[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / ausneets / b2 / dempart / doomer / pinoy / tingles / vichan ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

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

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


File: 8fca3144c11e67f⋯.png (785.4 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Block0 ratwiki.png)

File: 19964875c9a18e9⋯.png (806.98 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Block1 ratiwiki.png)

File: e717c26f13b4b66⋯.png (782.28 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Article edit.png)

 No.143383

I made some contribution on their pedophilia article (a rather moderate one, not even chimping out) and I got inmediately perma-banned, with the ability to create a new account disabled, by a mod there (a fucking feminazi one, of course, and a major SJW retard no less). She goes by the name EK and seems like your average r/socialism sack of shit.

I think it was mostly because of my username and not because of the topic as such. So much for those faggots being "rational".

 No.143384

>Rational Memey

You do realize all Rational Wiki articles are bitchy hit pieces made by vapid centrists right? Even the one's where they're right and should have the right to be as openly insulting as possible they're still extremely ostentatious, what could have possibly made you think posting there was a good idea?

Also sage because this isn't leftist discussion.


 No.143385

>>143384

>what could have possibly made you think posting there was a good idea?

Trying to add some common sense to their idiotic article? It's part of the wikimedia and I made a topic in their talk page, not the main article on pedophilia, which I don't even condone but certainly understand why some people have said sexual orientation.

>Also sage because this isn't leftist discussion.

The article isn't leftist discussion, but their overall stance supposedly is (center-left, according to media bias/fact check). You'd expect they'd man up (or woman up in the femishit case) and take criticism like mature people.


 No.143386

>>143385

>Feminist

>Criticism

Anon I–

>Because it was a discussion.

But the problem is that they clearly don't want any discussion.


 No.143390

File: 09be775256e48f2⋯.gif (2.96 MB, 380x214, 190:107, fedorangers.gif)

OP is a colossal cockgargling faglord, talks like a space alien ("humans"), and deserves a permaban from life. But as long as there's a thread on Rational Wiki, everyone should know that the site actually used to be good when it was just a normal New Atheist fedora rack.

Then the SJW cancer of "Atheim+" metastasized, seizing control over a number of New Atheist entities such as Rational Wiki, and the rest of the New Atheists coalesced around The Slymepit.

As a result, you'll probably notice that articles on subjects SJWs are interested in are completely contaminated, while articles on things about skepticism and atheism uninteresting to SJWs are abandoned and still largely intact.

Ironically, A+ basically died by the time GG rolled around, and the infestation on RW is pretty much its only testament, largely just a mirror of SJWiki (yes, that is an actual site).


 No.143391

>>143386

>But the problem is that they clearly don't want any discussion.

Which makes them incredibly hypocritical, when they precisely attack conservapedia on doing the exact same thing.

Also, it's funny how advocating sending M R A faggots to deathcamps is A-ok, but an ironic username isn't. That's the state of the mainstream left.


 No.143393

>>143390

>OP is a colossal cockgargling faglord, talks like a space alien ("humans"), and deserves a permaban from life

I merely tried to use their language, to actually start a rational discussion on the topic. Also, focus on this topic, fag.


 No.143394

File: 285e649dc633667⋯.jpg (45.35 KB, 700x700, 1:1, ackchyually.jpg)

>>143393

>start a rational discussion on the topic

1) It's a stupid nonissue nobody IRL GAF about the status quo of aside from outrage mongers and pedos

2) Anyone who uses any term other than pedo is either a pedo or a pretentious airhead

3) Your analysis is nonsensical hairsplitting autism that fails to distinguish between an arbitrary fetish for age and an arbitrary fetish for youth


 No.143395

>>143393

Oh, and:

0) Making a fuss about it, aside from fairly tame stuff like Romeo laws and false accusations, is terrible optics for the men's movement.


 No.143396

Also op upon reading your article sorry for jumping in without doing so no, some pedos from experience I know are solely attracted to girls just for age even when they're ugly, or look terrible. It's not just body type.


