what exactly makes you a "femcel"

>>34739640
not enogh follower to earn any big fat sponsorship paycheck

I'm a volcel therefore I will not be posting pictures of myself in this thread.
Good day.

Is Femcel even a real thing ?

>>34739729
There are almost no true "incels" of either gender, the vast majority are volcels. The fact that it's generally easier for women to find sexual partners doesn't mean men are literally incapable of finding them

>>34739744
See this logic is kinda retarded because as you said by that logic Incel literally doesn't exist as anyone can buy a hooker. So that doesn't really satisfy how it's used now. The reason women can never be incels is they will never be out of options while being the most privileged class of human beings to ever exist in history.

>>34739747
>So that doesn't really satisfy how it's used now.
True, we need a more accurate term

OP has the exact kind of face I'd like to smack with my cock

I wish a real femcel would kidnap me and keep me as a rape slave

>>34739747
>Incel literally doesn't exist as anyone can buy a hooker
Correct.
Once you understand this you will see why incels are whiny bitches and femcels triply so.

>>34739836
You don't actually understand what problem incels are facing. "Waaah waaah I want to have sex" is only the surface of the problem. The deeper problem is the inability to find healthy relationships, which you can't buy like a hooker. A lot of incels are just too young or stunted to communicate this problem so they end up harping on sex.

>>34739836
no because that isn't what people mean when they say incel. Do you really think none of these people think they can buy hookers? lol femcel is just women being women and appropriating shit for attention. Absolutely no shock there. The female equivalent would be cat lady because she winds up alone. Women gatekeep sex, men gatekeep marriage.

>>34739842
I understand the problem just fine.
>The deeper problem is the inability to find healthy relationships
This happens for most people, it's a symptom of living in a number of deeply sick societies.
>>34739995
>no because that isn't what people mean when they say incel
If idiots want to use words wrong they are free to do so.

>>34739995
men don't exactly gatekeep marriage lol. tons of men will get married to whoever.
>>34739842
so by that logic women can also be femcels, because there are plenty of autistic women who struggle to find healthy relationships. just because it's not as common doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
also there are women who are genuinely deformed because of medical issues, and most men at most would have sex with that and never bother to be seen in public or hold their hand.

>>34739836
what boggles my mind is those that wear their incel badge with pride in streamer chats and the like
> instantly toxic, which they think makes them "cool"
> seething at/objectifying women because they can't get laid while they JO to anime/gacha girls
> blame women for wanting hot men, but wouldn't give an "ugly" women a chance either
> also the same guys that give hundreds if not thousands of dollars to vtubers and streamers
most people (men and women) need to go for a run, and have a hobby that doesn't require a screen.

>>34739579
hey you ignored me on duolicious

By incel you mean virgin, yeah I am, if by incel you mean hating women and things like that no.
>>34739579
You're really pretty, you could easily find a boyfriend if you really wanted to
>>34740595
Not really my type, but I've seen a lot of girls similar to you with boyfriends so you should be good to go

>>34740281
That's a shit argument because some women will fuck whatever too but you still wouldn't say they aren't the gatekeepers of sex

Femcels do not exist, it is a fake term made by women invading male spaces. It is biologically impossible for a woman to truely be alone and unloved. Sage.

There is no such thing as a femcel. If you're a woman, all you have to do to get sex is express that you want sex. Then you can pick from a flood of guys who want it too. You are choosing not to have sex. You are sexually frustrated in the same way that a fat person is tired. You're doing it to yourself and expecting anyone to feel bad.

File: 20230815_230644.jpg (329.5 KB)

329.5 KB JPG

>>34739579
no such thing as femcels literally any guy on this board would smash meanwhile im actually incel despite not being ugly because women are picky losers who halo chad

>>34742094
you do know that the origin of the word incel was coined by a woman who struggled with sex, right. its actually chuds like you that invaded the space, and turned what was originally a support group into a self-deprecating, self-loathing, self-imposed oppression. if no woman will fuck you, YOU are the common denominator. maybe it's not that women are all stupid whores chasing chad, maybe you're just a really shitty guy.

>>34742123
>If you're a woman, all you have to do to get sex is express that you want sex.
nobody is truly involuntarily celibate. men and women can both have sex, it just might not be with who you want, or have any emotional depth. "women can just express they want sex" anybody can work a hookup app, you homunculus.

>>34742380
i saw you on the rate thread. no, you're not ugly, but it's not that women are being picky. you're just clearly a stupid asshole. why would you expect the group of people you clearly dislike to want you. 0/10 based on cognitive dissonance alone. you bitches need to tighten tf up

>>34740750
you actually seem very nice. don't become like these other sensitive ass neanderthals, just focus on yourself (working out, advancing academics/career, passions, etc) and women will eventually come into your life. i believe in you anon

>>34739579
Assuming you're OP:
7.5/10
You have this cute Plain Jane look about you that's attractive.

>>34740595

7/10
Like what this guy >>34740750 said, there are girls like you with boyfriends. You're cute snd I believe you can find someone.

>>34742380
Dude, physically, you look good and it looks like you hit the gym. However,

>no such thing as femcels literally any guy on this board would smash meanwhile im actually incel despite not being ugly because women are picky losers who halo chad

That shit makes you ugly on the inside, and women can sense that, dude.

>>34740595
cute little brownoid face. would bleach.

>>34740595
I would smash, but I'm 50.

>>34743238
hoooly shit stfu you pussy worshipping retard

File: lol.jpg (789 KB)

789 KB JPG

>>34740595
Isn't this what you look like without makeup?

File: feet.jpg (486.1 KB)

486.1 KB JPG

>>34744313
Here's her feet

>>34740595
You're a femcel because you're a stinky Teemo brained chud with yellow fever who hates white men and wants some arbitrary hype-specific type of relationship that caters to your infatuation with professional League players, all that shit is voluntary. Literally stop being a picky bitch who actively tries to piss people off, holy shit.

>>34744345
....and cos ur fat
Being fat is voluntary. Incels are out here trying to fucking morph their facial bone structure with dubious static exercises, your not shit if you just have an eating disorder.

>>34744313
that was like 3 years ago but yeah
>>34744345
lalalalalalala can't hear you, teemo mogs

File: reee.jpg (462.9 KB)

462.9 KB JPG

truecel here

>>34739640
chad didnt commit

>>34743013
you dont have to be ugly to be an incel. All i hear from you are excuses to deflect away from the fact that women will put up with a guy no matter what his personality is if he looks good enough. That's where you gotta be if you want to get lasting dating success as a guy otherwise it's just gonna end in you getting cheated on and/or used
>>34743238
>That shit makes you ugly on the inside, and women can sense that, dude.
this never stopped any guy who is actually attractive or has clout from getting pussy

>>34739729
the only true foids id consider femcels are raging feminists because they hate men and usually wont get sex from them because they're fucking assholes, but some still get sex from other dykes so it kinda doesnt count.

File: RDT_20250219_0507351973223387963420753.jpg (101.7 KB)

101.7 KB JPG

Hit me uppp

Kik maddietoosexc GNZS3BVBX

>>34744345
why do people who hate white people always try to make themselves look whiter? rhetorical question

File: 20260123_142007.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

Pewpew I lurk on /x mainly peww

>>34745180
Fire

>>34745180
Ngl, i you're easily a 9/10 to me. I got snap if you just want someone to flirt w you

>>34744981
>truecel
>literally adorable
Ok

>>34745180
Good looking
but it’s hard for me to honestly rate women

>>34745180
Allofmywant

My snap if you want to flirt lol

>>34744317
more please

>>34745066
>All i hear from you are excuses to deflect away from the fact that women will put up with a guy no matter what his personality is if he looks good enough.
i literally said women don't put up with you because you're clearly a weirdo. even if women find you attractive, they won't want to deal with whatever the hell you have going on.

>this never stopped any guy who is actually attractive or has clout from getting pussy
if women will put up with a guy no matter what if he looks good enough, why are YOU an incel then?? do you not hear the hypocrisy? women don't want to date you because we can sense that you're clearly insecure about something, and you make that OUR problem instead of handling it - like most incels who hate women.

>>34744981
i'm with >>34745286 on this, i don't know why you think you're a truecel. assuming you don't just hate women, you could definitely find a girlfriend.

>>34745362
bullshit, none of that explains why i can't get matches on dating apps. Obviously you're just going to retort by claiming that women can somehow read minds, but again none of what you're saying correlates with my lived experience.
>why are YOU an incel then??
because I'm not attractive enough. I'm not tall, I'm overweight, I don't have defined facial features, I'm not rich, and I don't have clout. I don't stand out to women among the overwhelming mass of available men on the market.
>and you make that OUR problem instead of handling it
yet there are literal thousands of men lining up to date the most disgusting loser mentally ill women imaginable (especially on this board). What a double standard - I have a decent job, am physically active, work out, go outdoors, don't do drugs and have no criminal record. Yet here I am being portrayed as a freak by women who have major personality issues, dont work, sit at home and rot on their phones all day for being unhappy that I've had zero success over 11-13 years of trying to date for things that are entirely outside of my control. Many men share my struggle, and many of them are still nice to women, and they get nothing.

What's the next excuse?

>>34745494
You’re an asshole my guy, work on it

>>34745494
>you're just going to retort by claiming that women can somehow read minds
literally all the wordvomit you just spat out proves my entire point. i don't need to read your mind when you just spelled it out for me. you're insecure, and you think women are to blame for the fact you can't find out why they don't want you.

>none of that explains why i can't get matches on dating apps.
you're on dating apps to begin with for one, those are notoriously bad to use for a reason. dating apps are predatory bait traps for insecure single people, and considering 2/3 of all users are male, of course your turnout is gonna be looking bleak. if you wanna see an improvement in your love life, delete that shit immediately.

>because I'm not attractive enough. I'm not tall, I'm overweight, I don't have defined facial features, I'm not rich, and I don't have clout. I don't stand out to women among the overwhelming mass of available men on the market.
the concept of it being a 'market' is an annoyingly common idea. love isn't based on a meritocracy, it's on compatibility and communication. of course having money, being attractive, xyz whatever the fuck will widen your pool, of course it will - but if at the end of the day you're some asshole facefuck chud, the other person is gonna get turned off by that. even outside of the context of love, nobody wants to have sex with someone like that.

>I have a decent job, am physically active, work out, go outdoors, don't do drugs and have no criminal record.
but who are YOU? none of those things tell me who you are as a person. you're just listing all the things you have, i still have no clue who you are. what do you like to do? what are your passions? who are you outside of your obligations?

women don't portray you as a freak because you're just a really nice guy actually, and if you've been struggling with dating for over a decade, maybe the problem isn't women, maybe it's you.

>>34745595
>you're on dating apps to begin with for one
they're literally the #1 way that people in my age demo meet.
>and considering 2/3 of all users are male
does this not prove my point? If most single people are men, and the statistics back this up, wouldn't this imply that the problem is women having insane standards?
>none of those things tell me who you are as a person.
my dating app profiles are good. It's extremely demoralizing when you put so much time into making your profile then you get nothing and your friends (who are actually attractive and also share my beliefs on women) show you their DMs where they are easily getting girls with minimal effort.

the problem is only me to a marginal degree. Could I have a better diet? Absolutely. Could I looksmax harder, get plastic surgery, do roids, etc? Sure, but I don't think the risk is worth the reward. It sucks that men like me are forced to go to those lengths just to get attention, but here we are. You can't understand that struggle - yet you're quick to blame literally EVERYTHING except the elephant in the room, that being looks.
>>34745564
tons of asshole men get laid, not a valid excuse

>>34745494
>Many men share my struggle, and many of them are still nice to women, and they get nothing.
"are still nice to women" is a crazy thing to say. are YOU only nice to women to get sex from them? are women vending machines where putting in 'nice' gives you pussy in return? your worldview is laughable. don't give just to get something in return - that's not kindness, that's entitlement.

i'd actually like to ask something. why are you so desperate for a relationship? we can see you don't view women very highly, and yet you seek female approval. you so desperately want women in these threads to tell you you're attractive - which isn't even a bad thing, but just amplifies my point that you're insecure and need reassurance -, but then act like all women are evil femmebots who are seeking out the most 'high-value chad' who ignore poor you. why can't you value who you are outside of a relationship?

maybe if you could stand to look at yourself in the mirror, you wouldn't be so angry at women. if you can't love yourself, even if a woman loved you, you'd never be happy. a woman is not going to fix you. you could get a girlfriend right now, and you'd be just as miserable after the initial high.

File: james-doakes.gif (57.4 KB)

57.4 KB GIF

>>34745066
>this never stopped any guy who is actually attractive or has clout from getting pussy

Then why you are you not fucking any bitches?

