house is turning tricks?), it's actually a pretty good commentary of what she thought of men.. she wrote about what dumb brutes men were controlled only by their sex and how easy it was for her to exploit that. She also killed 8 men over the course of her lifetime.
your judgment is shit, you're ideas are bad and deserve to be ridiculed.
What exactly makes you think that? What led you to that?
I came to the alt right specifically to help black and hispanic people. I've worked with non white people all my life and me trying to make them adhere to white standards is not fair to them.
I think our philosophy of peaceful separation is the best strategy for the long term happiness and survival of all races.
Black people shouldn't be held to white standards. They need to live in Africa with their own people and their own unique ways of governing themselves.
Latin people have their areas and need to stay there.
And to answer your question of course I'd shoot an alt right dude raping someone. If it was just a fight and I didn't know the context of course I wouldn't shoot anyone. I'd probably just try to break it up.
Leftists believe diversity is important inasmuch as it disempowers those who they think are unjustly at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy, that is people of european ancestry.
They couldn't care less about diversity qua diversity, in fact you'll often hear them praise a hypothetical future in which the whole human species is so thoroughly mixed that you can't tell anyone's ethnicity by looking at them, in other words a world with the lowest amount of diversity possible.
Anyone who actually cares about diversity immediately realizes that the only way in which you can guarantee the presence of a great deal of variety in the world is to have different areas for different people.
Now, it's not that leftists are stupid or that they don't know this, it's just that it's a political matter so their brains shut down as soon as you talk about it. They understand pretty much every identitarian talking point as long as it's not about ancestry in humans.
If you tell them that a certain subspecies of rhinos that it's not even clear if it's actually a subspecies or not but it's peculiar enough to stand out, is probably going to die out because of, say, climate change pushing other rhinos in their areas, they immediately mobilize to try to preserve those handful of rhinos: not even one of them goes "but who cares about genes" or "why does it matter if those rhinos die out, there are still going to be other rhinos around!". Not a single one of them says anything of the sort, in fact, those are probably the parodies they're going to create when they satirize the "conservatives" who don't care about the preservation of nature.
My first real red pill occurred when I was 14-15 while I was doing research online about IQ. I already knew that I had a high IQ when I was accepted into a very prestigious private boarding school in New England, but I wanted to learn more about what exactly IQ is. And it was during that research online that I accidentally stumbled across the raging debate over racial IQ differences. After a lot of painful and uncomfortable research and soul-searching, I very reluctantly came to the extremely disturbing conclusion that the toothless, racist, inbred, skinhead, neo-Nazi, KKK pieces of shit really did have science and reality on their side.
But rather than just ending my red-pilling process there, it's probably a good idea to go over more of the details on my background in order to provide additional context to my current worldview since I think that it will help to dispel lazy stereotypes about most Alt-Righters being born into trailer parks or whatever.
My parents grew up in very liberal, wealthy families in the sister cities of Detroit and Flint, Michigan - two cities that were eventually completely ruined by black people during their lifetimes. But they first met each other at a law school that won't be named because I've already provided way too much doxxable info. After they graduated, they White Flighted to Fairfax County, Virginia - which is considered to be a part of the larger Washington, D.C. area (another city that was ruined by blacks) and is where I spent about half of my childhood.
Despite my parents being very liberal, they were actually quite socially conservative in many ways - such as their decision to not allow my siblings and I to watch TV or play video games growing up because they (correctly) thought that it would rot our brains. And the private boarding schools that I attended also didn't allow us to have TVs in our dorms. So, what do you do for entertainment when you can't watch TV or play video games? Read lots and lots of books. I had already read all of Carl Sagan's books, all of Stephen Hawking's books, all of Jared Diamond's books, and many other similar popular science books by the time that I was 13. So, I was an absolutely massive science fanboy growing up.
I was also super liberal and politically conscious growing up because my parents and grandparents were heavily involved in donating to and campaigning for the DNC for decades. Some of my earliest memories were being dragged around the Presidential campaigns of Clinton and Gore back in the 1990s and getting a behind-the-scenes look at the Clinton/Gore administration - which was pretty cool.