 No.143397

>>143394

>1) It's a stupid nonissue nobody IRL GAF about the status quo of aside from outrage mongers and pedos

This topic is not about the article as such, but rather about the stupidity of the mainsream left. To be specific, the irrationality of a site called "rationalwiki", which usually considers themselves to be left-leaning.

Your opinion on pedophilia, or pretty much anyone's opinion on it (mine included) is absolutely irrelevant.

>2) Anyone who uses any term other than pedo is either a pedo or a pretentious airhead

>Being this much of a moralfag

I'm not even a fucking pedo (not at least the definition of liking girls by age), but I certainly have a thing for petite women. According to rationalwiki, or almost everybody on the fucking planet, I'm a pedo for liking women like this:

http://www.amourangels.com/z_model_511.html

Except that she's 18. Perfectly legal age to have a gangbang.

>3) Your analysis is nonsensical hairsplitting autism that fails to distinguish between an arbitrary fetish for age and an arbitrary fetish for youth

Fetish for age doesn't exist. They like underage girls for their looks. Would they like someone like this?

https://www.instagram.com/vanellygs/?hl=en

She's 13 years old, yet looks like 16-17 at least. I've seen women much older look far younger, like the porn model in question.

Again, this is not the topic of the post, faggot. It's about rationalwiki's hypocrisy.


 No.143398

>>143396

I don't know pedos irl, but I've browsed some sites (not actual porn sites, but discussion boards ala chan sites) on the darknet and I can tell otherwise. Most pedos only like their underage looking bodies and it's scientific fact that you cannot be attracted to chronological age. You're sexually aroused by their bodies.

Take a look at these 2 particular women:

>18 year old porn model:

http://www.amourangels.com/z_model_511.html

>13 year old latina that looks late teen:

https://www.instagram.com/vanellygs/?hl=en

The perfectly legal porn model looks way younger than the 13 year old instagram one.


 No.143399

>>143397

>>143398

>it's scientific fact that you cannot be attracted to chronological age

Say you saw a really convincing looking tranny, that you knew was a tranny, and an actual woman you knew was a woman that was somewhat less pretty. If you go for the former over the latter, you're a faggot.


 No.143401

>>143399

Except that, when you're attracted to a certain body type (be it petite or mature) you don't give a fuck about the age dumbass, nor are we assuming I know their ages, which are absolutely irrelevant.

Also, if you compared a tranny like Sarina Valentina with your average woman, you wouldn't even notice he/she/it/whatever is a tranny. Most likely, you'd just be attracted to said faggot, provided you didn't know Sarina Valentina was trans.

People are attracted to Sarina Valentina's body/looks, not the fact that he/she/it is trans.

Of course I'd be a faggot if I liked Sarina Valentina, '''once I knew he/she/it/who-gives-a-fuck is a tranny". I'm not assuming I know about his/her gender; the same applies with the latina and the porn star's age.


 No.143402

>>143401

*is trans


 No.143403

>>143401

>Most likely, you'd just be attracted to said faggot, provided you didn't know Sarina Valentina was trans.

Just like many pedos would no longer fetishize someone who appeared to be a child, once they learned they weren't.

>People are attracted to Sarina Valentina's body/looks, not the fact that he/she/it is trans.

There's an entire board which used to be #3 on the entire site that would say otherwise.

This silly conversation is giving me flashbacks to the "straight, gay, or lying" argument denying the existence of bisexuals.


 No.143404

File: acd0da942b15785⋯.png (420.52 KB, 660x912, 55:76, Anthony_Ludovici.png)

this is why feminists deserve executions and torture. they can't be reasoned with so they must die.


 No.143407

>>143403

>Just like many pedos would no longer fetishize someone who appeared to be a child, once they learned they weren't

Then the pedos would like to bang the 13 year old latina, yet, if you take a trip to the darknet, it's not the case for most of them. Pedos like children because of their prepubescent bodies. The chronological age is merely an indicator, simply stating "this is what your average x year old look like"; nothing more.