>>34745621
>they're literally the #1 way that people in my age demo meet.
find a different way.
>does this not prove my point? If most single people are men, and the statistics back this up, wouldn't this imply that the problem is women having insane standards?
no, this proves a ton of men are insecure, and that's by design. the system that you help keep up and promote wants you insecure.
>It's extremely demoralizing when you put so much time into making your profile then you get nothing
stop worrying if people like you. even outside of dating, you need to be okay with people not liking you.
>yet you're quick to blame literally EVERYTHING except the elephant in the room, that being looks.
bitch you ARE attractive. like, conventionally, so i don't wanna fucking hear it. fat, ugly, broke, bald men get long term wives and girlfriends, so i don't wanna fucking hear it from you.

people aren't perfect, and of course sometimes things won't make sense. there's nothing wrong with wanting a partner, but there is something wrong when you automatically make a sweeping assumption based on your chud friends and yourself that its ALL women. i promise you, not a single night out with the ladies included us talking about how we reject men for not having a 6-pack, 6-figure salary and being 6ft tall. however, we do laugh and joke about how men like you get so pissed off when we don't like you when you clearly resent us. consider maybe you're not as nice as you think you are.

File: LMFAOOO.gif (391.7 KB)

391.7 KB GIF

>>34745637
he's not gonna get it, i don't know if he's ever gonna get it. men who hate and/or are jealous of women live with permanent cognitive dissonance, you just cannot be an incel and also be a critical thinker. it's not possible.

>>34739579
Am I an incel if I've had sec before?
The word has been totally deconstructed at this point.

>>34745637
Because im not attractive and i dont have clout
>>34745629
No, I'm saying other men are like that, when it's not deserved. I think women should treat all men better in general, not just myself.
>that's entitlement.
yet there are studies showing women feel more entitled to romantic interactions than men do. Again it just feels like you're attacking my character to justify your shitty behavior.
>why are you so desperate for a relationship?
because years of not being able to have romantic success takes its toll not just psychologically, but it also causes me shame regarding my family, friends, and employers. I'm sure you're going to cope and attack me for not saying 'romance, connection' etc but in the current age, and especially in past ages, there is a socioeconomic aspect to marriage, dating, and attractiveness.
>you'd never be happy. a woman is not going to fix you.
correct, because im 26 and incel. If i was treated better by women and had a normal adolescence, experienced teenage love, and was able to have a long term romantic partner out of high school or college, then maybe I would be more 'normal' (whatever the hell that means).
>>34745668
>find a different way.
ive tried different ways, and I never got anything out of it.
>bitch you ARE attractive
that's not up to you to decide even if you were being honest, that's up to the women in my area.
>fat, ugly, broke, bald men get long term wives and girlfriends,
yeah because they have the money to provide, and even then they end up in sexless relationships while the woman cheats or the relationship 'opens up'.

>>34745680
We are going to hear about this man killing women in a few years.

Watch.

>>34745691
if incel men were as violent as you make them out to be, then the country would look like Somalia right now. Most incels are normal functioning members of society, have jobs, and have never committed a single crime.
>>34745680
now you're just insulting me because I pushed back against your fake 'compliment'.

>>34745689
>I think women should treat all men better in general, not just myself.
certainly not yourself with this attitude.
>Again it just feels like you're attacking my character to justify your shitty behavior.
what shitty behavior??? not wanting to fuck you?? LMFAO ok
>correct, because im 26 and incel.
maybe you'll call me a liar, but i'm gonna be 23 this year, a virgin, and only had 1 boyfriend my entire life whom i dated for about 3 months at 15. i never experienced teen love, i never experienced a long term partner. i'm not ugly, i'm not obese, i've got my own life and passions. it did bother me for a long time, but once i learned to get over my OWN shit, i no longer felt like i needed a relationship to justify my existence. yeah, it sucks you miss out what other people have, but that's life. my family mocks me for my singleness, but guess what - i don't fucking care. i know it's hard, but you shouldn't live to satisfy other people's views of you.
>now you're just insulting me because I pushed back against your fake 'compliment'.
don't pretend i complimented you to begin with, i stated a fact. and the fact you just immediately labeled me a liar for calling you attractive is more proof that a woman would not fix you. i'm insulting you because you're weird, not because of anything else. if you were normal, i would have no reason to mock you.

File: IDEFYYOUHEARTMAN.jpg (43 KB)

43 KB JPG

>>34745691
i think he'd be more likely to actually date a girl, and then call her a cheating skank whore when she forgot to text him before bed LMFAO

>>34745710
>maybe you'll call me a liar...
no I won't, but I will say that if you actually wanted to lose your virginity, you could easily do it because you're a woman. You're a volcel, not an incel, and therefore the social dynamics are different, and your experience is irrelevant to mine.
>if you were normal, i would have no reason to mock you
Replace the word 'normal' with 'chad' and you pretty much have the reason why you're treating me the way you're treating me. You're just trying to use my misfortune to make you feel better about yourself and you're mad because I didn't fall for the bait and called you out on it.

>>34745701
It is quickly becoming Somalia.

>>34739579
Provided your features are natural, Your hair and eyes are both rare traits, your look is very humble despite this, you seem like somebody who carries themselves well, not super pretentious or obsessed with looks, but also has a healthy degree of respect for your health/appearance. Wish there were more out there like you.

>>34740595
Cosmetics complement no one, you ought to wear your natural features more openly, don't obfuscate them with nose rings, hair dye, and excess make up, it makes you seem afraid of yourself, your eyes have that look as if you're tired of yourself reflection. Despite this, you seem like a pleasant girl, you just have yet to really come into your own.

>>34742380
Looking good dude. Airpods are kinda douchy (They'll rot your hearing over time, would recommend against them) but overal you seem respectable. You lift? You seem like you could widen your frame a little.

>>34744981
Long hair on a man is a sign of virility. However, your posture is insecure, you should learn to be more open, maybe exercise to widen your frame a little if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
Keep owning the long hair. You use and products in it?

>>34745180
Seem androgynous, adds a mysterious look, especially these days where it's harder to tell because people run from themselves. You might benefit from some natural lighting. Other then that, not much to go off of.

>>34745621
Yeah but they’re probably redeemable in some way like being funny. You’re just insufferable. Chang your ways man

>>34745724
>actually wanted to lose your virginity, you could easily do it because you're a woman.
sure, i could. but my point was that even as a man, you do not exist for other people's approval. you're not any less of a man for being single, and if you think you are, that's a you problem.
>Replace the word 'normal' with 'chad' and you pretty much have the reason why you're treating me the way you're treating me.
you can keep telling yourself that, and i don't know if you genuinely believe that's the reason, but i'd imagine it isn't. the incel lexicon is not going to save you from being called out, it has nothing to do with 'chad', it all has to do with you. i think both you and i know the truth.

>>34745744
I'm not racist, but, why do you look like your name is "Hans", you live in a Nordic nation, and you love EDM music?

>>34745745
>you do not exist for other people's approval
>you're not any less of a man for being single
A man is largely defined by what he can provide for other people, being single is a sign of failure to provide for somebody, and even if nobody is outwardly judging you, it is an internal weight all men instinctively carry with them through life. If we are not in a position to be of value to others, our lives lack purpose, we fail our biological and spiritual role, and we very quickly eat away at ourselves.

>>34745750
Lol, I wish that was the case man. Life would be a lot better.

File: letsunlearn.jpg (38.6 KB)

38.6 KB JPG

>>34745756
i mean everyone has their own outlook, but that's just so bleak and miserable. its not instinctive though, it's taught. nobody of any gender is 'defined' or has a 'role', not really. like you could just call me a woke foid libtard or whatever, but i'm just saying that if you wanna be happy, but i don't think you'll ever get it with the way you currently view the world and your place in it. you can unlearn self-imposed misery, and find purpose in something outside of what other people dictate. it can be lonely living against the status quo, but it's better than living a life of complacency.

>>34745812
>it's taught
I mean, this is kind of the modern marxist mentality to basically reduce all things to a socioeconomic justification, but at a certain point, you're going to need to admit that all social behaviors arise from biological necessity.
It's not really bleak at all, it's what Masculinity and Femininity are intended to be, we take care of eachother, we provide for one another, and we do so because the deepest part of our being compels us to do so, the essence of who and what we are drives us to care for one another, and we feel like shit when we can't do that.
From my overwhelming experience, it's the people who deny biological and natural realities that are the most unwell, the most obese, the most mentally ill, constantly trying to find some justification in their life to avoid confronting universal truths. I was that man once, why would I run to novelty and shallow materialism, when I can just embrace what I am, and try to work with it instead of against it?
>outside of what other people dictate
But not outside of what Nature dictates, which I know you disagree because you're wrapped up in your paracosm, but nature really does give us everything we could ever want, and certainly everything we need.
I agree we should rebel against the mainstream, the status quo, as this generality is so diseased, addicted to vices, constantly mutilating itself to try and overcome its own existence. But a community that looks out for one another, that encourages health, must adhere to objective moral truths.
Just because the laws we live by now are poisoned doesn't mean that moral laws don't exist, all the more reason to re-learn them.
I for one would rather be a man who lives for the sake of others, then be a man who simply gratifies my impulses and calls it "Freedom", and maybe you feel the opposite because you haven't truly arrived at the end of your philosophy, but you will eventually, and I hope you make a better choice.

>>34739579
>>34740595
>>34744313
>>34745089
0. You niggas ugly as hell
>>34745180
Non passing troon

>>34745832
>you're going to need to admit that all social behaviors arise from biological necessity.
>it's what Masculinity and Femininity are intended to be
>But not outside of what Nature dictates
>but nature really does give us everything we could ever want, and certainly everything we need.
i just don't believe this philosophy fundamentally, i don't believe most of these are naturally occurring at all. i'm agnostic, so i don't believe it's spiritual either. i think you're using 'nature' as a cover for your own personal beliefs - which are fine to have, but don't try to hide it.
>I for one would rather be a man who lives for the sake of others
i meant you shouldn't force yourself to be someone you're not, or be ashamed for not living to a certain standard that don't really effect the things that actually matter. of course you want to be there for loved ones, friends, etc, it's not about 'satisfying your impulses', it's not chaining yourself down. the world is so much bigger than that, and to try and make others conform to one way of living even if they don't want that life is just annoying and gross. not saying you're forcing specifically, but a lot of the people who believe the same things as you do.

>constantly trying to find some justification in their life to avoid confronting universal truths.
i think the justification is making other people happy, and putting good out into the world. just because i reject the notion that all women should only be wives and mothers for example, doesn't mean i think women should live compulsively or selfishly. just because i reject the notion that all men should be are providers and leaders doesn't mean i think that they should be calloused or self-centered. basing your worth on your gender/roles just feels very limiting. of course, if you WANT to be that masculine kind of person, then that would be fine, but don't try to pretend everyone wants to live like you, or by your standard.

>>34745868
it's about not chaining yourself down*
sorry, had to clarify lol

>>34745868
>i'm agnostic
And couldn't you say that you're agnostic because you lack experience? How else could you manage to make claims you are making:
Firstly, that my opinion is a prescription of reality, and not reality itself, would in fact be your prescription of my assessment, and thus neither the reality of the situation.
Secondly, that if everything is morally relative as the first point suggests, then we must admit that both our prescriptions are of equal value, and that reality is thus the two of us trying to get our subjective prescriptions to fit together.
The overall point here is that there is an objective reality in the very least in the fact that we both have a subjective viewpoint, thus even your own subjective view must necessarily agree to some degree of objective framework, and if objectivity exists, then we can for the moment deduce that other objective values might also be shared between us, and from here it is simply a matter of defining what those values are.
>someone you're not
That prescription denotes that there is something that I AM, otherwise how could I be something that I AM not?
Shame arises from the moment we deviate from who and what we are. It is meant to provoke us, to cause us to take action in better fulfilling the poetry of our souls. I am a Man, my shame arises in my failure to be a Man, that is what I am biologically and spiritually.
Are we chained down to consumption because we must eat to survive? Or is eating not a wondrous thing? Should we overcome the desire for hunger then?
You see, it is your perspective that is bleak my friend, taking the most fundamental, the ontological and irreducible parts of our existence and viewing them as mere optional kinds of slavery.

