Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

JustPearlyThings Exposed as Racist Grifter with Colonial Mindset by THIS MAN!

That's funny how adamant she is on the "slavery wasn't that bad" point.

Black people aren't asking the right questions. Someone should propose some actually good content.

She can be my slave for a week in order to prove slavery wasn't that bad.

And I don't mean no cutesy YouTube shit, I mean FOR REAL.
Picking cotton in the hot humid Southern sun, the thorns prickling your skin and making you bleed. Living on crushed corn mush. Being whipped and raped. Being used as a broodmare. Having your children taken away.

I'd like to see JPT go through that.
 
That's funny how adamant she is on the "slavery wasn't that bad" point.

Black people aren't asking the right questions. Someone should propose some actually good content.

She can be my slave for a week in order to prove slavery wasn't that bad.

And I don't mean no cutesy YouTube shit, I mean FOR REAL.
Roman and Islamic slavery stated that the children of slave owners were free. Christian/Darwinist slavery stated that anyone descended from any slave was to be a slave as well.
I hate when white people try to escape accountability by pointing at Arabs. Yes, the Arabs were evil. And the whites outdid the Arabs.
 
All of this is true. The problem is: what does it have to do with anyone alive today? If it was even possible to do a statistical study of how much an individual's problems/disadvantages is attributable to slavery in the past it would be <1%. Things like the wealth of the family you were born into and genetic luck in your appearence accounts for the vast majority*. I know libs try to say that people are poor because their ancestors were enslaved many years ago but sociology studies of wealth show that with the exception of a very few rich dynasties wealth fluctuates from generation to generation. It doesn't usually last >100 years. For example, descendants from the Mayflower are not rich today. Descendants of wealthy grandparents/parents are.

*So by that logic, if there is reparations it should be to people born ugly or born poor. Not because many years ago horrible things happened to an ancestor of yours.
I support making society fairer for poor people, including poor white people

I believe the 'shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve' three generation theory of rise and fall was recently debunked

There's also the example of cities in Italy where the same families have been at the top for multiple centuries

African immigrants become more successful than native black Americans, suggesting that intergenerational trauma is holding some of them back

Obviously, African American culture is not conducive to accumulating intergenerational wealth. I'm not a SJW and I'm not going to deny shit like that.

Blacks were treated unfairly after slavery as well, including Jim Crow, redlining, unfairly blocked from post-WW2 government giveouts and programs, which would have affected black people alive today

Slavery was made illegal but occasionally still practiced in secret. There's black people alive today who were literally slaves
 
All of this is true. The problem is: what does it have to do with anyone alive today? If it was even possible to do a statistical study of how much an individual's problems/disadvantages is attributable to slavery in the past it would be <1%. Things like the wealth of the family you were born into and genetic luck in your appearence accounts for the vast majority*. I know libs try to say that people are poor because their ancestors were enslaved many years ago but sociology studies of wealth show that with the exception of a very few rich dynasties wealth fluctuates from generation to generation. It doesn't usually last >100 years. For example, descendants from the Mayflower are not rich today. Descendants of wealthy grandparents/parents are.

*So by that logic, if there is reparations it should be to people born ugly or born poor. Not because many years ago horrible things happened to an ancestor of yours.
 
I assume there might be old-world societies in parts of Italy, Spain, France where the economy is based on agriculture and wealth has been preserved over generations. But the U.S. is largely an information and service economy where most of the capital is in publicly traded companies where a CEO can't just pass down control to his sons.

Also, I disagree with the term "intergenerational trauma". That's nonsense. Trauma is not inherited. You can't tell me that you ancestors were treated poorly and through space and time you were traumatized too.

Lastly, American slaves alive today are victims of Mexican/Central American illegal immigration on farms or Asian human trafficking in restaurants and sweat shops.
High stress during pregnancy can literally affect the fetus. Poverty and stress affects childhood as well. Fetal alcohol syndrome is more common. Traumitised parents are shittier parents. I think it's bluepill to deny the effects of stress during pregnancy.
 
I assume there might be old-world societies in parts of Italy, Spain, France where the economy is based on agriculture and wealth has been preserved over generations. But the U.S. is largely an information and service economy where most of the capital is in publicly traded companies where a CEO can't just pass down control to his sons.