That's why I was so fucking incensed to see these racist, redneck fucktards dare try to claim that the science was on their side. I wanted to completely annihilate their arguments, and so I read a small mountain of books and at least a hundred blog posts and online articles and watched several documentaries on this topic before coming to the literally physically painful conclusion that the evil, subhuman racists really did have the data on their side, and that my liberal side of the debate was spouting half-truths and flat-out lies in a desperate attempt to combat White supremacy and uphold their liberal egalitarian paradigm.
I basically went full Kraut & Tea for about half a year or so researching this topic in my free time, except that I actually had the intellectual honesty to admit that the racists were right. I actually genuinely and naively believed in the liberal mantra of being open-minded and following the evidence regardless of how unpleasant it might be to my own sensibilities - and it caused me to realize that racism, social Darwinism, and eugenics is scientifically justified...
So, that was quite the traumatic red pill... But I actually managed to remain a loyal shitlib for several more years despite that paradigm-shattering realization on such an important issue. And that's because it's extremely hard to escape the liberal ideological bubble. My brain had basically been marinating in liberal propaganda my entire life. And simply being a Republican was enough to become a social pariah in the kinds of far-left social circles that I existed in. My family and friends were liberal as fuck, the communities that I lived in were liberal as fuck, the private boarding schools that I attended were liberal as fuck, the authors that I read were liberal as fuck, the popular culture that I consumed was uniformly liberal as fuck, the news that I consumed was liberal as fuck, the university that I attended was liberal as fuck, et cetera.
Reading books from far-left ideologues like Noam Chomsky in middle school and high school actually caused me to become even more far-left in my teens. I was even borderline Antifa at one point. But it was traveling to former and current communist countries, walking through museums that were dedicated to exposing communist crimes against humanity, and reading critiques of the left (e.g., The Black Book of Communism) which caused me to gradually become disillusioned with the left as I started college.
But the last straw that finally broke the camel's back was the brutal murder of my liberal White best friend by a pack of 15 MS-13 illegal immigrant gang members when we were both sophomores in college. I had never even heard of MS-13. While researching them online, I came across a random blog post by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin that was basically sounding the warning bells about the dangers of MS-13 in the Washington, D.C. area and condemning the left for allowing violent illegal immigrant gang members to spread across previously idyllic American communities.
That blog post - which she probably didn't even put that much thought and effort into - completely broke me mentally. I could barely even look at the screen while reading it because I knew that just a few weeks ago I probably would have left an angry comment on her blog calling her a racist, right-wing asshole and hoping that she got hit by a bus for writing something that was so blatantly ignorant and bigoted.
I had also strongly supported open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, sanctuary cities, and amnesty. I was basically a global citizen of the world that supported a UN on steroids because I didn't think that global problems like climate change and inequality could be solved without much stronger global governance. I basically viewed nation-states as being these primitive, tribalistic relics that were enabling disease, income inequality, war, environmental destruction, and xenophobic racism.
After reading that blog post, I finally realized that my best friend's blood was on my hands because I had supported those dangerously retarded leftist policies. And I also finally realized that my leftist views were helping to completely ruin one previously serene White community after the next and sacrificing countless innocent White lives to the altar of diversity and anti-racism. I became completely radicalized against my former leftist comrades after I realized that they had taken advantage of my ignorance and innocent altruism by brainwashing me with such a dangerously suicidal and delusional ideology.
When I first left the left and joined "the dark side", I actually started out as a fucking neocon because neocons still dominated the conservative movement - and because I was reading lots of neocon journals and books as I was exploring right-wing ideology and right-wing critiques of the left. I also became an Islamophobe because I was reading Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog on an almost daily basis. And I even briefly became a non-Jewish Zionist because Zionist propaganda is omnipresent in the mainstream cuckservative movement, and especially in the Islamophobia community.