>>34745868
>>34745872
>i think the justification is making other people happy, and putting good out into the world.
Then if that is the case, how could I meet this end by rejecting my true essence? The poetry within my God given soul? The spirit which arises from that which I have been biologically coded to be?
What greater role is there for me but to be a Father? A member of a community? What more could a Woman ask for but the same in her own way? To bear children and commit her life to her progeny?
>doesn't mean i think women should live compulsively or selfishly.
But how else can they live when they commit their lives to no one else but themselves? Rather that they be free from their own blinding conceptions, then try to defy what they are innately, what they are biologically hardwired to be.
Can you truly look out at the modern world today and find all these Men and Women, maddeningly pursuing purpose in the absence of their biological imperatives, and say that they are healthy? Look how rampant mental illness is, disease, discord. Will you cling so recklessly to your notion of relative truth as we watch all those around us suffer the more they engage in the same?
My standards mirror the natural world, and I aspire only to live as all my ancestors did before me. It is a modern notion, and a diseased one, that we can somehow forgo countless generations of our existence, and somehow be better off for it.
Be better.
Be somebody your children will look up to. Somebody your ancestors might smile down upon.
In the absence of all input I become exactly who I was meant to be, exactly as I am.

File: BRAINBLAST.jpg (29.3 KB)

29.3 KB JPG

>>34745900
>And couldn't you say that you're agnostic because you lack experience?
i'm agnostic because i don't really believe there are any gods or spiritual higher beings, i don't believe there is any ultimate plan or destiny. however, i know better than to say definitively there is nothing out there, because we don't know.
>there is an objective reality in the very least in the fact that we both have a subjective viewpoint
well of course, we clearly see the same thing but have deducted different views and feelings of it. but i'd rather live in a world where we can choose our place, rather than what i feel is forced. i don't believe in fate, i believe in choices dictating your life.
>Shame arises from the moment we deviate from who and what we are.
not always. victims of abuse can feel shame about fighting against the abuse, or even feeling bad that they don't like it. of course that's an extreme example, but in the context of our conversation - someone who has been pressured their whole life that they can and/or should only be one way, shame can manifest when they can't live up to it due to them not being naturally inclined.
>Are we chained down to consumption because we must eat to survive?
you're relating eating - a biological necessity -, and filling gender roles. i'm assuming that was your entire point, but you could survive and love being the complete opposite of what society dictated about your gender. not eating is not a great comparison, apples to oranges.
>the ontological and irreducible parts of our existence and viewing them as mere optional kinds of slavery.
nobody is completely masculine or completely feminine, and to pretend that we are is laughable, and just completely wrong. you have agency, you're free to be whatever you choose to be.

1/2

>>34745926
>What greater role is there for me but to be a Father? A member of a community?
>To bear children and commit her life to her progeny?
you'd dictate that. if that would bring you happiness, then that would be it, but you should be free to be what you want to be as long as it does not infringe on someone else's happiness.
>But how else can they live when they commit their lives to no one else but themselves?
not having children is not 'living for no one but themselves", we have other people in our lives. our other family, our friends, our romantic partners. would you rather a woman have a child she never wanted just so she could grow to resent them? that wouldn't be fair to her, or the child.
>Be somebody your children will look up to.
considering i'd rather kill myself than have children, that would be kind of hard. but that's my whole point, i am not bound by what you think i should be. i am biologically capable of having children, not biologically required to, nor biologically compelled to. i have no desire for children, and if i had a child i know i would grow to greatly resent the choice i made. i'd love the child, the child did nothing wrong, but i know i'd go back in time to prevent it because being a mother is not something i've ever wanted to be. in your worldview, this would be impossible, but i am proof that it's not. i am exactly as i am just as much as you are. i am not any less a woman for not having children.

>>34745726
>you lift? You seem like you could widen your frame a little.
Yeah, but I'm by no means in good shape. That pic is a little old, but I'm bigger now (not just in the shoulders unfortunately). Personally I'd like to cut back down.
>>34745812
the world is a bleak and miserable place.
>>34745926
you genuinely seem like a good guy. I wish you the best.

god im so lonely

>>34745975
>the world is a bleak and miserable place.
so why make yourself even more miserable? it's hard to be happy, but you gotta put the work in. if you live in complacency, that's not much of a life.

File: IMG_5615.gif (6.3 KB)

6.3 KB GIF

>>34745978

>>34745992
killing myself

>>34745991
it's pretty ridiculous to call me complacent given that I actively work to better myself. I don't know why I still do it given that nothing has ever panned out but I still do, maybe just to spite the women who tell me to just go outside get a personality and take a shower bro

>>34746023
i meant into regards of trying to prove yourself worthy to others by having a relationship specifically. you're still a full person outside of one, and you justify your existence with all the good things you put out into the world. romantic relationships and sex is just a fraction of your life, you still have other people you love, don't you?
>I don't know why I still do it given that nothing has ever panned out but I still do
i think you'd have much better luck in relationships if you changed your perception of women. it's not just about maintaining yourself, it's about finding fulfillment in all things rather than just one. i'd offer my actual genuine advice and try to help you and be nice, but given how you've been in this thread i don't know how much good it would do. i'm exhausted of men like you just never getting the point.

>>34746001
you wanna see my cat pics ?

>>34746038
>i'm exhausted of men like you just never getting the point.
maybe if women were honest and just refused to bait vulnerable men then perhaps we would be able to cope and move on with our lives. Trust me i wish i was asexual my life would be so much better

>>34746001
What do you think is stopping you from finding someone anon? *hugs*

>>34746109
too socially awkward to approach people without coming across as a freak even if i dont think I'm hideous
>>34746052
thatd be nice anon but im a man and not fishing for adds, just lonely

>>34746188
Any stories of it going badly? I’m ugly AND awkward!

>>34746001
Aww don't do that :c
Post your discord tag, no need to be lonely

>>34746207
just about every time ive approached a woman irl i fumble it and she either laughs or gives me a weird look
>>34746250
sorry anon i dont want to summon gooners to my adds

>>34746287
Good night anon i love u

>>34746312
goodnight anon sleep tight, im sure ur not ugly u just gotta dress in a complementary way

File: 4C7B6F78-6AB9-45BC-A897-EB42C0043FB6.gif (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB GIF

https://discord.gg/u5ahunuksH
The best place for incel chuds to congregate with no fear

>>34745286
>>34745362
>>34745726
>if pretty why incel?
mental illness.

>>34745951
>because we don't know.
Knowing is an extension of experience, you don't know what you've never seen. Why not seek it out then?
>i believe in choices dictating your life.
Yet some choices are better then others, you wouldn't say somebody who smokes crack on a consistent basis is healthy, would you? Should we not shame people for engaging in behaviors with are noticeably less healthy? And yet the crack addict will cling to the same logic to justify his addiction "It's my choice!", well sure it's you're choice, and I also have a choice in shaming you for doing something that is simply wrong and unhealthy, whichmakes your life worse, and makes my life worse the more this behaviors are overlooked or encouraged by society.
>victims of abuse can feel shame
Exactly, it's meant to compel you to make better decisions. Perhaps you can make a better choice not to surround yourself with people who abuse you. This is not to "Victim Blame" as the modern narrative goes, but to restore the autonomy you seem so desperate to attain, that you have a choice, and your life isn't determined by somebody else.
>a biological necessity -, and filling gender roles
Procreation is a biological necessity, every time you've ever been horny is determined by your hormones wanting you to make babies, that is basic animal biology. And likewise, men and women have, relate to their hormones and so fourth, a biological impetus to care for their children and their family. Social pressure may arise from this, but the blunt fact remains, this is how we are designed.
>shame can manifest when they can't live up to it due to them not being naturally inclined.
And it most cases this is healthy, and also why miscarriage is such a tragedy. Nobody would blame somebody who had a miscarriage, but the reality is, they have or are continuing to fail in their biological imperative, and that's why they feel the shame they feel.

>>34745951
>>34745967
>nobody is completely masculine or completely feminine
But we are biologically men and women, regardless of how we express ourselves. Our hormones, our cells, our physical attributes, our reproductive organs, our skeletal shape, our psychology, all of it is linked to our hardwired sex.
>as it does not infringe on someone else's happiness.
Show me a single childless person in their 40s that is stable and healthy, not a drunkard, not neurotic. People are hardwired to produce and take care of children, and when this wiring is out of place, they tend to act awry in regards to nature.
Everyone today is more mentally ill, more neurotic, more obese, chronic disease, etc. You cannot sit here and tell me their choice is healthy. This entire modern world is unhealthy with few exceptions.
>would you rather a woman have a child she never wanted just so she could grow to resent them?
I'd rather women stopped falling prey to brainwashing teaching them to hate the most essential aspect of their being. If a woman acts that way, she is mentally ill, and society encourages this behavior in her.
>considering i'd rather kill myself than have children
Just this sentence alone, do you think this is healthy? Do you think your grandmothers or any of your ancestors seriously thought this way in their right minds? The only reason you can insulate this thought and maintain your delusions is because the modern industrial world protects your ability to do so.
>nor biologically compelled to
If you've ever been horny, that is a biological compulsion to try and create children. Being horny exists for no other reason then this.
>being a mother is not something i've ever wanted to be.
That's just sad man, I don't think you can see just how sick you are. You believe in nothing, you view life as this bleak nihilistic pit, you have no respect for yourself, your ancestors, nothing, you're an absence of a person. But you don't have to live like this.

File: Stress.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>34745975
>the world is a bleak and miserable place.
No, pedophiles and demon worshippers are in institutional power. The natural world is beautiful place, but these demons are ruining it, and poisoning people to their way of life.
If you've never seen the sunrise on top of a 12'000ft+ mountain, you cannot sit here and suggest to others that your nihilism is true.
If you've never seen that sunrise, I recommend you go on a long hiking trip, out in nature, away from industrial world. I promise you, your perception will expand for the better.

>>34745967
Why do you think this is the case where it's mostly modern 1st worlders? Typically White Women, but some men, who think like this? Ever wondered why the people with some of the rarest genetic traits on the planet find some grand purpose in abdicating for their own ethnic extinction? As if you've been programmed your entire life by media and negative culture, surrounded by the nihilism of modernity, to find virtue in going extinct.
Women from the third world don't seem to have this issue, the birth rate in India or Africa alone puts all western countries to shame.
Only in the West, do White Women find such great pride in killing themselves.
You're not healthy, you have likely never been healthy, and rather then confronting this fact, you're justifying your disease as a virtue, the fruits of your own "Freedom of Choice,"
Funny enough, it's mostly 1st world White Women, with some of the rarest genetic traits on the planet, that are all willingly abiding by their own extinction.
Of course, as 3rd world women migrate to so called "1st world conditions", they suddenly act the same, hooked up to SSRIs, contraceptives, fucking up their hormones, getting fat and lazy.
Modernity breeds weakness, and weakness must be purged.

>>34746312
hope ur having a good day anon

File: IMG_1382.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>34747063
Funny you mention that, I'm into mountaineering myself. This is a picture I took last year. I came close to summiting this peak but turned back because it would have required rock climbing. I'm personally concerned with the lack of snowpack here this winter, so many of our forests have been decimated by (man-made) forest fires. It's just a reminder that nature is impermanent, and like all beautiful things, it is bound to be destroyed by assholes.

But again, you sound like a very cool guy and I always like to expand my hiking/peakbagging/mountaineering connection network. If you have a discord add me at chrysalis0.

File: ghrhrrrr.jpg (19.6 KB)

19.6 KB JPG

>>34747006
>>34747032
>>34747063
thats a lot of words for "i'm a zealot who can't fathom the idea that not everyone wants to live the exact same way and think that anybody who doesn't abide by my idea of what makes someone worthy of life is disordered and evil."
>Only in the West, do White Women find such great pride in killing themselves.
poor, uneducated, and economically dependent women in america have higher birthrates than their counterparts. poor people have more babies usually because they lack access to affordable/reliable contraception, and limited education, not because they all just love and value repopulating the earth so much. non-1st world countries also have higher child mortality rates, some with statistics like 1 in 10 children will die before the age of 5. in the 1st world, it looks more like less than 1 in 100. 1st world women are more educated, more financially stable, and have generally more autonomy and control over their own lives, and thus the number of children will begin to decrease. poor women in other cultures are also more prone to religious pressures, economic and legal barriers, harmful medical practices regarding their sex, and general gender discrimination that is considered normal and that undermines them and their desires.

i'm not even going to really bother engaging with any of your other points, i have no interest in even pretending there's validity. you're trying so hard to sound intellectual and morally superior, when your walls of texts is just a "no u, UR sad actually" argument with extra steps. you don't sound intellectual, you just sound like a pretentious douchebag.

>>34748383
Aw you too i love u anon <3

File: 20230905_162543.jpg (817.5 KB)

817.5 KB JPG

>>34748542
i mean given how women in the first world act, it pretty much justifies how they're treated in the third world. The difference is in the first world the men are the ones who are treated like shit and face the gender discrimination and economic barriers
>i'm not even going to really bother engaging with any of your other points
like if you said this to a guy's face in India or Saudi Arabia you'd probably get slapped across the face or worse and desu i think that's awesome

bumping with another selfie, lets get some more based incels in here

>>34748611
and you wonder why women won't date you????????????? LMFAO. fucking pathetic. stay lonely, no woman deserves to be subjected to you. what's justified is women's repulsion when you talk to them.