Also, I disagree with the term "intergenerational trauma". That's nonsense. Trauma is not inherited. You can't tell me that you ancestors were treated poorly and through space and time you were traumatized too.

Lastly, American slaves alive today are victims of Mexican/Central American illegal immigration on farms or Asian human trafficking in restaurants and sweat shops.
All the uber wealthy American families have family trusts that keep growing through multiple generations
 
All of this is true. The problem is: what does it have to do with anyone alive today? If it was even possible to do a statistical study of how much an individual's problems/disadvantages is attributable to slavery in the past it would be <1%. Things like the wealth of the family you were born into and genetic luck in your appearence accounts for the vast majority*. I know libs try to say that people are poor because their ancestors were enslaved many years ago but sociology studies of wealth show that with the exception of a very few rich dynasties wealth fluctuates from generation to generation. It doesn't usually last >100 years. For example, descendants from the Mayflower are not rich today. Descendants of wealthy grandparents/parents are.

*So by that logic, if there is reparations it should be to people born ugly or born poor. Not because many years ago horrible things happened to an ancestor of yours.
 
Ragarding 3 generations, it may be likely that upper middle class people who hit it big and where the father literally spends all day working and where there's a failure of inheritance planning may be more likely to not continue for multiple generations

However, looking at the uber wealthy like Rockerfellers, Johnson and Johnson, Carnegie, etc, suggests to me that 3 generations is not an ironclad rule
 
That article uses the Rothschilds, Gettys and Murdochs. And the last one is only 50 years and insofar 2 generations (Rupert is still alive). How are a handful of infamous dynasties proof against the three generation theory? It's also an article (not a study) by a magazine that services family offices (companies that manage the investments of very wealthy families). Do you expect them to write an article saying the industry it serves is ultimately unsuccessful?

Please put more weight to the peer-reviewed studies by sociologists. Which by the way are usually left-leaning as most of the academic social sciences (save economics) is and would jump at the chance to find that the wealthy usually retain and grow their wealth for multiple generations.
You can't recommend actual proper science and then denounce it at the same time. That's a catch 22. And denying statistics is bluepill cope.
 
That article uses the Rothschilds, Gettys and Murdochs. And the last one is only 50 years and insofar 2 generations (Rupert is still alive). How are a handful of infamous dynasties proof against the three generation theory? It's also an article (not a study) by a magazine that services family offices (companies that manage the investments of very wealthy families). Do you expect them to write an article saying the industry it serves is ultimately unsuccessful?

Please put more weight to the peer-reviewed studies by sociologists. Which by the way are usually left-leaning as most of the academic social sciences (save economics) is and would jump at the chance to find that the wealthy usually retain and grow their wealth for multiple generations.
 
That article uses the Rothschilds, Gettys and Murdochs. And the last one is only 50 years and insofar 2 generations (Rupert is still alive). How are a handful of infamous dynasties proof against the three generation theory? It's also an article (not a study) by a magazine that services family offices (companies that manage the investments of very wealthy families). Do you expect them to write an article saying the industry it serves is ultimately unsuccessful?

Please put more weight to the peer-reviewed studies by sociologists. Which by the way are usually left-leaning as most of the academic social sciences (save economics) is and would jump at the chance to find that the wealthy usually retain and grow their wealth for multiple generations.
Italy: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence
 
I'm ready to contend that uber-wealthy dynasties like the ones you are talking about - the ones with family offices and the ones referenced in your two articles do retain their wealth. Understandably billions and billions of dollars usually cannot be spent and wasted over 3 generations no matter how incompetent you are.

But like I said in my first comment I'm not talking about dynasties. I'm talking about someone whose parents make $500k-1m a year. E.g. the top 1%. Not the top 0.0001%.
All of this is true. The problem is: what does it have to do with anyone alive today? If it was even possible to do a statistical study of how much an individual's problems/disadvantages is attributable to slavery in the past it would be <1%. Things like the wealth of the family you were born into and genetic luck in your appearence accounts for the vast majority*. I know libs try to say that people are poor because their ancestors were enslaved many years ago but sociology studies of wealth show that with the exception of a very few rich dynasties wealth fluctuates from generation to generation. It doesn't usually last >100 years. For example, descendants from the Mayflower are not rich today. Descendants of wealthy grandparents/parents are.