Robert Spencer and other Islamophobes constantly denounce racism and routinely spout the talking point that criticism of Islam has absolutely nothing to do with race; but brown- and black-skinned Muslims flooding into the White Western world and leeching off of our welfare states, filling our prisons, turning underage White girls into sex slaves, slaughtering us in terrorist attacks, aggressively shoving their way of life onto us, and openly declaring their desire to rule over us is obviously a racial issue.
That realization caused me to seek out moderate White "racialists", which is how I discovered Jared Taylor's work. The flawless logic of his arguments and his relatively moderate approach towards pro-White activism completely changed my perceptions of White nationalists. I quickly became a closeted White nationalist and race realist (I have to pretend to be a liberal in real life in order to avoid being socially ostracized). And then Richard Spencer's work impressed me back in around 2014, which caused me to join the Alt-Right.
As to the JQ; I was very close-minded and dismissive towards the JQ my entire life, even after I became a White nationalist. I basically viewed the JQ as extremely counterproductive conspiracy mongering which didn't have any merit and would only scare people away because it reeked of Nazism; but it was during a debate with a fellow White nationalist about 4 years ago where he recommended that I read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, and so I did. That's one of those paradigm-shifting books which completely transforms how you view the world. I checked his references to see if they were actually true, and I was shocked to see that they were. I'll never look at Jews or the world the same way again after reading that book.
So, yeah - that's a really long-winded explanation for why I left the left and joined the Alt-Right.
Re: Liberal feminists are so predictable I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
(blairbitchcraft)
This is literally what happened to me when I was younger - well, I recognized the whole trans thing didn’t make sense. “TERF” wasn’t a thing back then. I found more people that agreed with me and then I found a version of feminism that really resonated with me: radical feminism. But everyone hated them. So, I whistled while I walked away and didn’t look back for years.
Liberal feminism has gotten a lot more aggressive than it ever was. You used to be able to find people discussing it, discussing their honest feelings (“I don’t really FEEL like a woman; I just like looking like one,”), and people debating with respect.
It’s so weird.
(FriendlyCommie)
The irony is that the context of the aforementioned thread was I was talking about how anti-feminists claim to support intellectualism and being well-read when talking about how well read St. Jordan Peterson is, but dismiss any literature that contradicts their pre-established conclusions. Everyone in the generally progressive sub was agreeing with me, but once I mentioned rad fem literature everyone... immediately dismissed it, funnily enough.
Lib Fems pretty much forced me to become radical feminist. I remember I had a youtube channel where I used to just post very casual off the cuff videos and one time I made a video literally just saying, "Hey guys... maybe we should actually engage gender critical feminists in debates, rather than just calling them bigots and shutting them out."
The video got loads of thumbs down and some guy who had been I subscriber for ages commented saying I was literally responsible for transgender people committing suicide... just because I said we should actually talk to gender critical people.
By contrast every radical feminist community I've found so far has been incredibly accepting. This is actually one of the few places on the internet where I don't feel like I'm wrong one word away from a downvote avalanche.
Edit: how ironic that I mistyped the phrase "one wrong word"
(Kluannoa)
Yes indeed! And downvotes are one thing, but what I ''feared'' before I found radical feminism was just the abuse that you get if you say one word that's considered wrong. They made me feel like I was walking on egg shells, and that their ideology was suffocating and full of arbitrary rules, that also changed arbitrarily.
One thing that I did learn from that crowd, was the value of basic human respect. You don't make the world any better if you borderline bully someone for some honest, tiny infraction, you don't make the space more pleasant when well-meaning and sincere people get treated like witches because they used the word ''crazy'' or because they wrote ''transwoman'' instead of ''trans woman''.
These people have no respect as I see it; I think that there's something inherently disrespectful about bullying people into compliance, feeling entitled to be incredibly rude and hostile for ridiculous reasons, and always assuming the very worst about people you disagree with.
Thus, I rarely even participated in their discussions. They reminded me of my past abusers.
(afistfulofyen)
The ideologies are straight from The Abuser's Handbook. Same tactics couple with cult strategies to keep people ever guessing, ever trying, ever in line.