>>34748633
>and you wonder why women won't date you
i mean guys like tate and clav have said much worse and they do just fine lol women dont care if you're attractive or have clout

>>34748635
and name 3 women you know in your personal life that would want to date either of those fucking losers. better yet, name 1 woman who feels safe with you to begin with.

>>34739675
This, and her dating accounts are full of 100s of matches, who sit across from her sexually, or are even a bit better looking, but none of them are even worth responding to, to learn more about them.

Early last year, I made out with a black girl in my car who I matched with on Tinder. She was moderately ugly, body was curvy but a bit too fat. Her profile pic was her staring dead eyed into the camera, looking like a psycho. No information. No interests.

She showed me her Tinder matches. Literally dozens. Some of these guys were actually very manly dudes who looked like tradies. Some were definitely capable of pulling better than her. She literally responded to me because, after trying to engage with her by asking her about her interests, sharing stuff about myself, being polite, I kept sending more and more dirty messages. Eventually I just told her I thought her fat niga lips would be amazing around my white dick, and being incredible 'offended', she finally responded. That ended up in the date in my car.

This black girl, who I didn't continue to see because her expectations were nonsense, admitted that what made me stand out from her pile of matches, was just looking like I had interests in my pics, and was well cultured and an individual, otherwise, I'm 4/10 femboy looking mongoloid material.

She wanted frequent discreet messing around in my car, keeping it from family and friends, with no aim to get married or turn things seriously, but she wanted it to be exclusive, and she lived 50 minutes away by car, but I saw first hand through this experience how little effort women need to put in to receive sexual attention from men. It makes me wonder why you're all afraid to go out without make-up, really, it's quite ironic.

All women need to is open their legs, show that thing and smile, and men will do them. There's no such thing as femcels. You're just not open minded, or patient and you judge on appearance.

>>34748644
i dont know any women in my personal life anyway, im unattractive not wealthy and live in one of the most male places in the us. Women live in a parallel society to me

File: BlackvWhite.png (6.8 KB)

6.8 KB PNG

>>34748526
Not everything is bound for destruction, as you know, following a forest fire the ashes add nutrients to the land, great place to find some wild mushrooms.
I have an email if you'd like, I don't do discord: rhnoakley@gmail.com

>>34748542
>anybody who doesn't abide by my idea
It's not my idea, it's literally the most consistent pattern of behavior throughout all of Biological Existence on this planet. Every organism acts so as to promulgate its own existence, you're no different in the way you're trying to justify and convert others to your self justifying rhetoric, you still seek to spread that which you are, only that which you are is sick, because it contradicts your very essence, as if to say
>"I want to spread the idea that I don't want to spread ideas."
That contradiction is the essence of modern disease.
>poor people have more babies
Because they haven't been indoctrinated by modern institutions. If women in western countries had had babies years ago, instead of aborting 2/3rds of our population, the global elite would have no justification for importing and supporting mass migration, you've betrayed your own people, you've betrayed your own existence, and still you refuse to acknowledge any kind of objective standard.
>not because they all just love and value repopulating
Again false, Whites reduce their population even in a natural setting whereas non-white races continue to reproduce without restriction because they are built for different environments, their biology compels them to reproduce for quantity, not quality. But you prefer not to breed at all, because again, you are an organism who is defying its own biological imperative, and are therefor sick.
>more autonomy and control over their own lives
And how do they spend that autonomy? Drugs, alcohol, premarital sex with strangers, importing foreign rapists, voting for degeneracy. Having the freedom to choose doesn't mean you make the right choice.

>>34748671
yeah, we can tell you don't know any women. you keep bring up how unattractive you are, which just proves delusion. your looks are not what's preventing you from dating, just look at how you talk to and about women. maybe try therapy, like not even in regards to women, but just for yourself cus you're obviously dysmorphic.

>>34748691
blah blah blah i don't care. argue with the wall.

>>34748542
Here's a fact, let's see if you can handle it.
The modern women has higher rates of mental illness, is more addicted to SSRIs and contraceptives, is more likely to be obese, is more likely to have 10+ sexual partners, is more likely to have some other form of chronic health condition, is more likely to be depressed and lonely, etc.
I might be a pretentious douch bag, but I don't dismiss facts just because they make me feel uncomfortable.
The modern man (woman) is deeply and spiritually unhealthy, and you are a text book example of this.
I don't need public acceptance of my statements to prove that I am right when the entire world is as sick as it is. You have no counter argument besides
>"It's my life I can do what I want."
And I can do what I want to by spending my time pointing out how deeply sick you are. There is a reason womens rights should be revoked, and I'm simply tired of defending your ability to make good decisions. Something must be done to fix this situation, and if you cannot acknowledge that, then you do not deserve rights.

>>34748633
>Let me do what I want! Let me abort babies and have sex with strangers and do drugs! It's my life!
You're simply selfish, that's all there is to it. No man wants a selfish woman, you would not be able to take care of children, a family, or contribute to your community. The men who are single are so because women refuse to take accountability for their actions and instead justify their degeneracy.

>>34748650 (You)
This girl only imagined that I had interests and was a unique individual because I showed it visually. She's not even willing to spend a moment chatting to someone, to see if there's anything unique or interesting about them, and then she can get heaps of attention from a shitty ugly photo of herself and no bio.

Having spent a lot of time, more than I'd like to admit, on these apps, most girls just judge on looks first. Your interests will only weigh in to most girls if your face and body don't bottle-neck their desire to investigate you, so this girl was one of few rare exceptions for 4/10 me, and I got to make out with her and suck her nipple, which was a surprisingly nice, tiny and well shaped nipple, so go me! But yeah like, having literally seen a girls Tinder account now, femcels are mythical creatures to me. There's no way the 'involuntary' component of this term stands. If you really want a fuck, and it's been so long, you're really hanging out for it, there's a buffet of options out there for you, if you can settle for guy version of you and not Brad Pitt, and if you're actually only aiming for casual sex, then you don't need to vet that person as if you were going to marry them.

If you are a guy, and you are below an 8 or even 9, you can dress your profile up as much as you like, take pictures of you going out places, and look like a super interesting authentic individual character with talents, interests and months of swiping will give you a hand full of girls who might not even reply, and you're not even sure you're interested 'cause they're just kinda fat, watch reality TV and soap operas, and have no individuality in their look, or what they spend their time on.

>>34748644
Name one woman who puts your philosophy into action who is healthy and has a fulfilling life outside of their petty self indulgence.

>>34748702
>argue with the wall.
That thing you women hit in your 30s where you become infertile and start to regret your life choices?

File: allat.gif (232.2 KB)

232.2 KB GIF

>>34748708
>>34748714
keep posting selfies in rate me threads for validation and stay lonely chud

>>34748727
I like conversation, I don't need validation, I'd just rather put a face to my words in discussion.
Heres a question: Do you think that it is morally acceptable to Baker Act somebody who suicidal? Yes or no, and why.

>>34748586
love u too anon hope ur day has been well

>>34748727
Jeez I mean, You're really just proving his point with this post. There's no counter argument there.

>>34748727
Every time you present your point of view, in how ever many words you need to get across the main evidential points and how they support your case, suddenly they can't read.

You don't even engage in argument. Why should anyone be persuaded of your views?

>>34749217
It’s shitty but i am alive. Do u still wanna kill yourself anon?

>>34749241
>You don't even engage in argument.
why should i bother entertaining it like it has any validity? i did try to engage, but he just kept shutting it down by hiding his own personal beliefs behind "its just nature" and "no u"ing me. if you can't read the thread and follow along, then i don't know what to tell you.

i could write up a counter, but people like this don't argue in good faith, ever. they just want to browbeat you, ragebait you into saying something irrational from anger and then claim they "won", or will just repeat the same talking points over and over again and think that's an argument. so if i were to engage, it would just be a waste of my time because i know they don't want to actually consider my view, they just want to win and feel smart.
>Why should anyone be persuaded of your views?
if you genuinely think he's right at any capacity and i'm the idiot, then i don't really give a shit to prove myself or my point to you cus you're obviously brainwashed, a chud, or retarded.
>If you are a guy, and you are below an 8 or even 9, you can dress your profile up as much as you like, take pictures of you going out places, and look like a super interesting authentic individual character with talents, interests and months of swiping will give you a hand full of girls who might not even reply, and you're not even sure you're interested 'cause they're just kinda fat, watch reality TV and soap operas, and have no individuality in their look, or what they spend their time on.
and with this statement, it could really be any of the three.

>>34749286
all you've done over the course of your presence in this thread is basically affirm every negative stereotype of modern women
>but just for yourself cus you're obviously dysmorphic.
i never said that I'm ugly, I said that I'm unattractive to women. You can still be a 7.999/10 male and be theoretically outside of the interest of most women. Like I said, I know many guys who are handsome and pull, and many guys who are handsome and are incel. The difference is that the former are gigachads and the latter high-tier normies.

>>34749267
no im feeling better today, thank u for asking though

>>34749345
>all you've done over the course of your presence in this thread is basically affirm every negative stereotype of modern women
only if you're stupid and have no cognitive sense, but sure
>i never said that I'm ugly, I said that I'm unattractive to women.
the mental gymnastics is CRAZY. so you're not ugly, you're just not attractive to women?? that just sounds like you want an excuse as to why women don't like you than it being a reflection of reality. also using 'gigachad' unironically is really fucking funny. chad was already bad enough.

i don't know if there's any hope for you. you're so set in your beliefs that critical thinking skills are your kryptonite, and you just won't listen to reason. if you're so sure women find you so unattractive, then why bother posting on these threads at all? so other men can jerk you off and tell you "yeah dude, you're so hot. these stupid bitches just don't get it"??? make it make sense.

if you're gonna refuse to see reality, just stop complaining and quit on dating. you COULD have what you want, but you just wanna be a victim so badly. either treat women with respect, or pack it tf up.

>>34749352
OK good :) good night *kisses ur forehead*

>>34749569
sleep tight anon

>>34745744
1000/10
what's ur discord lol marry me

>>34749286
>he just kept shutting it down by hiding his own personal beliefs behind "its just nature"
No different then you insulate your own personal beliefs from criticism by hiding behind a shield of moral relativism.
Like most modern women, you refuse to entertain the notion of objectivity, because to do so means that you'd have to be held accountable for your actions by a standard that transcends your personal whims.

>>34749563
>and you just won't listen to reason
This is 90% of your arguments against the men in this thread, which you don't substantiate, and then claim the men are brow beating or not engaging in good faith.
>treat women with respect
Do something that is respectable. Nobody owes you respect just for existing.

>>34750204
I'm not gay and I don't use social media. Already posted my email in thread.

>>34750314
I'm not a man :c I will look for it

File: Cupid.jpg (9.7 KB)

9.7 KB JPG

>>34750377
I'm also a Nazi.

>>34750383
That's unfortunate. You raised some valid points above and are hot af, but yeah I intend to remain childless so we wouldn't be a good match sadly.

File: Consequences.jpg (106.5 KB)

106.5 KB JPG

>>34750407
That's unfortunate, but then again I've become so accustomed to hearing those same sentiments from modern women that it isn't unexpected.
I only hope you learn to love yourself, rather then be complicit in your own extinction.

>>34745967
>i'd rather kill myself than have children
Based and respect, same here
>>34750407

Are either of u from europe or maybe interested in a guy from europe who already had a vasectomy ?

I have a feeling we already talked in another thread tho lol

>>34750637
Why do White People do this to themselves? You guys have some of the rarest genetic traits on the planet, and you're literally going to just throw them away for nothing, and die in a vacuum.

>>34750671
What does it matter? You die, you're gone. It doesn't affect me at all if I reproduce or not. I don't care about continuation of genetics, I don't care about a legacy I'll never see. You live, you die, the in-between is whatever you want and everything outside of it is nothing. Not to mention your value judgements are not objective. What do rare genetic traits matter? Why should one trait persist over any other? There is no objective truth, there is no sense of good or bad except what you make up. All of our perceived reality is a controlled, semi-mutual hallucination. Ascribing any objective value to it is the height of arrogance.

>>34750637
I'm from Germany, drop ur disc xD

File: Carlin.jpg (109.4 KB)

109.4 KB JPG

>>34750701
Okay, so if objectivity doesn't exist, should we not punish the people on the Epstein List?
We should let these deranged pedophiles go unpunished, because after all, any judgement we cast upon them is just a matter of opinion.
Can you hear how retard your rhetoric sounds when it is put to scrutiny?
Pusillanimity is not a virtue.