If I present the porn model to hebephiles, without them knowing she's 18, they'd lust for her. If I presented the 13 year old girl, under the same circumstances, they'd not give a fuck, because she looks in her late teens, despite being 13.

>There's an entire board which used to be #3 on the entire site that would say otherwise.

They like attractive female bodies with a dick. They don't like transwomen for being trans. Most trans women irl actually look like shit and 99.9% of the faggots who, allegedly, like trans women solely based on being trans wouldn't bang them, even if their lives depended on it.

>This silly conversation is giving me flashbacks to the "straight, gay, or lying" argument denying the existence of bisexuals.

Then stop derailing the topic. This is not about pedophilia, which I only give a fuck about because liking petite girls = being a pedo, according to almost everyone, even you. This is about the state of the mainstream left and rationalwiki's faggotry.


 No.143408

>>143407

>Pedos like children because of their prepubescent bodies.

Many do, but many fetishize children specifically for their age, or for reasons connected to age, such as vulnerability, inexperience, lack of legal independence, sheer taboo, etc.

>liking petite girls = being a pedo, according to almost everyone, even you

I never said such a thing

>stop derailing the topic

<bumps the thread again


 No.143411

Did you take a photo of your monitor with your phone? That's some funny shit.


 No.143412

>>143411

I use f.lux. I forgot to take off the vignette filter


 No.143414

>>143411

Also, if I actually took a photo with my cellphone, it'd have looked like absolute shit. The screencaps are in 1366 x 768 (the standard PC resolution).


 No.143415

>>143414

Fuck, I meant laptop


 No.143416

>>143414

>the standard PC resolution

A decade and a half ago


 No.143417

>>143416

Read above


 No.143426

>>143412

f.lux is proprietary software


 No.143434

>>143383

>caring about niche circlejerk wikis

anon pls

Also, you're almost hitting on a much deeper issue with how we categorize sexuality in general. Let me just swap some words and we have a much more relevant topic for discussion.

<You cannot be attraced to "gender" given that human gender is merely a subjective category of biological/behavioral features. Not even "normal" people are attracted to gender; they are attracted to particular arousal cues (body/face shape, voice, behavior, etc). For instance, a heterosexual man isn't attracted to the female gender/sex, but certain traits associated with femininity. The same logic applies to gay men, or men with bisexual or otherwise mixed attraction.

Point is, we're not attracted to abstract categories at all, but constellations of arousal cues, and what a person finds attractive can vary wildly. It would probably be more useful to think of sexuality in these terms than in terms of gender or age or whatever.


 No.143435

>>143394

>2) Anyone who uses any term other than pedo is either a pedo or a pretentious airhead

Speaking as someone who was sexually abused at different ages, shut the fuck up. There's a huge difference between 5 year olds and 15 year olds, the effects of abuse at those ages, and being attracted to people that age.


 No.143445

>trying to speak common sense when the subject is pedophilia

Just… don't even try my dude.

I've learned long ago that it's a fool's errand. People have very fixed ideas and a propensity to have emotional knee-jerk reactions when talking about it. Even people who are actually quite "rational", open minded and reasonable in general tend to just fall into a sort of specific programing which provides the same default replies and attempts at denying whatever you say without much effort thought.


 No.143449

>another pedoshit thread

look anon fap in your own private time, you can wait until she's 18 (or 16) ffs


 No.143481

>>143449

>not even bothering to read this thread to have a fucking clue

For the milicentillion time: This is not about pedophilia (which I don't even practice), but the mainstream left's retardation and rationalwiki, an alleged left-leaning wiki, hypocrisy and double standards.

From now on, if anyone else is gonna bring the "ur a fkn pedo fgt kys" argument once again, at least have the decency to sage your retardedness. Nobody gives a fuck about your opinion on pedophilia. Stick to the topic, faggots.


 No.143482

>>143426

So is my laptop and 90% of the shit I have to use.