*So by that logic, if there is reparations it should be to people born ugly or born poor. Not because many years ago horrible things happened to an ancestor of yours.
You realise this comes across as moving the goalposts, right?
 
Pretty sure you edited your original comment
 
Okay, first reply has an identical quote, I think I was wrong about you editing it
 
All of this is true. The problem is: what does it have to do with anyone alive today? If it was even possible to do a statistical study of how much an individual's problems/disadvantages is attributable to slavery in the past it would be <1%. Things like the wealth of the family you were born into and genetic luck in your appearence accounts for the vast majority*. I know libs try to say that people are poor because their ancestors were enslaved many years ago but sociology studies of wealth show that with the exception of a very few rich dynasties wealth fluctuates from generation to generation. It doesn't usually last >100 years. For example, descendants from the Mayflower are not rich today. Descendants of wealthy grandparents/parents are.

*So by that logic, if there is reparations it should be to people born ugly or born poor. Not because many years ago horrible things happened to an ancestor of yours.
Northwest New England types are still well off today, overrepresented really
 
View attachment 733102

hopefully you're next OP
7c3
 
All of this is true. The problem is: what does it have to do with anyone alive today? If it was even possible to do a statistical study of how much an individual's problems/disadvantages is attributable to slavery in the past it would be <1%. Things like the wealth of the family you were born into and genetic luck in your appearence accounts for the vast majority*. I know libs try to say that people are poor because their ancestors were enslaved many years ago but sociology studies of wealth show that with the exception of a very few rich dynasties wealth fluctuates from generation to generation. It doesn't usually last >100 years. For example, descendants from the Mayflower are not rich today. Descendants of wealthy grandparents/parents are.

*So by that logic, if there is reparations it should be to people born ugly or born poor. Not because many years ago horrible things happened to an ancestor of yours.
All American presidents up to Bush 2 are related. Obama too if you include female ancestry.
 
Some Dutch president may be an exception. Trump might be related too
 
Imagine someone's a total asshole. Now imagine they own a person and don't see them as a person. Do you think that the person they own wouldn't be treated that bad?
 
Imagine someone's a total asshole. Now imagine they own a person and don't see them as a person. Do you think that the person they own wouldn't be treated that bad?
Imagine hating normies for being backstabbing greedy deceiving snakes but believing normies wouldn't treat slaves badly
 
With the exception of Obama, all are white natural-born citizens so that's not surprising at all. Depends on how related. But even then, what is your point with this? If it's that non-white men not born in the US couldn't be president in the past, then you are right.
As the comedian George Carlin said, It's a big club, and you ain't in it
 
Imagine hating normies for being backstabbing greedy deceiving snakes but believing normies wouldn't treat slaves badly
Are there really people on here who think that?
 
Who cares, why are people still simping over her, her followers show you why you can't blackpill most men
 
I agree with this too. Like I said in my earlier comment, if there is "reparations" it should be to people born poor or born ugly. But that's just basic welfare.

Agreed with this too, but that falls under being born poor not "intergenerational trauma"

Ultimately the only part we've disagreed on in this whole thread has been "intergenerational trauma" and reparations for mistreatment of one's long lost ancestors.

If two poor children were born in 2023 and one's ancestors were slaveowners and the other's was slaves - should there be a difference in reparations/welfare? When neither of these two children had anything to do with it and ultimately neither was directly affected by it?
Hard question to answer. If the person descended from slaves is ridiculously worse off, it's obviously moral to bring them up to the same level as others before helping equally
 
Who cares, why are people still simping over her, her followers show you why you can't blackpill most men
She plagarises It'sComplicated anyways
 
I agree, but you can just end the justification with "if someone is born ridiculously worse off" they should be helped, period.
Unless you think welfare should be given to people who were born well-off in the 21st century but had ancestors who were slaves?