>>34750702
>Germany
Ah Ig we didnt then

My disc is aurelian4

>>34750723
Why do we need objectivity to punish people? Punishments are all doled out subjectively, always. What is "good" is invented by society and changes with the time and place. It pleases us to punish criminals so we do. What I am rejecting is the idea that good or evil are discovered concepts rooted in some higher law. There are no sacred cows. The mass delusion of the importance of these ideas is effective for the continuation of society but it is just a delusion. You will never "prove" that any act is evil because evil does not exist and neither does good.

>>34750749
So raping and eating babies being Wrong is a matter of opinion? You're absolutely fucked in the head bro.

>>34750749
>>34750782
Let me put this in another way, just to highlight how blatantly deluded you are.
We know that things are wrong on a Guttural Instinctual level, we don't think things like Pedophilia or Rape are bad simply because we've been conditioned to believe so, but because it contradicts our biological coding to observe such terrible acts and be complicit in them.
The occult, particularly the Masons and the Jews running the world, spread confusion via moral relativism because it insulates them from criticism, it turns honest people like you into Useful Idiots that can be used to spread their circular self justifying mentality.
An ancient human, prior to the invention of great civilization and mass indoctrination, would not sit idly by as you attacked a child. Instinctively, they are hardwired to protect children, because truth is derived from Biological reality, and not social indoctrination. Social constructs are derived from a shared biological impulse, ancient cultures and civilizations believed and acted in a certain way not arbitrarily, but because there was a Biological imperative they had to survive, and so they create laws to reflect this imperative, as any deviance from the Laws of Nature results in disease and insanity. If we tolerate people acting contrary to nature, it undermines our biology, and destroys us.

>>34750782
Animals do it all the time. It's nature. Society dislikes it and we collectively ban the action but this is subjective. A society composed of serial killers would see murder as a permitted action. There is no objective right or wrong. I am not denying the utility of morality, merely its existence. It's a simulacrum. Invented. There is nothing behind the curtain. You've chained yourself to an idea. If it makes you happy so be it, but I feel that we should be master to our creations rather than the other way around. Which is a subjective value judgement, of course.

>>34750819
I want you to watch this video, and if it doesn't immediately fill your gut with dread, then you are a sick fucking person.
This is the type of shit going on all over the world by these demon worshiping bastards, and they continue to get away with it, and are currently getting away with it, because idiots like you defend their ability to do so.
We need to call these people out for what they are, they're Monsters, and like all Monsters, they need to be put down.
Fuck John Podesta, and fuck the Jews.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170519023918/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDHUO-Ir6E&app=desktop

>>34750820
See >>34750822
Your philosophy is defending pedophiles.

>>34750819
>We know that things are wrong on a Guttural Instinctual level
We feel things are wrong. It's subjective.
>because it contradicts our biological coding to observe such terrible acts and be complicit in them
And yet people still do them. It's subjective. Clearly not everyone agrees with you. Why are you the arbiter of truth?
>conspiracy babble
Don't care
>would not sit idly by as you attacked a child
Ancient texts are full of attacks on children and annihilating family lines was considered fair play back then. Animals, which I don't believe have been indoctrinated at all, also routinely kill the young of their competitors even within their own species
>because truth is derived from Biological reality
Did truth not exist before biology began? If so then truth was invented.
>shared biological impulse
Yes, which is subjective. Different species would have different social constructs. None of it is subjective. Your brain is a hallucination machine, not a calculator.

>>34750822
I'm not watching that. I don't care about it whatever it is.
>>34750825
I'm not defending them. You aren't interacting with my thoughts at all. I have not said "they should not be punished", I said "there is no such thing as objective moral truth". An action does not need to be evil for it to be punished. Society, which I am part of, wishes for these people to be punished. I have not disagreed with that sentiment. I am only rejecting the idea that there is some objective morality that demands this punishment.

>>34750826
>>34750835
We feels things because that is biologically who we are, there is no malleability at play here. This is video of John Podesta, while not visually Graphic, it contains audio of him mentally abusing a child at Comet Pizza.
These people continue to go unnoticed, because you allow them to, because you're sick.
>Why are you the arbiter of truth?
I'm not, these things are wrong because we can observe demonstrable and consistently negative outcomes, they never, not ever, lead to goo things.
You are quite literally defending pedophiles.
>Ancient texts are full of attacks on children
I'm talking pre history. Again, you are defending pedophiles.
>conspiracy babble
Only because you refuse to confront the fruits of your philosophy. This stuff is real, there is now a mountain of evidence, yet you continue to bury your head in the sand while this shit happens. Wake the fuck up.
>Did truth not exist before biology began?
Were we even around? Why do you speculate on things we don't know when there is an observable reality before us.
>Yes, which is subjective.
Can you avoid eating? Can you get by on sunlight deficiency? Can you go your whole life without drinking water? These are all "Subjective" things, yet we all share them, because they are biological prerequisites for living.
> "there is no such thing as objective moral truth".
Then your philosophy makes their actions permissible, dipshit. Why can't you just say pedophilia is objectively bad? If our society said that pedophilia was good would you then deem it morally acceptable?
https://streamable.com/6kjt4

>>34750850
>We feels things because that is biologically who we are
Feelings are not truth, they're just feelings
>because we can observe demonstrable and consistently negative outcomes
That's a value judgement. Judgements are not impartial. To the criminal, these things lead to positive outcomes. Why is their judgement less right than yours? Again, to be very clear, I am not defending them. I do not like them. I wish for them to be punished. I am denying objective morality, not the utility of the simulacrum itself
>I'm talking pre history
And there is plethora evidence of genocide, cannibalism, child murder, etc in the prehistorical era
>Were we even around?
You posited that truth is derived from biology. If there was no biology, then truth must not have existed. That means truth is invented rather than discovered.
>These are all "Subjective" things, yet we all share them
They lead to objective outcomes. I am saying there is no objective value to any given outcome. If someone starves to death, their death is objective, the value of that transition is not.
>Then your philosophy makes their actions permissible
All actions are only permissible because we allow them to be. There is no objective good or bad, we collectively decide what is good and bad but this is subjective and changes with the time and place.
>video
Not watching it, don't care

>>34750874
>Why is their judgement less right than yours?
Because they are sick, they are acting in a way that yields nothing but some twisted simulation of human enjoyment, that leads to demonstrable negative and outright evil outcomes.
Equally the idea that everything is subjective holds just as much weight as the idea that it is objective, and there is thus no rationality behind trying to make your subjective statement appear correct, because afterall, that is just your opinion.
>plethora of evidence
Before recorded history, why would an organism develop a behavior that was not beneficial to its health and survival? It's nonsensical, and we wouldn't be here today if that was true. Sickness does spread, but it is antithetical to survival, there has to be a baseline of behaviors that are more beneficial to survival that got us here.
>If there was no biology,
But there is Biology, right here and now. What care I of realities that don't exist?
>the value of that transition is not.
The manner of death would also determine an objective context in which that death would exist and tie into a greater picture of reality. Failure to make that connection is intellectual cowardice, as you'd rather reside in the lower levels of consciousness.
>All actions are only permissible because we allow them to be.
Consistent outcomes are what determines morality, if you don't eat you will starve, if you don't drink water you will be dehydrated. My morality is correct, because it mirrors natural shared phenomenon, whereas your morality justifies thought processes that have no tangible basis on reality. You would take a statement like:
>"I don't need water to survive."
And say that it is correct simply because the participant believes it to be correct, when we know it to be false. A man is a man, because he is biologically a Man, not because he believes himself to be a man.
>Not watching it, don't care
You choose ignorance, because you're brainwashed. And all the while, disease spreads.

>>34750896
>twisted simulation of human enjoyment
Are you saying they don't derive enjoyment from their actions?
>demonstrable negative and outright evil outcomes
It's also a negative outcome when the wolf takes a deer or a tick latches on to a rabbit or a housecat kills a bird, but we don't call it evil we call it nature. Why do only humans get these objective moral judgements? And, again, because you aren't good with nuance, I am not defending these people. I want them punished. I do not like them.
>that is just your opinion
Correct and I don't mean to imply otherwise, but I have yet to see any evidence for your statements. Where is this objective morality? How do we measure it? How do we interpret it? You've provided nothing.
>why would an organism develop a behavior that was not beneficial to its health and survival?
Are you seriously unaware of how animals behave? Go watch Animal Planet lmao
>What care I of realities that don't exist?
I am begging you to stop missing my point
>The manner of death would [...]
I actually don't know what you're trying to say here
>Consistent outcomes are what determines morality
You think not eating is immoral? That's an odd position to take
>because it mirrors natural shared phenomenon
But the things you call evil happen in nature constantly. Murder, rape, and cannibalism are not human inventions.
>your morality justifies thought processes that have no tangible
I have denied the existence of morality many times at this point. There is no "justification" because it does not exist.
>And say that it is correct simply because
I would not say that and I find it odd that you think I would. What does that have to do with morality? I'm not denying physical phenomena, I'm denying the objectivity of cultural phenomena. I don't know how many more times I have to use the word simulacrum before you understand what I'm saying here. Morality is a simulacrum. It has utility but it is not Truth.

>>34749569
all these retards aside i hope you're doing well today anon

>>34750941
Heheh you too anon. I am surviving, are u? I am EMOTIONAL that a stranger is thinking of me :,)

>>34750938
>Are you saying they don't derive enjoyment from their actions?
Not at all, they do derive enjoyment from it, but that is not the hallmark of morality. An organism that enjoys cutting itself isn't moral for that reason alone, and there is a reason we Baker Act people who are not in their right mind, who put themselves and others at risk. Merely consenting to the enjoyment of something awful does not make it moral.
>It's also a negative outcome when the wolf takes a deer or a tick latches on to a rabbit or a housecat kills a bird
You're thinking at the lower level of the individual animal, yes, it is terrible and "Wrong" to them, but on the higher level, witnessing the balancing act of nature, these actions are instrumental in preserving the balance of life. But if a Wolf were to go on a killing spree, we say it has Rabies, but it is not killing for survival, but merely because the part of its organism that enjoy the hunt is out of balance with the rest of it, and it is therefor unhealthy.
>Why do only humans get these objective moral judgements?
We don't, we're simply capable of observing the higher framework of existence, so that we can understand how even what seems evil on the level of the microcosm serves a greater purpose on the macrocosm, and alternatively, we can see what behaviors don't serve this greater good whatsoever. Who really is beyond nuance here?
>I am not defending these people
But can you not see how these people use your morality as a justification for their actions? That's the point of what I'm saying.
>but I have yet to see any evidence for your statements
Then we can talk evidence, that's the point of conversation afterall. If we just said it was all subjective we'd never get anything done.
>Are you seriously unaware of how animals behave?
Spiders may eat their children to survive, but we are not spiders. The people eating babies in the Epstein Files are not spiders, at least not literally.

>>34750671
the fact that you think white people will actually go extinct is laughable. same kinda logic as "if we don't stop queer people, EVERYONE will be gay". silence fascist.
>Do something that is respectable.
what would be respectable is someone beating the nazi out of you, chud.
>>34750835
>>34750938
while i get what you're saying, you are indirectly defending pedophilia. i get the whole "all things are relative" thing, as i believe the same with MOST things, if you use this line of thinking it defends abusers and gives them a sense of legitimacy. yeah, it's nature, but not all nature is good - something nazi is not understanding. you could justify murder or even cannibalism given a certain emergency circumstance, but you can never justify something like rape or pedophilia. if you want to stand against it, you can't give it legitimacy and treat it as an equal idea or lifestyle. again, i get what you're trying to say, but please don't continue saying this kinda thing about those kinds of people. the people on the epstien list deserve to be jailed and/or executed with all the evil they've committed.

>>34750938
>I actually don't know what you're trying to say here
Refer to my previous post, a death that serves a greater purpose ties into the greater good. Somebody may die of disease, this is a part of the process of others developing natural immunity, etc.
>You think not eating is immoral?
No, I'm saying that there are consistently observable outcomes that come with not eating. You could fast for a period of time, sure, that doesn't alter the underlying reality. All things are measurable.
>Murder, rape, and cannibalism are not human inventions.
But the extent to which we engage with these things outside of necessity is what determines that it is evil. Cats my rape to procreate, are we cats? Or do we acknowledge that healthier relationships are forged between humans in the absence of rape? And we know this because we can measure the outcomes in humans that rape and humans that don't rape, and the quality of their relationships. That information gets collected and passed down genetically, and that's why we have natural aversions to certain behaviors.
Babies for example don't develop a fear of snakes until they are older, this is not because they magically Learn one day to fear snakes, but because the genetics that make them afraid of snakes don't activate until a certain age, this is a measurable phenomenon:
>https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/innate-fear-of-snakes-and-spiders-a-survival-instinct-found-in-babies-293462
>I'm denying the objectivity of cultural phenomena
Thus you would overlook the fact that culture is a product of genetics, we write into our cultures that snakes are evil because we have a biologically ingrained fear of them, and this applies to everything else.
>Morality is a simulacrum.
It's just a way to obfuscate reality, morality is derived from our biology, and the grander design/balance of the world.