If you have an alternative to f.lux (a /leftpol/ approved one, if you must), I'm all ears.


 No.143483

>>143434

>Also, you're almost hitting on a much deeper issue with how we categorize sexuality in general. Let me just swap some words and we have a much more relevant topic for discussion.

>You cannot be attraced to "gender" given that human gender is merely a subjective category of biological/behavioral features. Not even "normal" people are attracted to gender; they are attracted to particular arousal cues (body/face shape, voice, behavior, etc). For instance, a heterosexual man isn't attracted to the female gender/sex, but certain traits associated with femininity. The same logic applies to gay men, or men with bisexual or otherwise mixed attraction.

>Point is, we're not attracted to abstract categories at all, but constellations of arousal cues, and what a person finds attractive can vary wildly. It would probably be more useful to think of sexuality in these terms than in terms of gender or age or whatever.

Point taken. Still nothing to do with rationalwiki's faggotry with being a circlejerk, which was my point all along from the very beggining. I'm not even a pedo, but take issue with people claiming liking an specific body type (jailbait) = you've internalized pedophilia.

>Speaking as someone who was sexually abused at different ages, shut the fuck up. There's a huge difference between 5 year olds and 15 year olds, the effects of abuse at those ages, and being attracted to people that age.

Funny thing is, I presented evidence of a jailbait porn model who merely happens to look like 14 at best. I also presented a latina girl that looks 18. I don't like the younger latina, because her body type simply doesn't do it for me. I like, instead, the perfectly legal jailbait one, because of her petite body.

Shit, if you bring me a 40 year old woman that looks like said jailbait model (of course that's not gona happen), I'd totally bang her. Bring me a 10 year old that looks well into their 30s (as retarded as that sounds), I won't give a shit.


 No.143484

>>143483

*into her


 No.143485

>>143481

>>143483

Maybe don't pick pedos as the hill to die on to make a larger point, because you should know that if the subject is brought up it will dominate the conversation.

But yeah, you're right that the body type thing is stupid and not grounded in reality. It's like calling a body in a video game misogynist because the tits are too big or whatever when there are IRL women who are shaped like that. You don't need to feel insecure of whatever traits you're attracted to. People are all over the place. Just find someone you want to fuck and who wants to fuck you. It's that simple.


 No.143487

>>143485

>Maybe don't pick pedos as the hill to die on to make a larger point, because you should know that if the subject is brought up it will dominate the conversation

I brought it up on rationalwiki because people assume that we are, somehow, attracted to an specific range of chronological age, which is entire bullshit (pedos don't like the older looking latina girl; I'm like 99% sure of that). Inmediately, I got banhammered by some dyke feminazi whore on rationalwiki, which is allegedly objective and based on reality, hence I came down here and showcased their blatant hypocrisy and double-standards.

Also, I don't even know how this thread devolved into bitch-fighting about pedophilia, which I don't even practice or support. The thread is about mocking rationalwiki's faggotry, not about apologising for pedophilia.

>But yeah, you're right that the body type thing is stupid and not grounded in reality. It's like calling a body in a video game misogynist because the tits are too big or whatever when there are IRL women who are shaped like that. You don't need to feel insecure of whatever traits you're attracted to. People are all over the place. Just find someone you want to fuck and who wants to fuck you. It's that simple

We live under puritanical rule, all thanks to christianity. If we took morality out of the window, and let biological evolution dictate our rules, there would be nothing wrong with liking women who already are capable of biological reproduction, regardless of their age. older women would be given the middle finger on the sexual value.

Even other SJWs (far more rational than "rational"wiki, and that's saying a lot) agree that the terms are, at best, flimsy:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/hebephilia

On ancient Rome and Greece, it was perfectly normal for a 13-14 year old girl to fuck an adult, because there was no such thing as a morality regarding "muh kidz r pure!!!111!". We merely drew the lines under spooked christian moral values.


 No.143488

>>143487

I don't think this is an specific SJW problem.