Edit: Here's another question: A large pool of poor children are born in 2023. A majority had ancestors who were slaves and a minority had ancestors who were slaveowners. Since there are so many poor children, it would be financially easier to just help the minority who were descendants of slaves. And if (again, I don't) you believed in "intergenerational trauma" the parents of the minority who were descendant of slaves deserve more help for their children because their poverty was inflicted upon them by outside forces. Now do you think only the poor children who were descendant of slaves should be helped with welfare?

(Very curious of your answer. My answer is still 'No' because I believe your responsibility in life can't possibly start before you are even born. We don't punish the babies of serial killers, do we? So why would your long lost ancestors have any bearing?)
In the real world, statistically speaking, those two groups are never equally poor



 
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Yes, when you look at stats, different races have different socioeconomic averages. But is there some rule by libs that says individuals need to be treated as their "average race"? It's the same kind of thing that fuels affirmative action against curries. Some of them are children of people working at Dunkin Donuts but are treated as "privileged" because on average curries have good incomes and high test scores.

Looking at a parent/guardian's last year tax return is not only easier, it's also much more accurate in discerning actual privilege than tracking down what their long lost ancestor was doing (or simply using their racial average).

Also, there is a reason why I made the minorities descendent of slaveowners and the majority descendent of slaves. Because yes, poor people are more likely to be black. But it is far from "never equally poor". There are still plenty of, for one example, trailer park whites with meth-addicted parents working minimum wage in depressed small towns. And since vey few were recent immigrants, I'm sure many were descendent from slave owners. But as much as you might dislike these people, their child born in 2023 is no more or less deserving then the next poor child.
I hate academic discrimination against rice and curries but America needs to reckon with the fact that blacks never got their forty acres and a mule
 
Pearl just regurgitates male red pill talking points and because she’s a woman men click and watch her stupid plagiarized garbage content. Ngl if I was a woman YouTubing seems like such an easy grind just copy red pill shit and mog the red pillers with massive simp views.
 
Pearl just regurgitates male red pill talking points and because she’s a woman men click and watch her stupid plagiarized garbage content. Ngl if I was a woman YouTubing seems like such an easy grind just copy red pill shit and mog the red pillers with massive simp views.
They'll say they watch only to see roasties get btfo but It'sComplicated does it way better
 
They'll say they watch only to see roasties get btfo but It'sComplicated does it way better
Agreed. Pearl is shit at debating and doesn’t even know what she’s talking about half the time. It just seems like she’s running off a script of copied notes of other male red pillers.
 
Those blacks are long dead. I can't imagine how you can help them other than building them better coffins and cemeteries.

There are blacks, whites, hispanics, asians in the U.S. that are alive now and need help though.
You know what? Fuck that. It's unfair that white people get to pass on wealth across generations while black people get nothing. So basically even if America finally treats the living blacks equally, they have to start out at the same or worse position than immigrants. Or white people who squandered their privilege by getting addicted to alcohol or moonshine or drugs. While white people like Richard Spencer, a neo-nazi with parents who own a cotton farm, literally, can get luxury degrees in Music and shit.

All the stolen and underpaid labour by black people should be accounted for and paid to their descendants.

Same thing with the British Empire and "indentured servitude". Also the Mughal Empire and everything that they did.

Anything else is simping for white people.
 
White foids = Biggest race traitors
 
OK fine, but we can't be picking out dynasties as examples of what would commonly happen to blacks sans-slavery. Let's look at the average white wealth that is passed down in 2021:
In this world of people with credit card debt and reverse mortgages many people receive nearly 0 inheritance which drops the median down to: 15248 (whites) -2855 (blacks) = $12,393 (difference)
Honestly, I think continuing affirmative action, black-hiring, and pro-black sympathy is worth more than 12 grand!!!

I know you might say "but 40 acres and a mule" is what they deserve. Well, the population of the USA in 1865 was 30 million people, or about 9% of the current population. So that 40 acres would have to be divided between many more black people as the population increased in those 158 years from 1865 to 2023. Since the population increased about 11x that would be 40/11= 3.6 acres. And the land back then would be more rural and undeveloped. But let's go ahead and give the current value of undeveloped land today at $12,000/acre. So that's 3.6*12,000 = $43,200 to every black descendant. Fine, let's do that. Do you think that will last to the next generation? If not, will the next generation of blacks born have the same idea that they need reparations all over again? When people clearly see the last generation inherited almost 3x the wealth of the average white?
Textbook example of strawmanning. I don't even want to reply to you anymore. You're just not worth it.