File: SoyMilkDrinker.gif (16 KB)

16 KB GIF

>>34750970
You clearly don't understand genetics. Most White Genes, specifically Blonde Hair, Blue eyes, etc, are recessive, and are almost completely eradicated via race mixing. Anyone who engages in race mixing is creating an offspring of Offbreeding Depression, these are individuals who are not biologically suited for any particular environment, and are subsequently more dependent on modern industrial medicine.
>what would be respectable is someone beating the nazi out of you, chud.
Oh my, tough guy on the internet! What are you going through onions milk withdraws?

>>34750965
>Not at all
You called it a simulation of human enjoyment, it's either a simulation or it's real. You can't have it both ways.
>But if a Wolf were to go on a killing spree, we say it has Rabies
We say it has rabies if it has rabies. Animals kill for no apparent reason all the time. Very few people moralize over it. How it is "unhealthy" for a wolf to kill deer without eating them anyway? I kill bugs all the time, am I "unhealthy" for doing that? What separates me from the wolf in this instance?
>we're simply capable of observing the higher framework of existence
I still see no proof of this beyond your claim that instincts are somehow truth. I don't see why your feelings are any more valid than a serial killer's.
>what seems evil on the level of the microcosm
Purpose for who? Who decides all this? So far you're just claiming to be right and anyone who disagrees to be wrong. You have no actual proof or evidence of anything. There is no logical support for your claims. You're basing your moral framework on your own personal feelings.
>use your morality
I am DENYING the "truth" of morality. No one can use my morality because it does not exist. It can't "justify" anything because it is not real. Justifications can be made for anything under any system anyway. You yourself said that actions appearing evil can be good in the greater picture. That allows anything to be justified without much effort. Please, understand what I'm saying. I don't see any action as needing justification ever under any circumstances. I don't believe in justice. I am rejecting the "truth" of human made cultural phenomena to the best of my abilities. They may be useful as simulacra but they are not real. Slaving yourself to ideas is (subjectively) disturbing to me. Ideas (subjectively) exist to be slaved to us.
>Spiders may eat their children to survive
Humans do this too, cannibalism has existed since life began. Not all cannibalism in human society has even been for survival

>>34750970
>you are indirectly defending pedophilia
I am saying that there is no objective truth behind morality. Pedophilia is subjectively wrong and we reject it as a society. I agree with rejecting it. But to think that the universe bends in a way contra to or in support of any given human action is arrogance. The universe does not care. There is no equation that will say pedophilia is wrong. We feel it is wrong, that's all. Society has felt many things to be wrong in the past and changed its mind on it later. Society will feel things we do now are wrong in the future.
>it's nature, but not all nature is good
I'm saying there is no good or evil. You can hate abusers while still acknowledging that no action matters objectively. I don't like abusers. I don't like mean people. I don't like Nazis either. I don't believe any of these stances are true or can be proven in any meaningful way. The reality we live in is subjective.
>but you can never justify something
You can justify anything, always. Justifications are not proofs. You can twist anything to be "good" because good does not exist.
>you can't give it legitimacy
Nothing is legitimate in the sense of being good or right. We delude ourselves into believing that things are good or bad and there is utility in that, I do it all the time! But it's not "real"
>deserve to be jailed and/or executed with all the evil they've committed
I have said that I agree with that sentiment plenty of times. I am saying the universe makes no distinction or judgement

>>34751020
>You called it a simulation of human enjoyment
Okay fair point, let me rephrase. Their enjoyment is genuine in the sense that it triggers their chemical responses, but it is not healthy, because it is a bastardization and contradiction of healthy conduct that complies with natural law. I could argue that the Jew is biologically an evil organism, perhaps because they don't have these some genetic codes, which would give credence to your philosophy of relativism, at least distinctions between different organisms, and the jew should not be considered human. But this is all the more reason to end these peoples reign and remove them from our society, because what comes naturally to them is antithetical to our own biology. This is also why I am an advocate of Eugenics, and cohesive coding creates better results in society.
>Animals kill for no apparent reason all the time.
In most cases, hunting for sport is not a healthy behavior. Some animals might have this coding because it allows them to thin the herds of a rampant animal, thus there is a greater moral justification no matter how you look at it.
>I kill bugs all the time
Bugs are designed to account for this. A single mosquito can reproduce all the lost number with a single brood. Every creature has its own parameters for survival, and value in preserving the balance of nature.
>I don't see why your feelings are any more valid than a serial killer's.
It depends on the origin of the emotion, if arising from a natural impulse, or a random bastardization and sickness that doesn't otherwise occur.
>You have no actual proof or evidence of anything.
The existence of the world is proof, nothing would exist if there were not rules governing reality.

>>34750970
I'm going to stop replying to the nazi because this is super off topic and it's just going in circles anyway
My larger point here is that morality is an idea we've come up with. It has utility. We can use it to make society better, make our lives better, propel us forward. But we have to use it rather than be dominated by it. We mistake morality as truth and we turn a tool into a master. That does not need to be the case. I am not saying that criminals should go unpunished or that no action should forbidden. I'm saying that we need to understand the difference between subjective and objective reality. Simulacrum should not be mistaken for real things.

>>34751020
>Ideas (subjectively) exist to be slaved to us.
And what can you provide as an alternative to collective organize against things like pedophilia, the end of your logic leads to the end of the world, where nothing matters, nihilism reigns supreme, and all actions are permissible by the fact that they exist alone.
>Not all cannibalism in human society has even been for survival
The Native Americans ate other humans they thought were strong so as to try and gain their power, we know this is not true, cannabalism serves no practical purpose, it's like you said, cultural ideas enslave people, but that is provided the culture is polluted.
There is a biological world with natural causes, so here:
>Homosexuals are 47.5% more likely to contract an STD
>Transexualls are 50% more likely to commit suicide
>Mixed race people have a 50% higher prevalence of mental illness
All of these things exist and are measurable,. All of these things reduce fertility, the health of the organism involved, etc.
If you were to say that everything is subjective, you would necessarily have to delineate between what is right for one organism and another, correct? What is right for a Lion is not right for a Wolf, they have different diets, they operate in different dynamics. The same rules must necessarily apply to humans, even if you say it is subjective, what is objective is that we Do have Truth relative to our own existence, and any failure to act on or acquire this truth is a sickness, as we would be acting contradictory to what is right for us.
Biology is reality.

>>34751036
>>34751052
If everything is subjective, then that is objectively true, you've proven that objectivity exists, and every organism acts on what is right for it.
Humans are the same organism, we may have different biological distinctions between races and individuals, but the fact that we do have these distinctions which don't magically appear out of nowhere proves that objectively, we must do what is within our biology to survive.

File: IMG_20260204_002505.jpg (317.2 KB)

317.2 KB JPG

decided to post in this thread too, i need tips on getting laid, are there really no lesbians that would like to have a dickgirl?

>>34751325
No lesbians do not like men.

>>34751328
so who should i go for? other men that look like women? or straight women?
ive been looking for straight women so far but theyve all rejected me because they didnt want someone that looks like a woman

>>34739579
There is no way you are a femcel

>>34751342
go for bi women retard, my ex would have been all over you desu

>>34750941
>>34750951
you 2 are so cute omg ^^ *hugs*

File: SOCIETY.png (418.8 KB)

418.8 KB PNG

>>34751052
>I'm saying that we need to understand the difference between subjective and objective reality.
so just in trying to put us on the same page, you and i both agree that while the universe is objective with no good or evil, humans themselves are subjective and there is place and reason for it.

while that it is true the object reality 'is', but just because the universe doesn't care, doesn't mean WE don't. you're applying physics to sociology, and just because morality isn't 'real', doesn't mean it isn't real within our human system. which, i'm sure you're trying to get at. money isn't real, it's just paper and ink, but we attribute inherent value to it and that determines if we eat. it's real within our society. the universe is indifferent, but we don't live in 'the universe', we live in a society. treating human suffering as a mere casualty and not a tragedy is denying them their humanity. morality isn't a master, it's how we survive.
>You can justify anything, always. Justifications are not proofs. You can twist anything to be "good" because good does not exist.
focusing on the objective universe is a distraction that enables evil to get away with abuse. by telling a victim that "in objective reality" that their pain can be excused because there is no real good or bad (not to say that YOU are), you give their abusers a defense. while "good" might not exist, power does. if we live without morality, all that's left is might makes right. morality may not be "real", but the blood on the floor is real.
>We delude ourselves into believing that things are good or bad and there is utility in that, I do it all the time! But it's not "real"
our subjective reality isn't a rejection of truth, it's true to US. prioritizing the idea that the world is cold and that the tangible reality of human suffering can be (not necessarily that it should be, but that it CAN be) ignored isn't enlightenment, it's apathy. our morality is necessary for survival.

1/2

>>34751325
Your tits are big enough, I'd give you the time of day twice a day.
You suck dick too?

>>34751396
You might not be getting laid because you think leading with your feet is anything but self-sabotage

Not even foot freaks wanna see your feet in a selfie first thing
...I think
I'm not a foot freak

>>34751733
>You suck dick too?
mhm, would love to

>>34751052
what i'm basically getting at is that the objectivity of the universe does not, and should not ultimately matter to US. everyone's morality of course will look different, but it's the thing that makes us human. humans, again as a collective, help determine who is good and who is evil within our subjective reality. we can't ever live objectively, but the goal in the end (hopefully for most people) is minimizing human suffering, and allowing everyone to live in ways that both satisfy the individual while simultaneously not infringing on someone else. for example, a woman not having children does not infringe on someone else's right to have children. however preventing someone from having mixed children (which does not infringe on others rights to have children of the same race as both parents) DOES infringe.

if atrocity is nothing but a matter of opinion, it creates a system where the most violent or powerful person wins by default. we should not be living in that system if our personal human goal is to live with minimal pain.

you're not wrong that the universe is objective, but we should not be using that idea as the guide to how we live our lives. i know you said as much, but to give value to the idea gets us nowhere. it's great to discuss and debate around, but is useless compared to the human experience. we know it's made up, but that's irrelevant.

2/2

>>34751721
>doesn't mean it isn't real within our human system
It's "real" as a simulacrum. It can be interpreted however we want. I'm trying to say that placing special importance on the mortality of an action is not useful because morality itself is not real. Harmful actions are, in my mind, not necessarily "bad". Smoking is harmful, but I don't want to stop people from doing it. I see personal freedom as a better metric to judge actions than morality or harms. Murder isn't bad because it harms someone but because it deprives them of their freedom. The same for the abuse and etc.
>that enables evil to get away with abuse
Evil is a word we use to dehumanize. Pol Pot was not evil, he was a human like the rest of us. Reducing him to evil prevents us from understanding how and why he did as he did. Evil does not exist. Denying the existence of evil does not mean that we have to accept "bad" actions. Most "bad" actions are illegal, no one is arguing that we should legalize non-consensual murder.
>you give their abusers a defense
We don't need to call an action evil to dislike it. Anyone who acts to deprive someone of their freedom is doing something I detest, I won't call them evil for it or give special value to the actions or consequences thereof.
>if we live without morality, all that's left is might makes right
Morality is "might makes right" because the mighty or the majority define morality. Morals in the antebellum South are not morals in the US now, yet both were/are "enforced" by society and power structures.
>our subjective reality isn't a rejection of truth
It's a simulation at best rather than a real and mistaking it for truth leads to people placing more importance on it than necessary. If we "know" that homosexuality is "evil", then what is stopping us from committing atrocity in the name of "good"?
>human suffering can be ignored
But, I haven't said this. I'm saying we shouldn't attach so much importance to things that don't exist

File: images.jpg (10 KB)

10 KB JPG

add me for fucks sake.....i'm sick and tired of time wasters though so if you do add me then at least show me respect (women only please)
I need appreciation! also be submissive and do as you are told!
discord: oscarfreakyfrog

>>34751773
>does not, and should not ultimately matter to US
I argue it should. We place so much importance on sacred cows that we lose sight of the meaninglessness of everything. The lack of meaning is the source of our freedom. We can do whatever we please. Prescribing morality to the masses does not increase freedom or wellbeing. Morals are ghosts of the past and we never inspect them out of fear of, what? Evil winning? It makes no sense to me. I want people to have good lives. I want to have a good life. Traditions tyrannizing us does not lead to happiness.
>help determine who is good and who is evil
And I argue that we should stop thinking in terms of good and evil and instead merely consider the consensual nature of an action. This maximizes freedom without making assumptions of how people want to live.
>that both satisfy the individual while simultaneously not infringing on someone else
Exactly what I want, but I feel we're not in agreement
>it creates a system where the most violent or powerful person wins by default
This is the system we already live in and have always lived in. We've merely shifted power from "standing armies" to "will of the people", but neither places real limits on those in power
>we know it's made up
But, we don't. The guy prior was arguing that morality literally exists and is literally observable as a literal facet of nature. Many people believe morality literally exists and literally flows from a literal God.