I bet you would've been banned from literally anywhere else, it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't about pedophilia per se, just touching the subject makes people go full retard.


 No.143489

>>143488

Of course. I'd expect normiefags to chimp out and act like dipshits, but not from an allegedly "rational" site like rationalwiki. They even criticize conservapedia on their lack of rationality, yet they act exactly the same.

I think it has far more to do with the fact that that dyke mod, EK, is the textbook definition of an extremist SJW moralfag. Rationalwiki is pretty much comfortable with having a mod like that bitch. that actually advocates for the murder of M R As (and let me agree that they're retards, but certainly not worth deserving the gas chambers), but merely discussing pedophilia, from a rational perspective, is way too much for them.

That was my point all along. An alleged left-leaning site, which tries to be as rational as possible, chimping out about some minor opinion on a relatively controversial subject and the fact that they allow a borderline tankie femishit on their board.


 No.143492

>pedoshit gets banned for pedoshit

Where's the problem?


 No.143496

File: 33ab1da35950d6e⋯.jpg (145.08 KB, 900x629, 900:629, Atheismplusscientology.jpg)

>>143487

>>143489

>people assume that we are, somehow, attracted to an specific range of chronological age, which is entire bullshit (pedos don't like the older looking latina girl; I'm like 99% sure of that).

As I pointed out before, that is a ridiculous assumption. People fetishize all sorts of strange and arbitrary things, and obviously there are going to be pedos attracted to youthful appearance exclusively, young age exclusively, both, and/or other stranger characteristics.

>pedophilia, which I don't even practice or support.

>older women would be given the middle finger on the sexual value.

<roasties reeee

The gloves come off. You know 100% legal child marriage down to 10 years old happens today even in burgerstan, right? Thing is, it's extremely rare, because most people don't care.

>If we took morality out of the window, and let biological evolution dictate our rules

>ancient Rome and Greece

Those were preindustrial societies, which had entire classes such as the plebians whose sole duty was to reproduce as much as possible, in areas so thinly populated that the primary preoccupation of most classical era city states was the establishment of colonies in the untamed countryside between them. Having tweens reproduce like rabbits and dump kids on their grandparents is not a good idea for an industrial civilization on a topped off planet.

Also, the meme of child marriage being traditional into the agricultural era is bunk, with median age of first marriage being in the 20s in most peasant communities. Proto-porkies were a bit different, since there were intense pressures to produce heirs due to dynastic inheritance.

>an allegedly "rational" site like rationalwiki

>An alleged left-leaning site

As I pointed out upthread, Rational Wiki's ties to rationality, skepticism, sardonic wit, etc, are almost wholly a holdover from its origins as a New Atheist trolling community. All of its founding membership were purged during the Atheism+ SJW wars, and Rational Wiki since then (c. 2013) has exclusively been an SJW circlejerk atop the tomb of the old articles.


 No.143499

File: 13a0074884c479a⋯.jpg (25.89 KB, 277x300, 277:300, Pedobear.jpg)

>Supports pedophilia

>Makes a bunch of ramblings about the intricacies of words like "pedophilia" and "ephebephilia"

>Somehow jumps from that to "pedophilia should not be stigmatized"

>Gets banned

Pro-pedo advocates deserve to be banned.

Your post focuses on appearance, which is irrelevant because maturity, not appearance, is the most important part of non-abusive and non-exploitative relationships.


 No.143502

>>143496

Atheism is dead, long live the king


 No.143503

Where is Nathan Larson when you need him?


 No.143543

>>143499

used to be normal as recent as over a 100 years ago and no one cared.

concern trolling at its finest.


 No.143545

>>143543

>It used to be acceptable, so it should be okay now

Sweet! Do I get to own chattel slaves now?


 No.143546

>>143545

>comparing marriage to slavery

red liberal detected


 No.143583

бімп

Слава украіни!

Героям слава!


 No.143742

File: 54ad491f3b3590d⋯.png (358.85 KB, 576x566, 288:283, ycraf0z2525z.png)

I remember when Rational Wiki was mostly about debunking nutty conspiracy theories.