Put a dollar value on all the unpaid and underpaid labour black people did. It would be in the billions.

Now, take that value and.the value of forty acres and a mule and apply an interest rate to it. Trillions.

Maybe use the stock market average instead of interest rate to account for all the times whites lost their money on the stock market.

The data for whites is polluted by all the whites who immigrated to America and were either immediately or eventually accepted into whitehood. A second generation Armenian is not the same as a New England WASP. Using data for all whites is like saying reparations must be paid to recent African immigrants.

Reverse mortgage and credit card debt? Baby boomers squandering white wealth for hedonism doesn't mean that black people aren't entitled for reparations.

I better not hear an argument from incredulity from you. That's NPC behaviour.
 
A
OK fine, but we can't be picking out dynasties as examples of what would commonly happen to blacks sans-slavery. Let's look at the average white wealth that is passed down in 2021:
In this world of people with credit card debt and reverse mortgages many people receive nearly 0 inheritance which drops the median down to: 15248 (whites) -2855 (blacks) = $12,393 (difference)
Honestly, I think continuing affirmative action, black-hiring, and pro-black sympathy is worth more than 12 grand!!!

I know you might say "but 40 acres and a mule" is what they deserve. Well, the population of the USA in 1865 was 30 million people, or about 9% of the current population. So that 40 acres would have to be divided between many more black people as the population increased in those 158 years from 1865 to 2023. Since the population increased about 11x that would be 40/11= 3.6 acres. And the land back then would be more rural and undeveloped. But let's go ahead and give the current value of undeveloped land today at $12,000/acre. So that's 3.6*12,000 = $43,200 to every black descendant. Fine, let's do that. Do you think that will last to the next generation? If not, will the next generation of blacks born have the same idea that they need reparations all over again? When people clearly see the last generation inherited almost 3x the wealth of the average white?
All affirmative action is for white women. Sorry, the shittiest slice is for Black women.
 
Yeah that makes sense. So if blacks were left in Africa and never enslaved they would all be billionaires today. (Oh wait, most blacks left in Africa and not enslaved are actually the poorest in the world.) They must have "inter-continental-inter-generational trauma".

Your libtard delusions are too much for me. Even in your own calculations you take forty acres and a mule but don't rule out the explosion in population from 1865 to 2023. If a family in 1865 inherits 40 acres and a mule does that mean every descendant thereafter gets 40 acres and a mule-- or does it have to get diluted over many many descendants?
How do you feel about Germany still giving jews reparations for ww2?

 
You're fucking mental. Women only have affirmative action for engineering schools. When libtards say women are "the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action" they really mean in total increase in enrollment throughout AA's history from the 1970s when very few women went to higher education to today when more women graduate from college, grad school, medical school, and law school than men. But in terms of a leg up blacks were the biggest beneficiary in the 1970s and they are far and away the biggest beneficiaries in 2023 with women as a whole actually being slightly handicapped due to their over-representation.
I don't just mean academic admission requirements but jobs and promotions as well.

Universities are starting to avoid admitting too many women because it is WOMEN who avoid universities which are more than 60% female.

Affirmative Action wasn't meant for white women. They used Title IX to hijack it.
 
Yeah that makes sense. So if blacks were left in Africa and never enslaved they would all be billionaires today. (Oh wait, most blacks left in Africa and not enslaved are actually the poorest in the world.) They must have "inter-continental-inter-generational trauma".

Your libtard delusions are too much for me. Even in your own calculations you take forty acres and a mule but don't rule out the explosion in population from 1865 to 2023. If a family in 1865 inherits 40 acres and a mule does that mean every descendant thereafter gets 40 acres and a mule-- or does it have to get diluted over many many descendants? And over time don't most of these farming businesses fail with wealth being coalesced with a few winners - so by the time many generations later most descendants aren't inheriting a fucking fortune?
You're strawmanning even harder. I didn't even know there could be levels of strawmanning.
 
SURVIVORS. People who actually suffered. Not people who were born many generations later who never knew the suffering.
There's people alive today who were enslaved.
 