Good little libfems *pats heads* good little libfems, you're doing the Lord's mens' work and we appreciate most of all that you do not think for yourselves.
(justhysterical2018)
Yes! And, while they talk about inclusion, they fail to recognize that they are incredible elitists. If someone says something "wrong" (because god forbid they don't spend all their time reading woke thinkpieces) that person is immediately jumped on, rather than engaged in a discussion or provided with resources. Or, if they deign to explain, it is incredibly condescending.
I understand there may always be an elitist aspect to certain feminist discussion. But I think one of the reasons people swing to the extreme right is no one wants to be treated like they're stupid. Or called a bigot for disagreeing or having different ideas. I understand wanting no part a "movement" that forces you to walk on eggshells and allows for zero difference in ideas. I know every movement is vulnerable to ideological puritanism, but I see radical feminists as people who are generally able to disagree respectfully and who actually talk through differences in opinion rather than immediately jumping to "YOU'RE A BAD PERSON" and name calling. It's one of the things I appreciated about this sub when I first started lurking. Even though some things were shocking to me (just being so used to "trans women are women" it was a shock to the system seeing them referred to as males), I kept reading and learning because of the way people conduct themselves here. "Ohhhh these women actually care about putting women first!".
(eccentricvibe)
I'm convinced that libfems have so much anger towards radfems because the majority of us actually do research and have well rounded opinions. A lot of libfems really don't know shit about the history of feminism, all of their talking points come from Tumblr/social media in general and they dismiss 2nd wave feminism as "old TERF bullshit" even though those are the women that helped get the right to vote and better access to healthcare.
(afistfulofyen)
Libfems are the definition of birdbrained. The men need them tho: that water won't carry itself!
How I love that they compare THEMSELVES to the handmaidens when they are the aunts.
The truth is they don't. The Italian and Irish immigrants and their descendants never fully assimilated into WASP culture. You can see differences in all sorts of metrics attesting to this fact. But, and this is very important, they have assimilated better than most other non-white ethnic groups because they are closer to us as kin and in disposition. And while their descendants are not necessarily where the WASP elite is, they're phenotypically indistinguishable to the casual observer. European-Americans are still in their ethnogenesis, and this can only occur during the span of several generations.
You dismiss people's religious beliefs rather cavalierly. I don't rely on faith healing, personally, but I have no problem with those who do. As I pointed out in another place, when parents are prosecuted for not seeking care, what's really happening is that the State is attempting to punish adults for having different values than the State. The State's value is "Physical life and health are the highest values, nothing else competes." But many people believe that there is something more important and valuable than physical life. If such a person enacts such a value in the life of his child, the State has a fit and says, "NO, you must enact MY value instead -- physical life is the most important thing!" So, either you have parents enacting their values in the child's life, or you have the State enacting its values in the child's life. I think the parents have a higher claim to be the ones to choose the value, rather than the State. And personally, I don't care if the parents' values are based on religion, philosophy, science, materialism, political idealism, or anything else. It's easy to look in from the outside and say, "Those poor children, they're at risk." But you don't know the richness of their inner experience, which their parents may be expert at imparting, because they have a purpose in life that's higher than simply continuing to exist.
If parents starved their child to death, that would be horrible. Only a miniscule percentages of parents are so malicious. There are SO many more likely threats to a child's life, I find it kind of silly to hyperventilate over this rare hypothetical. There are better targets for self-righteous rage. The vast majority of parents would give their own lives for their children, and they deserve the benefit of any doubt, as well as the assumption that they do, indeed, act in their children's best interests as they understand them. That might not be the way YOU understand them, but really? It's not even your business.
People act to preserve their children's well-being in different ways. Sometimes taking your child to the doctor is a harmful thing to do, such as in the Stiehler (sp?) case that's ongoing in Michigan right now. Without knowing exactly what was wrong with the 7-month-old in this case, without knowing how easy it was to KNOW that something was wrong, and without knowing the efficacy of various forms of treatment, it's impossible to judge whether the parents did "enough" to care for their child. A large part of the tyrrany of the medical establishment consists in its ability to hookwink everybody into thinking that it has the only solutions, or the only valid solutions. There is often a scientific reason to refuse medical treatment, not just a religious reason.