>>34751753
Ok you shouldn't be a *cel
You got a face made for cock I really don't get it
If you lived in Texas I'd have you bent over tonight, I'd turn you into property.

>>34750951
im doing great actually, today has been good! you are nice and deserve to have someone thinking of you!

the whole thing's made me wanna actually get in touch lmao

>>34749563
>if you're so sure women find you so unattractive, then why bother posting on these threads at all?
because i like talking with other incels and venting about life. Bonus points if they're into mountaineering, lookism, or esoteric philosophy.
>>34750850
Leftists only care about moralism when it is politically opportunistic for them to do so. They'll attack Trump for being connected to Epstein, and they'll feign shock for what happened on that island, but don't forget that these are the people that pump children full of cross-gender hormones, abolish mandatory minimum sentences for rapists and pedophiles, and allow cartels to human and sex traffic minors across the border in the name of social justice and tolerance.

>>34751808
>Ok you shouldn't be a *cel
well youd assume so but i live in a shithole eastern european country

>>34751776
> I see personal freedom as a better metric to judge actions than morality or harms.
>Anyone who acts to deprive someone of their freedom is doing something I detest, I won't call them evil for it or give special value to the actions or consequences thereof.
but if morality isn't "real" because it's a human invention, then freedom isn't real either. freedom is just as subjective as morality, and why is that the metric? if a murderer wants the freedom to kill you, you have no objective grounds to stop him, you just happen to personally detest it. you're still using a subjective reality to judge the world, you just called it by a different name.
>Pol Pot was not evil, he was a human like the rest of us.
you can both understand the sociology of a dictator while still using the evil label to recognize the horror. him being human is irrelevant to the point. we call him evil because his actions caused mass human suffering.
>Evil is a word we use to dehumanize.
i disagree. calling a human evil does not dehumanize them, it simply gives them an attribute. you can and should recognize evil can take human form.
>Morals in the antebellum South are not morals in the US now, yet both were/are "enforced" by society and power structures.
>The lack of meaning is the source of our freedom.
>I argue that we should stop thinking in terms of good and evil and instead merely consider the consensual nature of an action.
that's exactly why we need to value our subjective morality, that proves my point. we didn't go from supporting owning slaves to not because we saw some objective truth, but because as society our morality changed to minimize suffering. we as a collective decided it mattered. if we treat the moral shifts as just changes in who has power, then you'd be admitting that if a more powerful nazi takes over, his freedom to oppress you is just as valid as your freedom to exist. you cannot have true freedom without considering morality.

1/2

>>34751800
>But, we don't. The guy prior was arguing that morality literally exists and is literally observable as a literal facet of nature. Many people believe morality literally exists and literally flows from a literal God.
this why i say most, some genuinely believe in a divine, premade plan. which is fine, it's his right, but you and i do not have to agree with his view and can detest it.
>Exactly what I want, but I feel we're not in agreement
you and i both want personal freedoms, but where we disagree if morality it part of the metric. i do not believe freedom is more valuable of a metric than morality, and that you can't really have one without the other. two things can be true at the same time.

2/2

File: IMG_4821.jpg (276.9 KB)

276.9 KB JPG

Migrated from a neighboring thread

>>34751871
haiiii, you look super cool as i said in the other thread

>>34751848
>then freedom isn't real either
Freedom at least is easier to judge and easier to universalize. I'm not claiming it's objective, it's just what I've chosen as "important"
>if a murderer wants the freedom to kill you
Except that reduces my freedom to 0 since a corpse can take no action. If I consented to be murdered it would be different, but I assume you mean a non-consensual murder
>while still using the evil label to recognize the horror
Maybe you and I can use the evil label and not get sucked into it, but the masses of people cannot. They label something evil and fail to even attempt to understand it. Then they expand the evil label to anything similar, still not attempting to understand it. Not to mention it destroys all nuance. Surely Pol Pot did a "good" thing once in his life. Evil is an absolute term.
>calling a human evil does not dehumanize them
This is ignoring history. "Evil" is almost always used to dehumanize
>but because as society our morality changed to minimize suffering
And when we decide to change our morality again? Do we simply hope that society chooses the right direction? Do you trust society that much? Weimar Germany led straight into the Third Reich. Morality shifted very fast in a direction I think we can agree was "wrong"
>his freedom to oppress you is just as valid as your freedom to exist
That's what I'm arguing *against*. Using morality as a sacred cow makes that more likely, not less. Consent is much harder to twist than morality because consent flows from the individual. Will I consent to be murdered? No. Can you call me evil, a cancer on society, an immoral existence and then shove me into a camp? Of course, you can always find reasons to dehumanize a person.

>>34751840
dw you'll make it out
simply marry ugly American man for greencard
I'll dream about you bouncing on it anon

>>34751871
Ok what's your story, you can't get laid with those huge hangers? How come? You've never met a shallow animal?

>>34751858
>but where we disagree if morality it part of the metric
And what happens when morality conflicts with mutual freedom? If I consent to have an "evil" thing done to me and the person inflicting the "evil" consents as well, do you wish to stop the action? You're an unrelated third party. What gives you the right except this simulacrum you've raised to a position of power? I would say that morality more often than not infringes on freedom. Morality gave us every atrocity this world has ever known. There has never been a country that committed these acts without wrapping them in moral virtue first. If an individual wishes to follow some moral code, fine more power to them. But when we legislate morality and force it upon people who disagree with it, we reduce their freedom and create situations where abuse is more likely rather than less. The road to Hell and good intentions, right?

>>34751886
not exactly, it’s more my personality that makes relationships hard

>>34751916
Truly doomed.
At least you got fat tits.
Keep size mogging on those whores with their "boyfriends" and "satisfying relationships"

>>34751916
what about the personality in specific? if you dont mind sharing

>>34751721
>>34751773
>>34751776
>>34751800
That's a good coherent way of putting it, though there is a basic consideration I think you're missing both missing when you zoom out.
Societal cohesion is predicated on a shared sense of morality, so at the very least, we cannot base a society on disparate values like the modern day, otherwise everything comes crashing down.
The more cohesive a society is the more it serves the individuals that comprise it, therefor it is necessary to a degree to restrict peoples Free Will if it contradicts the unity we seek to establish.
Modern Moral Relativism is no different, it seeks to reject anyone who rejects Moral Relativism, but it contradicts itself because it thus predicates it's cohesion on the absence of cohesion, all whist denying it's own ability to reject and limit the freedoms of those it disagrees with, and that is why the modern world is so dysfunctional. Furthermore, that is why cohesive societies are more functional, because they acknowledge and embrace this contradiction.

>>34751818
Everyone does it on both sides, this is why modern discourse is so decisive, if not impossible, because nobody can Agree on anything, and without agreement, Society effectively does not exist, and begins to degrade.

>>34751937
i'm a drama queen with daddy issues lol
>>34751925
that’s the main reason I don’t have female friends,i almost always end up attracting their bfs because of my tits size and nipple piercings, and more than once i’ve ended up being the homewrecker

>>34751979
>i'm a drama queen with daddy issues lol
kek im the same but mommy issues instead

>>34751965
>Everyone does it on both sides
That's why I took the Carl Schmitt pill on the friend-enemy distinction. I talk about the files because it's proof the Jews and elite politicians basically have done everything every conspiracy theory said about them. The Left only talks about them because they want to blame the current regime, take over and then either oppress or kill people like us. It wasn't going to end with woke shit, DEI, hypergamy, and feminism.
>>34751979
> and more than once i’ve ended up being the homewrecker
yet here you are in the 'incel/femcel' thread. There has to be better places on this board to get the attention you desperately seem to crave

>>34751880
>>34751895
>Morality gave us every atrocity this world has ever known. There has never been a country that committed these acts without wrapping them in moral virtue first.
>The road to Hell and good intentions, right?
i don't think we're gonna be able to reach a shared conclusion, but i don't think it's because we value different things, but because we're prioritizing different methods. we agree there is no objective truth and that and that morality can be weaponized, history makes that undeniable, i don't deny that fact at all, moral panic is a powerful tool for oppression.
>If I consent to have an "evil" thing done to me and the person inflicting the "evil" consents as well
however, i do not agree that a consent-only framework actually prevents the dangers of oppression, it just relocates them. consent works in isolated cases, but social power does not operate cleanly or in good faith. consent can be manufactured, coerced, economically pressured, or culturally conditioned in ways that still cause harm while remaining "voluntary". and when that happens, we still need some shared sense of morality and language to say "this should not be allowed" even if everyone technically agreed. this could look like exploitative labor contracts, "consensual" abuse/IPV in relationships, or children "consenting" to pedophiles. morality has it's role, not as an absolute truth, but to restrain systems that can exploit victims.
i'm not arguing that morality should dominate freedom, or that it's immune to scrutiny, i'm arguing that freedom alone isn't a sufficient safeguard. minimizing suffering requires balancing both freedom AND moral judgement, as imperfect and dangerous it can be when unchecked and weaponized. there is some give and take. by abandoning all moral evaluation entirely, you fail to protect the vulnerable.

>>34751992
femceldom has long gone beyond just being unable to get laid

>>34752009
it's basically just a buzzword to refer to women that are losers, which was honestly synonymous to femcel to begin with, but i would suggest calling it femlol, or femcow. The latter would be especially applicable to you.

>>34752017
my issue is forming serious long-term relationships, and ‘femcel’ describes that better than the vague ‘female loser’ label

>>34751992
Never going to end well, we have a few good years to organize and get our shit together. I recomend buying land, or joining a local nationalist community to have a network of frens when the time comes.
Any frens in Washington, hmu.

>>34751965
>it seeks to reject anyone who rejects Moral Relativism
But, it doesn't. It rejects moral realism in governance and that's been very successful in expanding civil rights and making life generally less shit for everyone. The only freedom it would seek to limit is the freedom for tyrants to impose their own moral law on society. The modern world isn't even what I would call dysfunctional. Essentially every metric you could imagine is better now than in the moral realism dominated past
>>34752003
>i don't think we're gonna be able to reach a shared conclusion
I admit my position is very extreme. I believe in individual sovereignty to a degree that most people find repugnant and would prefer people choose to harm themselves than be forced to live good lives. I am biased in that I can only see morality as oppressive
>still cause harm while remaining "voluntary"
To be clear, I am not against harm. Harm is fine as long as it's voluntary. You do bring up a good point and the extreme conclusion of my system would have to be something like utopian social anarchy, but I maintain that consent based laws are superior to moral laws in most situations.
>children "consenting"
The other two examples are fair, but typically consent is a right we give to adults and not children. There is some argument to had for what constitutes a child vs an adult and how that line gets drawn, but generally speaking when I say consent I mean consenting adult. And yes, I know that's arbitrary and subjective but as long as it's applied universally I see limited issues with saying anyone under the age of adulthood is not given full human rights.
>minimizing suffering
My aim is maximization of freedom, not minimization of suffering. Freedom allows people to choose how to live their lives. If they wish to minimize their own suffering, great. If they would prefer to live fast and die young, also great. As long as it's their choice. I'm not a libertarian, I believe in safety nets, etc.

File: MediocrityDestroysCreativity.jpg (35.7 KB)

35.7 KB JPG

>>34752304
>But, it doesn't.
Where have you been the past 10 years? You can't have basic disagreements anymore, colleges and public grounds disbar anyone who Offends anyone else. Tolerance has created an environment where only those in line with moral relativism are allowed to practice Free Speech to absolution, which disavows any criticism of basic realities as bigoted. Transgenderism is an excellent example, where Biological Reality has been circumvented by subjective perception, halting the conduct of any accurate measurement of biological reality.
>making life generally less shit for everyone
But now nobodies needs get met, and you effectively say that some people who want different things aren't allowed to have them because you've arbitrarily said they can't. Take freedom of association, you're not allowed to create private communities oriented around ethnicity. Explain to me how that makes people lives better when they are forced to live around other people who don't share their values or respect their culture?
>The only freedom it would seek to limit is the freedom for tyrants to impose
Again, this is contradictory, because who are you to say what does and does not restrict other peoples rights? You're effectively doing the same thing, imposing your subjective moral laws onto others, and then projecting onto your enemies that that is what they're doing.
>The modern world isn't even what I would call dysfunctional.
Our democracy does not function because it is not cohesive, everybody wants different things, meaning any time somebody Wins in politics, the other half of the population gets tossed aside. You've just created a system where, in pandering to everybody, nobody can get what they want/need.