Universities aren't admitting women because women are avoiding universities because women make up 60% of universities and so are not avoiding universities.

What????????
Stop It Michael Jordan GIF
You're breaking your own record for strawmanning.

I seriously hope you're not curry. You'd be an embarassment to us.
 
SURVIVORS. People who actually suffered. Not people who were born many generations later who never knew the suffering.
And you do realize there are scientific, biological arguments for generational trauma (also known as inherited trauma)? That is to say nothing about the immediate social after-affects that followed slavery. You can't just act like the slate was wiped clean.

As for the millions jews who "actually suffered" during the holocaust, I'll leave that one alone for now but it's debatable. Also it seems odd to still be paying billions for something that happened like 80 years ago.
 
And you do realize there are scientific, biological arguments for generational trauma (also known as inherited trauma)? That is to say nothing about the immediate social after-affects that followed slavery. You can't just act like the slate was wiped clean.

As for the millions jews who "actually suffered" during the holocaust, I'll leave that one alone for now but it's debatable. Also it seems odd to still be paying billions for something that happened like 80 years ago.
Don't even get me started on the assloads of $$$ and aid going to Ukraine.

But reparations is too much. LMFAO
 
In the US? Probably. And they exist under 3 main categories:

(1) farm workers (mexican/central-american workers who are enslaved under either debts owed to coyotes or under threat of ICE reporting)
(2) restaurant and sweat shop workers (asian, mostly chinese and fewer south asian workers who work illegally in the back of restaurants or in underground sweatshops for meager wages and living conditions, again under threat of ICE)
(3) sex trafficking survivors (victims of pimps sold online for sex work)

Only #3 has a significant Black component. Most slaves in America alive today are not Black though.
You forgot wageslaves. Blacks are overrepresented among wageslaves specifically for the aforementioned reason that probably no other group has been systematically, institutionally, culturally and DELIBERATELY barred from building wealth like blacks. There is absolutely a glass ceiling and if you can't acknowledge that possibility I find it funny that you're on a blackpill message board. There are so many parallells between lookism and racism that they are basically the same thing.
 
And you do realize there are scientific, biological arguments for generational trauma (also known as inherited trauma)? That is to say nothing about the immediate social after-affects that followed slavery. You can't just act like the slate was wiped clean.

As for the millions jews who "actually suffered" during the holocaust, I'll leave that one alone for now but it's debatable. Also it seems odd to still be paying billions for something that happened like 80 years ago.
Denying science is bluepill.

Come on bro, don't be an anti-Semite. Was Switzerland unfairly bullied into paying Holocaust reparations? Maybe. Everybody guilty should have paid.

How can you be pro-Black but think whites shouldn't pay reparations for the Judeocide?
 
SURVIVORS. People who actually suffered. Not people who were born many generations later who never knew the suffering.
And you do realize there are scientific, biological arguments for generational trauma (also known as inherited trauma)? That is to say nothing about the immediate social after-affects that followed slavery. You can't just act like the slate was wiped clean.

As for the millions jews who "actually suffered" during the holocaust, I'll leave that one alone for now but it's debatable. Also it seems odd to still be paying billions for something that happened like 80 years ago.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OXbJHsKB3I
 
In the US? Probably. And they exist under 3 main categories:

(1) farm workers (mexican/central-american workers who are enslaved under either debts owed to coyotes or under threat of ICE reporting)
(2) restaurant and sweat shop workers (asian, mostly chinese and fewer south asian workers who work illegally in the back of restaurants or in underground sweatshops for meager wages and living conditions, again under threat of ICE)
(3) sex trafficking survivors (victims of pimps sold online for sex work)

Only #3 has a significant Black component. Most slaves in America alive today are not Black though.

Honestly you would be fucking hard pressed to find a single enslaved black male in the US today unless it was a one-off situation of a mentally handicapped person being taken advantage of. Which of course could happen irrespective of race or sex.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OXbJHsKB3I
 

Similar threads

Takuji Mamiya
Replies
30
Views
1K
Takuji Mamiya
Takuji Mamiya
tired as fuck
Replies
18
Views
927
TheRotKing
TheRotKing
VλREN
Replies
12
Views
1K
kapri
kapri

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top