What if the parent neglected to remove the infant from the train tracks if it ended up there by no fault of the parent?
If the parent had the power to save the child's life, and instead he just casually watched his infant get hit by a train, we would universally condemn that, no matter what legal or criminal label you put on it.
IMO, such a parent shouldn't be prosecuted for negligence. Yes, it's a really bad thing to do. The problem is that once you establish that theory, that someone has a legal obligation to save someone else, then prosecutors turn the common-sense applications on their heads trying to get convictions. The next thing you know, parents are going to jail for not taking their children off the train tracks when the parent was tied up and unable to help, or because the parent was looking the other way and didn't know the train was coming and was deaf and couldn't hear the train, or because they were chasing their other kid who was running off in the other direction and the parent couldn't chase both kids. Stuff like that happens all the time, it's ridiculous. I think the bottom line is that the criminal apparatus should always assume that a parent acts in his child's best interest unless there is damning evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of parents won't intentionally let their children die. Those that do, deserve to have something horrible happen to them, like having their children die.
Haha. Seriously though, I don't think people in general should be prosecuted for failing to help someone. Parents are generally the people we should be LEAST worried about in this department, because they are naturally protective of their children. "Good Samaritan" laws have been repeatedly struck down in the context of requiring the police to help a citizen in need. Those are the situations I'd be far more concerned about. Although, I do agree, if a parent doesn't want to be responsible for his child, he ought to give the child to someone who is willing to care for it appropriately.
As I've said elsewhere, there are various ways of caring for a child. In this example, an infant died while the parents relied on faith healing. It seems to me that they DID seek treatment according to their religion. I can't think of a reason to prosecute them for acting according to their own values instead of the State's.
In other words, simply knowing that a child is in danger is not sufficient "damning evidence" for negligence. There are always a ton of details that modify every situation. That's why, as a general rule, I don't think anyone should be legally liable for not helping someone else. Obviously, the world would be a better place if we helped each other, and if you don't want to care for your child, give it to someone else to raise. But I can't see putting the State in a position to enforce this with guns
So if a child stops breathing and a parent decides that it's the lords will or whatever the reason is, it's okay for them to stand by and take no action?
Of course it isn't OK. I don't know anybody who wouldn't condemn that. As an issue of rights, I think it's a violation of a parent's right as an individual to be criminally prosecuted for failing to help someone. But most parents aren't going to watch their children choke to death. I think we're really grasping at improbable hypotheticals, here.
Also, if a person neglects their animals and the animals die, they are still punished, even though it was "on accident."
Completely different from killing someone (person or animal) on purpose. But actually, it depends on the animal and how it was neglected. Last year, my 6-year-old forgot to feed her goldfish and it died. Do you think she deserves to go to jail?
In my view, it was a good learning experience for her, even though she didn't face any legal consequences. I'm not saying that people should get off scot-free for neglecting other human beings for whom they're responsible, but let's keep in mind that humans and animals are different just like murder and negligence are different.
you could make the logical argument that a fetus is part of a woman's body and a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to her own body, including destroy parts of it, but to excuse a person who killed a fetus with meth by saying "nobody's perfect" sounds inhumane to me.
I don't make that argument, I am pro-life. But I also don't believe that every living being ought to be locked up in a tower somewhere to prevent any possible bad thing from happening to end its life. This is life, there is risk involved, bad things happen to real people. Not every bad decision needs to lead to jail. If doing meth is illegal, then prosecute the woman for that. Not for negligent homicide. Otherwise we will be looking at negligent homicide charges any time any fetus dies for any reason. That's just unreasonable.
[ on liabiliy in faith healing cases where a child dies]
I would say they're not liable, because it's not like they were negligent, they were trying to heal their child but in a different way. The faith healing didn't harm their child directly, it was the lack of medical attention.