File: Facetune_04-02-2026-15-00-11.jpg (279.3 KB)

279.3 KB JPG

Rate me. Im a femcel because the guys I like only want sex and not a relationship

>>34752330
>colleges and public grounds disbar anyone who Offends anyone else
Association is voluntary. If I don't want to associate with someone, I won't
>practice Free Speech to absolution
I don't know what country you live in but the US at least has the first amendment and I'm certain you can say whatever you want to say without going to jail here
>halting the conduct of any accurate measurement of biological reality
What does this even mean?
>nobodies needs get met
Yes yes everyone is starving to death in the streets, there's no water when I turn on the tap. What are you talking about?
>some people who want different things aren't allowed to have them
I'm serious, what are you talking about?
>you're not allowed to create private communities oriented around ethnicity
Yes, you are and they exist all over the place in the US. It's so trivial to get around housing discrimination that I don't know why the law is even on the books
>when they are forced to live around other people who don't share their values or respect their culture?
Then go live on a commune instead of in the suburbs?
>who are you to say what does and does not restrict other peoples rights
I literally want every consensual action to be legal no matter what that action is
>meaning any time somebody Wins in politics, the other half of the population gets tossed aside
In the past succession crises were common and you'd get hundreds of thousands to millions dead every time some idiot king died without a strong heir. I'll take the current system over that.

File: Desegregation.jpg (13.6 KB)

13.6 KB JPG

>>34752350
>Association is voluntary. If I don't want to associate with someone, I won't
And what about the legal restrictions against voluntary association in housing and community building? You say they're easy to circumvent, but you implicitly admit that these laws do exist, which contradicts the notion of freedom.
What about the importation of millions of migrants who do not share our values, whom the majority of the population did not vote to bring in?
>I don't know what country you live in but the US
I live in the US, we have many laws essentially forcing different people to live together even despite their animosity towards each other. I also look at the UK and Australia which I think even you would admit is absurd.
>What does this even mean?
It means research on Biological Distinctions between the sexes has been deemed bigotry for the past decade, with many doctors and researchers obfuscating the facts to push an ideological narrative. Essentially, transgenderism, even if engage consensualy, is unhealthy. My question to you would be: How can doctors uphold the Hypocritical Oath if what is deemed Help is subjective? They have to agree on what is healthy, therefor they must agree on an underlying Biological Reality, no?
>What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the foreigners waving foreign flags, who don't practice our religions, who don't speak our language, who don't bother to assimilate into our culture, and who are here in this country despite the fact that they have contrary values to our own.
Or even small businesses not being allowed to discriminate against customers who contradict their religious values, there seems to be myriad examples of this contradiction in or modern society.
>I'll take the current system over that.
I'd rather build a better one then settle for this dysfunctional mess we have today.
https://youtu.be/e0LrP3Tc4K8?si=TTwidhxkgqa89WYT

>>34752345
Maybe this is just because you’re 100% my type but you’re 10/10 my goodness…

>>34752345
You're pretty sexy, yeah. Would relationship.

>>34752383
>against voluntary association in housing and community building?
If I own a house and can't sell it to someone because of their race, my freedom is more impacted than yours for having to live next to them. My assets should be mine to do with as I please. If you want a ethnocommunity, go live on a commune. I'm not "implicitly" admitting those laws exist. It was explicit. It doesn't contradict the notion of freedom because property owners should not be told they cannot do something with their property. There are obviously restrictive laws in place, but the existence of those does not negate the fact that we are more free now than we were 60 years ago.
>What about the importation of millions of migrants
Freedom of movement. I don't care if they come here
>essentially forcing different people to live together
We don't
>has been deemed bigotry for the past decade
It hasn't
>transgenderism, even if engage consensualy, is unhealthy
Please learn how to use proper spelling and grammar. I can't take you seriously as a white supremacist when your use of the language is sub ESL-tier. I don't care if it's unhealthy. It's a choice, they made it, it's not my business
>Hypocritical Oath if what is deemed Help is subjective?
What?
>they must agree on an underlying Biological Reality
What exactly do you think doctors do primarily?
>foreigners waving foreign flags
I don't care about any of that
>small businesses not being allowed to discriminate
I do care about that, they should be allowed to. This is still better than the past though
>dysfunctional mess we have today
We're in the most prosperous era of human history
>video
I will never watch any of these

>>34752416
>If you want a ethnocommunity, go live on a commune
Sure, but the point is that there are a ton of legal restrictions against this action, and we got here today because Desegregation was forced on us at gun point.
>It doesn't contradict the notion of freedom because property owners should not be told they cannot do something with their property.
So then why can't people lawfully discriminate based on race? We have the fair housing act of 1968 which directly contradicts what you're saying.
>Freedom of movement. I don't care if they come here
I wasn't asking your opinion, I merely stated that the majority of people didn't vote for mass migration in most countries, so why are they having it imposed on them?
Take any issue in politics, if the opposite party wins, you're living under the rule of law where something you disagree with is made permissible. My entire point is that, without societal cohesion, you will constantly end up in scenarios where you will be forced to compromise on your values. A system that represents everyone represents no one sufficient. A homogenized society can more adequately represent individuals, because they are more likely to find agreement.
>proper spelling and grammar
I'm about to go to bed, give me a break lol
>What?
The Hypocratic Oath: Which pledges to treat the sick to the best of one's ability, preserve patient privacy, and teach the art of medicine. But if a patient disagrees on what constitutes health, how can they be effectively treated? Take Medical Freedom for example, many people were forced/coerced into taking the vaccine even if they did not choose to themselves, is this the hallmark of a free society to you?
>I don't care about any of that
I wasn't asking you, I'm saying if the majority of people vote and behave in a certain way, why should we tolerate other people in our society who do not respect our way of life? We didn't choose this, so why should we have to put up with it?

>>34751811
Yay:) there has been a dramatic turn of events and someone who ghosted me for a month contacted me again.. i am too in Shock to contact anyone else now. i will still wish you sweet dreams anon <3

>>34752416
>We're in the most prosperous era of human history
Half the worlds insect population is gone. The department of agriculture kills 50 million animals a year. Our air is polluted with Cloud seeding chemicals and smog. We have a multitude of forest fires all over the country every year.
Obesity and chronic disease is at an all time high. Dementia and mentall illness are higher now per capita then any other period in history.
Our food supply is full of additives and petroleum derived chemicals. And on top of all that, people are more disconnected and atomized, lonely and afraid, then any other period in history.
Abundance of food and People is not the hallmark of prosperity, climate change might be fake as shit, but the damage we've done to the environment and to ourselves is demonstrable, and I quite frankly don't see how you can justify this as a Matter of Opinion.
Our children, if we even have any, won't even know what a fucking Coyote looks like because we will have killed them all by the time we are born. What kind of world do you think we're leaving for the next generation? To inherit this insanity, plugged into computers, slaves to occult run corporations.
You can justify it as a good, that just makes you my enemy, because it is not good to me, and subjectively, I oppose anyone building this dystopia.
So long as we have subjective beliefs, we will always come into conflict, and we will always be fighting for our own way of life.
This is how things are, this is objective morality: Conflict, forever.

>>34752466
congrats!! hope things work out well anon

>>34752471
This is the most based post I've ever seen made on this board (low bar but still). Highly recommend you read the Reign of Quantity by Rene Guenon, that book really left an impression on me as to the current state of things and what we should expect going forward out of modernity.

>>34752460
>a ton of legal restrictions against this action
There are virtually zero restrictions to starting an ethnocommunity that are not also placed on normal communes
>We have the fair housing act of 1968 which directly contradicts what you're saying
It doesn't contradict anything I said. You can't discriminate on race in the market because the market is a public good, that is the logic typically presented on the matter
>didn't vote for mass migration
Most democracies are representative democracies rather than direct so yes people did vote for it by electing leaders who allowed it
>imposed
It's not imposed on you. Move if you don't like your neighbors. That's your freedom
>where something you disagree with is made permissible
The law does not change much from one party to another. Either way, all consensual things should be permissible whether you agree with them or not. Things indirectly affecting you is not my problem. Leave, move, die if you don't like it.
>where you will be forced to compromise on your values
I have never had to do this
>homogenized society
This has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about. I don't even understand how we got on this point.
>I'm about to go to bed, give me a break lol
You have had poor command of the English language this entire time
>how can they be effectively treated?
You're disagreeing with the entire medical establishment in regard to the transgender thing just FYI. That's not politics, there is plethora evidence for the treatments given and their effects on the patients
>forced/coerced into taking the vaccine
You're also forced to not drive into oncoming traffic. Minor restrictions of freedom that increase aggregate freedom are not "bad"
>who do not respect our way of life?
You're a nazi living in a country that destroyed Nazi Germany, why do you not respect our way of life?
>so why should we have to put up with it?
What is there to put up with? Ignore people you dislike. It's not hard.

>>34752471
>Half the worlds insect population is gone
Even if this true and not a measurement error, which it almost certainly is, there are apparently no issues stemming from it. Who cares?
>The department of agriculture kills 50 million animals a year
Meaningless large number designed to shock. 50 billion chickens are consumed yearly. What does your number actually mean?
>Our air is polluted with Cloud seeding chemicals and smog
It's not and pollution is dropping not rising
>We have a multitude of forest fires all over the country every year
And?
>obesity
Wegovy
>chronic disease
How much of this is because it's more common and how much is because those people are living longer and being properly diagnosed?
>Dementia
It's more survivable so there are more of them around
>mental illness
Being diagnosed more often, not occurring more often
>people are more disconnected and atomized, lonely and afraid
People are making that choice by using social media. If you choose to suffer you get what you want
>don't see how you can justify this
We're richer than ever, we have more things than ever, we have better things than ever, we have better medicine, entertainment, and access to markets than ever. Poverty is down, starvation is down, disease is down, war is down.
>if we even have any
Reproduction is a choice. Most people have better alternatives to having kids. We aren't peasants anymore.
>won't even know what a fucking Coyote looks like
Coyotes are marked "Least Concern", everyone will get a chance to see one
>plugged into computers
Then log off, it's a choice
>just makes you my enemy
Stop the melodrama, please
>Conflict, forever
lol

>>34752633
why are you even still arguing with this chud??? i gave up a while ago LMFAO. he's never gonna consider you, why even waste your breath?? like you and i couldn't end on agreement, but at least don't treat the nazi as equal to me by actually engaging with him. bro legit thinks white people will go extinct, do we really trust much of anything else he has to say?

>>34752665
I don't even know, this is a big problem for me. I've spent a lot more time and effort on much dumber arguments in the past, like actually providing references and shit. Sorry if it felt like I was giving him an equal shake here. I do not consider him an equal to you don't worry. You're right though, I'm done with it.

File: allwhiteparty.gif (985.6 KB)

985.6 KB GIF

>>34752689

>>34752063
what exactly is keeping you from forming those? did you try behaviour theraphy or a change in how you interact with people? Losing female friends due to their guys being infidel can be avoided by firmly rejecting the advances.

>>34745180
Attractive but eyes hint at psychopathy. Every fiber of my being says to stay the fuck away

File: BasingSe.jpg (8.4 KB)

8.4 KB JPG

>>34752554
Word. Shame people can't objectively take into account all the destruction in the modern world, probably because they live indoors and have never seen the outside world.

>>34752613
>There are virtually zero restrictions
The amount of litigation RTTL has to circumvent and account for proves that you're blatantly false, and probably have no understanding of the complexity of the issue.
>You can't discriminate on race in the market because the market is a public good,
Right, so you've acknowledged my point without actually acknowledging my point. We lack freedom of association in the absolute.
>so yes people did vote for it by electing leaders
Cope. Our governments are failing to represent their people, why do you think there is so much turmoil and strife right now? You know not all of us are Jewish like you, we can't afford to just avoid reality. I can't wait to make you people the cattle instead, see how you like it.
>The law does not change much from one party to another.
While I generally agree the parties are corrupt, this just proves my point. Neither party truly represents the people anymore.
>all consensual things should be permissible whether you agree with them or not
And yet we're getting more free speech regulations, we had to comply with covid, you name it its been done, you're just blind to it.
>I have never had to do this
Why do you think I'm asking for your experience you fucking kike? Does your experience define the majority of Americans? How very subjective of you!
>Minor restrictions of freedom that increase aggregate freedom are not "bad"
Conversations done, you're a retarded kike.

>>34752633
>>34752665
>there are apparently no issues stemming from it. Who cares?
Everything you disagree with doesn't exist, you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of anything, and you claim victory from a place of willful ignorance. Both of you are fucking delusional twats, and I will support the establishment of any society that restricts your rights forever.

>>34751396
8/10 would love to worship your feet