I actually used to read their articles a lot, they introduced me to many tinfoil boomer beliefs.

Then it started getting heavily politicized, with an obvious center-left bias (far from any -real- left wing point of view).

Now it's pretty much Conservapedia, but on the other side.

It's really sad actually


 No.143744

>>143546

>grooming your personal sex toy from childhood to the adult age, personally shaping her beliefs and worldview on your tastes and interests, purposely making her (economically and emotionally) 100% subordinate and dependant on you

>not slavery

Is this what pedos unironically believe


 No.143750

>>143742

what is the equivalent of metapedia from the other side?


 No.143751

>>143744

nob an agament


 No.143752

>>143751

It was a question, indeed


 No.143758

>>143752

that will go in vain


 No.143760

>>143758

Because it's rhetorical


 No.143761

>>143760

in your opinion


 No.143763

>>143761

Any pedo is free to prove otherwise obviously


 No.143812

>>143763

ok Franz Kafka


 No.143813

most people who accuse people of pedophila secretly desire to fuck kids themselves, from what I've seen.


 No.143818

File: faf75f44a233ce9⋯.png (417.09 KB, 1246x724, 623:362, killthenormalfaginsideyou.png)

>>143813

This is absolutely true in broader normalfag culture, but especially in freedom loving anonymous venues like where we are, genuine pedos do stink up the place especially since so many of them are otherwise inveterate normalfags driven from their kin by their dumb fetish.


 No.143822

File: 27365daf9bcf4cb⋯.jpg (47.02 KB, 500x281, 500:281, 27365daf9bcf4cb95b6ac752c5….jpg)

>>143818

There's a huge difference between wanting to Fuck a newborn and being a straight guy into them high school girls.


 No.143826

>>143822

I'll never understand hebenigger logic, high school women are just grown women except more narcissistic, uneducated, and equally slutty. If "muh breeding age" is your argument then you'll actually want to chase girls in late elementary school not late high school. 14-19 is probably the worst age range you could pick. The only excuse I can think of is that you're 30 and out of shape now so they're your only choice.


 No.143829

File: 90755b8a85b4680⋯.png (217.39 KB, 500x434, 250:217, 678417093235085313-Twitter.png)

>>143826

It's a double edged sword tbh, they're most disloyal, petty, bitchy, oversocialized age range but they're in their sexual prime. I just avoid women in general nowadays and have no desire to do so because women have effectively become a meme.


 No.143830

Also

>Muh Xennials


 No.143831

>>143829

Well women are pretty much memes so we can agree on that.


 No.143839

>>143829

>I just avoid women in general nowadays and have no desire to do so because women have effectively become a meme

You'll regret your decision later in life, son.

No man is complete without a woman by its side.


 No.143864

>>143839

But the women here suck. They're unable to have nuanced opinions on anything, they're incredibly high maintenance, they're idealistic at about what they want in a man I could go on for hours but I'm kind of tired and need rest


 No.143867

>>143864

Stop eating dumb incel propaganda. There are plenty of sweet girls out there.

You either didn't bother looking for them or you are on Elliot Rodgers levels of tardness and only have eyes for those 10/10 uptown petit-bourgoisie gals, yeah, it's obvious that those type of girls are going to be airheaded thots. Either way the problem is with you.


 No.143874

>>143867

It's not dumb if the statistics are true about mate selection. Remember that OKCupid had to take down a tweet because of its nuclear blackpill. For a legit no frills dating/relationship site. It wasnt Tinder from what I remember and even if it was im not looking for a quick fuck anyways. It comes and goes. Who tf cares…


 No.143878

File: e6b991c92cd8f1b⋯.webm (3.61 MB, 320x240, 4:3, bitches aint shit.webm)

File: 9da7550fdf986b6⋯.png (46.86 KB, 535x355, 107:71, incels are nonwhite.png)

>>143874

>>143864

Ok I wasn't going to bite but at last I truly must.