Plus, it's their right because we have freedom of religion
Who decides what is neglect and what isn't? Who decides which children should be taken away from their parents and which children shouldn't be taken away from their parents? I have an issue with declaring guilt before innocence. Furthermore, who pays for Child Protective Services? Should we be giving money to the government so they can sometimes wrongfully separate a child from his/her parent.
Liability when a child dies due to reliance on faith healing
I made a comment in /r/atheism thread the other day that i knew what draw a lot of fire, but i was disappointed that there was very little real discussion. I am curious what the libertarian thread thinks.
Basically there was a case where a young (7M) died because his parents depended on faith healing and didn't take him to the hospital.
First I certainly don't agree with what he did, i would have my kid there in a second. But actually i don't see anything illegal in what he did. For me how ones cares for their child is a parents right, the government should not interfere. This case looks very black and white. where the parents withheld even the most basic medical care but where would you draw the line?
Here are a few things that do occur or could occur.
schools being allowed to give students medicine (including birth control) without parental consent.
What if its consider cruel that i don't give my child add drugs or anti psychotic if he had some mental illness
deciding that my child should have this surgery or that surgery because its what's approved.
I just don't want the government deciding what happens to my children and i don't want the government telling other people how to do it, I'm an atheist and mostly libertarian but i could be wrong. So who i, or us, or the government to tell other people how to live even in extreme cases like this, where do we draw the line?
[ on faith healing]
/I tend to agree with you. I think the family unit should be basically allowed to operate, unless active harm is being done or unless one member asks for help.
The idea is that 99% of families will do their best to keep each other safe and healthy. That's human instinct. If you invite government in to nanny everyone with the "Norm," you have the potential to do more harm than good.
I think that people connected to the family (religious leaders, community leaders, relatives, etc) can keep an eye out to make sure, but sometimes a person dies. I don't agree with this idea that everything must be heavily medicated or treated. I agree that ADD medicine and depression medicine is a negative thing (as a whole) and I think that parents should have the right to choose what happens to their kids body.
If we really wanted "protect" every kid from his parents, we would take them from birth ala Brave New World and raise them in government centers where everyone is equal. That's not how it works in nature though. We should improve nature through technology through iteration, not by imposition or by declaration.
[On whether or not it should be fully legal for parent do deny their children medical care for faith based reasons ]
For the record faith healing is a little silly even for an old hpippie like me. However....
Unless your willing for the "government" to get involved and regulate guns so the 60+ children who die each year from gun related deaths are saved then no, you can't regulate to save children from what some states have decided is reasonable.
It comes down to how badly you want the freedoms you already have. If you want them you have to take the good with the bad and that includes allowing parents to decide what is best for their children even if they end up dying from it.
[On whether or not it should be fully legal for parent do deny their children medical care for faith based reasons ]
I don't think people realize how dangerous it is to start saying that the government should regulate religious freedom.
I believe that modern medicine has its place and can be very effective, but why should a parent be forced to involve their children in something they do not agree with? Why should parents not have a right to protect and care for their children in whatever way they see is best?
What if I disagreed with the type of medicine you used on your children? What if thousands or even millions of people disagreed with your idea of healthcare for your children? Does that mean that the government should step in and stop you from creating for your child the way you wish to?
Just because you disagree with a parent's decision, that does not give you the right to intervene.
I agree that life is sacred and that parents cannot be allowed to kill their children, but if they attempt to heal their sick child in their own way, but the child dies regardless of the parent's car, there is no one at fault here. Unless the parent truly has malicious intent of course, and their intent is to be neglectful or to administer poison or something, but this is not usually the case.
And we can't just say that the parents were wrong because their care didn't result in a full recovery, otherwise we could place the same blame on every modern medical procedure that didn't ultimately result in a full recovery.
Doctor's patients die too. Drugs/medicine are often incorrectly prescribed. Surgeries often cause more damage than they solve.
Yes, modern medicine can be beneficial. But there are risks. Why should parents be forced to choose the risks of modern medicine over the risks of their own choice of healthcare
Because faith healing is not health care
And why should they be forced to subscribe to what YOU think is adequate care?
If an adult chooses to not treat their own illness and dies, fine. But the parent is responsible for the child. If their child is bleeding to death and the parents believe that praying is the best "healthcare" and the child dies, the parents should be prosecuted.
So should a doctor be prosecuted when a child dies in their care regardless of the treatment the doctor gave or prescribed?
No, because not believing/trusting medical treatment is no defense and just stupid. If a parent's view is the other way around and believes it is better to pray then seeking medical treatment because they think medicine is bad and just watches his child bleed to death, then that parent is an idiot and should be punished.
And that parent might be thinking the same thing about you while your child is being given the wrong prescription by some doctor that has wrongly diagnosed the problem.My point is that they have just as much of a right to cater for their child as you do for yours.
And besides, your argument only has validity if we assume that prayer and faith healing is completely ineffective, but in reality, that can't be the assumption. And just because you say so doesn't make that assumption true.
on brock turner
A young intoxicated male college student making out with a young intoxicated female college student should not be accused of rape. It is going to get to the point where our sons needs to take vital signs and give females breathalyzer tests. Did she fondle his penis b4 passing out? If so, is she a rapist? Take some responsibility ladies.
One more thing, if a child is a high achiever great athelete, is white and was raised in an upper middle class family why is he being penalized and stereotyped? He's an easy target. It's no longer correct to hate on African Americans, gays, transgendered people, or women. So, bam Brock turner is it.
Look. No race is inferior to another.
Races ARE absolutely different from one another though.
So, inferior in what aspects? IQ? On average, yes. Athleticism? On average you would be superior to most whites in that area.
Races also all have a general set of personality traits among them. Blacks are generally aggressive and very short tempered. Whites are somewhere in the middle, and Asians are the least aggressive and short tempered out of the three.
So, you'd have to ask about specific areas you're referring to. Based solely off your ancestral lineage you are no worse or better than any other person of any other race.
But (and a big but), a lot of times blacks do tend to be objectively shittier people than whites.
Honestly, I wish there was an Amerindian version of the alt-right, similar to the American Indian Federation of the WWII era, and that both the white and indian races could ally themselves with each other in order to create two distinct ethnostates within the US, and then a neutral zone for everyone else. Reservations are not ethnostates as people on this sub have said.
No one, no one actually thinks transwomen are women. That's what drives me crazy. Even when I was trans-inclusive I didn't believe that (I wasn't being asked to chant it either, probably would've peak transed me a lot sooner).
NO ONE thinks they are female/women. They think they should be allowed to play pretend, to have everyone else play pretend too, and the cost to actual women is not important.
Stockholm syndrome runs deep in Japanese society. They were utterly beaten and subjugated by the US and now they worship the ground Americans walk on. This fact alone precludes Japan from ever properly atoning for their past since they consider other Asians inferior while they eagerly kiss white ass. Similarly, this also precludes Japan from joining in some pan-Asian alliance since the only way to cure Stockholm syndrome is to first free the victim from its captor - without the victim's help or consent. IMO, I honestly don't care about japan or its future.
Justice is coming, Nippon; aint nothing you can do to change it, not even hiding behind the skirts of white men is gonna save you; shit, trying to suck up to China to escape justice aint gonna help. The day will come when the time is right and your children will become loyal Chinese vassals, soon enough.
Pay attention to how they portrayed the local cuisine by filming in at an economically-priced establishment (not saying that lower end is bad) as opposed in an equivalent high end institution such as Fook Lam Moon, a place that existed for local tycoons who succeeded in spite of the British fat cat types that dined at The Peninsula.
Makes you think doesn't it? Architects of White supremacy portray poverty in Asia as a sign of 'grit', 'character', and 'soul', conveniently glossing over the fact that the destitution and hardship only exists as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of their brutal and barbaric colonialism. It bewilders and exasperates me when I see the British gloatingly demand their colonial exploitations be seen as 'accomplishments'. I honestly can't think of a more disgustingly evil people. It takes a certain kind of rotten national psyche to celebrate things like this.