>They're unable to have nuanced opinions on anything,

Does anyone?

>they're incredibly high maintenance,

Because women instinctively must be because they biologically are made to have children. If they see a man who cannot provide stability why would they ever bother breeding with him? Physical growth and fitness is generally associated with both labor showing a man is willing to dedicate himself to something and can easily provide for the family and children. No shit they're going to go for the most attractive men the halo effect exists for a reason, it's true, if someone looks good they are a good person.

>they're idealistic at about what they want in a man

Which is good as it increases society and secures a more fulfilling relationship.

If anything women in regards to looks aren't the issue men are. You ever hear Tupac say guys get killed over girla, men need to stop fucking with bitches and go back to masturbation if it means safety? He's right men always lower their standards for women, we're always told to looksmatch or go for someone under our league, the truth is doing so only creates more competition, gives a woman who deserves no such value too much approval of narcissism and false standards, and too much confidence considering there are chads out there who will willingly fuck landwhales just because society tells them to. What men need to start doing is first and foremost focus on all non female issues then treat women like dogs by punishing them for getting out of line, and realize it's time to get back into the real world, they want a bone/chads cock? They'll need to earn it the way chad had to earn Stacey's pussy. They want fulfilment in life, they better learn to stop living as pampered poodles and start hunting like men. Women should not glorified but if avoided will only devolve more and something incels will never realize is that this happens because of capitalism pampering women. Incels for the most part know how to gather data and observation but any and all conclusions made by them are useless in regard to the female issue. I've seen them agree with feminist rape statistics at one point to point out how much better they as niceguys are, then proceed to call the left responsible for their modern troubles, then proceed to proclaim to be Anti Trump, then proceed to call David Gandy ugly, then call themselves anti white. Any critical assessment made by them is generally wrong and all over the place to fit their desperate narrative. Trusting them is like trusting a mad woman you just can't. This all said the way to improve women is to disarm capitalism, know which women to chase after if by very few, and how to treat them while also realizing physical bias is not a bad thing and if nothing else modern capitalism has caused a rampant spread of t free foods, less developmental foods and lifestyle which cause men to get weak bones and more from eating processed foods that take too much to cook for taste and not for function, and for nurturing a cancerous mindset in both sexes about society not caring about your looks, your weight, and other aspects but caring more about capital gain once done communally now done selfishly.

Such things cannot be blamed on female nature rather the corruption of capitalism, conformity and spread of misinformation. You must rise above incel ignorance and realize they are just people angry at the state of the world with no true direction to look forward to.


 No.143883

>>143383

anyone reading your shit would think that you are an uncontextualized dunning-kruger pedo apologist piece of shit


 No.143889

>>143383

I unironically agree with the third pic, and if you don't like women with big tits or wide hips you go to the gulag


 No.143891

>>143878

DID NOT RED


 No.143895

File: 29073b508df205b⋯.png (155.76 KB, 600x500, 6:5, 78f.png)

File: e14cde9cad93a0b⋯.gif (4.68 MB, 413x273, 59:39, giphy (1).gif)

>>143891

Here I'll get your collection started.


 No.143899

>>143874

>OKCupid

>Tinder

>21st century internet memery dating apps

>muh statistics

Son, get out of the internet for at least a day and go to the real world.

Things really are different out there.

I've seen studies showing that on those memey apps/sites there is a psychological effect that happens on people and causes them to suddenly become super selective and extra cunty, you can't take those shit seriously.


 No.143909

Far left commies and rabbis write the articles there what do you expect


 No.143913

>>143895

Nice, these will paired with collections of dead bodies

>>143899

I'm banned from too many places irl too.


 No.143914

>>143913

To add to that, that's why I think private companies should not exist, it's a mix of "bake the cake, bigot" meets " you're gonna make this Hitler cake whether it offends you or not".




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / ausneets / b2 / dempart / doomer / pinoy / tingles / vichan ]