Btw, afternoon tea at The Upper House completely destroys The Peninsula's offering.
Ahem, I am from/in Mexico, born, raised and will die here. With all due respect, fuck the "native americans". The northern tribes had an atrocious reputation across the board even as far back as the pre-conquest era (1400s) and they were extremely poorly regarded by the tribes of mesoamerica (Aztecs obviously, Tarahumara, etc.).
The "heritage" of the norther tribes is non-existent. They engaged in constant warfare until they met an opponent beyond their ability to defeat. They lost the war, they have no claim to the land.... if anything they should be immensely thankful that the pioneers didn't wipe them out because of the situation were reversed, the northern tribes would never have hesitated to kill every man , woman and child that was part of the opposing faction. Mercy was not something the northern tribes were known for, at all. So be grateful that the winners of the war didn't think the same way.
tldr, no, the native americans are dumb for thinking they have a claim.
And even if you were to consider lolicons pedos, if a pedo came out to anyone, they'd get the police called on them. Therapists are required to aren't they? Even if said pedo isn't hurting anyone and has no intention to. Which I think is pretty harsh imo. Furthermore, taking away pedo's outlets is dangerous, because if anything they is going to be illegal, what is stopping them from doing actual harm, other than them wanting to protect children. It might not be a perfect defense against child abuse, and those who rape kids are going to anyway, but at least it gives the ones who do not want to harm kids something safe to rub their rod.
But I really don't think it's fair to everyone who enjoys lolicon a pedo, just as it's not fair to call someone into bdsm or rape porn a rapist, nor do they really wish to be raped. And rape porn is a popular genre. It's a fantasy, an escape. And I think escapism is fine just so long as you don't take the fantasy into real life. The loli porn is not the problem, it's the people who can't tell the difference between reality and fiction.
Either way, I don't think people should care what I wank to if it harms nobody. Also sorry if I seem like a cunt at any point, I am not trying to. I've noticed that I am probably being too bitter in the past comments. Just very passionate about the topic I guess.
Alright bro. I'm going to level here. If anyone is trying really hard here to keep porn where children lookalikes are in, then I think that person is a massive pedo. Murdering another human being is completely different to allowing lolis in porn. And don't get on a high horse about defending fiction and how it shouldn't be messed with. You look like a pedo, defending this. Take a step back, and just reevaluate yourself.
Yea this is an edit just went through your profile a little. I understand why you are defending this so hard. Cause you are a pedo.
Double edit: "17 is more than old enough tho" yea your a pedo
So it's okay to murder another human being but not okay to allow lolis in porn? Do people look gay for defending gays? Do people look like murderers for defending murder in games?
I really don't see how violent video games and lolis are so different that they cannot be compared. Both are fiction and both depict something illegal and wrong, I think that's fair ground for comparison.
The only reason I look like a pedo to you is because you're not willing to accept that fiction isn't reality and enjoying something in fiction doesn't mean you enjoy in real life.
It's hypocritical to say that lolicon is wrong because it's immoral or gross, calling it pedophilia, even to say you don't care that they're not underage, and then go on to play some video game where you brutally murder innocent people and children.
Imagine a woman being 30 and looks like a child so she often gets mistaken for one. What is she to do? If she fucks someone, that person she fucks will be deemed a pedo and jailed? Do we care about age then, or just looks? After all, if she looks underage, then she is underage.
Why do so many people care so much about fictional children but never seem to talk about real children being raped? They're just pixels on a screen. If you wanna bitch about pedophilia, go and hunt the real pedos.
The one thing I have to say about most lolicons I've seen, it's that they seem to be a bunch of pussies. To afraid to stand up for themselves. They'd rather others fight for them, but who's going to do that when most non lolicons detest lolicons? You don't get in anything in life by staying idle and nothing easy to obtain is worth having.
Reddit should ban the furry and gaming communities, because that's just immoral and wrong. At least play it fair.
