Feminism is older than Ancient Greece my nigga
Blame the jews 
You think there was no feminism during the fall of the Roman Empire?
It was the Marxist plan to push it and subvert traditional on ideals.
You realise most women would never date a stereotypically looking Jewish guy right? Why the fuck would the Jews want to promote Lookism in society?Blame the jews
Karl Marx literally kicked Victoria Woodhull out of the communist movement because she advocated free love
Marx was a spoiled rich kid who was lazy and advocated for traditional marriage being dismembered.
That's where you and I differ.
I want a plain playing field. No bullshit taxes or quotas nor nothing. The strong will soar and the weak will plummet. As I am a man, I would either sink or rise, but I still have more of a chance than the average woman (no quotas). But I believe I have the strength of will to succeed in a plain playing field. I don't need no fucking daddy to give me a foid who could even be gross and traumatize me with foid manipulation.
Attachments
stfu faggot
Nigga you already sunk. Chad always wins. You think people would rather do business with an ugly fuck like you rather than tall alpha Chad?
Employees will ask you for a raise, they won't ask Chad for one.
Business partners will try to screw you over. They won't dare with Chad.
People would rather buy what Chad is selling than from you.
Attachments
It's the only way to get artificial wombs. Jeff Bezos would keep that shit secret so men keep giving women money and women keep ordering from Amazon.
He said bigger families should get more resources. How is that dismembering them?
You're the wrong kind of nihilist, nigger. Life isn't "Nothing in life matters...
" it's more like "Nothing in life matters! "And nihilism is wrong anyway, I will find my meaning in the grasp of Athena while you continue to stagnate and LDAR. Or are you buying an arsenal to give out to hundreds of men? If you aren't, you're either a sad sack of shit or a hypocrite who doesn't REALLY believe in the cope you chose.
How old are you again?You're the wrong kind of nihilist, nigger. Life isn't "Nothing in life matters...
And nihilism is wrong anyway, I will find my meaning in the grasp of Athena while you continue to stagnate and LDAR. Or are you buying an arsenal to give out to hundreds of men? If you aren't, you're either a sad sack of shit or a hypocrite who doesn't REALLY believe in the cope you chose.
We're around the same age, I'm 26. The only difference is I'm manic and you're neurotic. I see us as having the same psychological profile, but you chose the wrong path to glory.
I've created lots of threads about possible implementations, check them out
The problem about that is that although people do admit in theory that you "cannot derive an ought from an is", everyone does it all the time in practice. The reason is that people will all agree that certain statements of value are not controversial, like "everyone should have enough food to eat" or "every man should have access to sex and intimacy". Because these "oughts" are non-controversial, if you have a theory that appears to make satisfying one of these requirements possible (an "is"), it automatically becomes an "ought". Marxism works like this
They do if you understand them as JTBs because of the "justified" aspect. The word "justified" comes from "justice", obviously, and therefore implies the idea of a court of justice. The J in JTB therefore implies (without clearly owning up to it) that a body must exist to do the justifying. Again, this is the main weakness of the JTB approach and it has been pointed out a number of times. Usually, JTBs are understood to be justified by appeals to "the scientific consensus" or some such. You have to admit that it is hard to justify the existence of the Higgs Boson without an appeal to "the scientific community". Obviously, neither you or I can provide this kind of justification on our own.
I think that the existence of this "ministry of truth", as you aptly put it, is precisely the consequence of the JTB approach. As I said above, the J in JTB makes the existence of such a "ministry" almost inevitable.
However, if you replace "justification" with trust, then the problem disappears. You are just left with "trusted beliefs" resting on the trust one has in a concrete group of people (with names, known bios, etc). In the end only people exist. Institutions always end up vanishing into thin air (like the Soviet Union or the Baath Party) or being transformed into the opposite of what they were supposed to be (like the CDC). Abstractions are even more open to abuse than institutions.
Last edited:
I'll admit that you are more well-read than me in a similar lifespan, though it only put delusions in your head it seems.
Yep
This is unavoidable if you remove trust (i.e. authority) from the equation of belief.
This is why the idea of "knowledge" resting on "truth" (without any appeal to trust) is an open door to the kind of abuse we are seeing here.
I thoroughly enjoy how this thread has become a total shit show. Marxism always leads to that anyways. Makes me think of the scenes of chaos at the end of Dostoevsky's Possessed
He's still here and he hasn't replied.
Are we or are we not psychologically the same, @mlcurrycel ?
Are we or are we not psychologically the same, @mlcurrycel ?
I had never noticed that your name revealed that you are a Frenchcel. Honestly, I hadn't fully read it
On l'a tous dans l'os
@Pajeetsingh - no
It's a case of monkey see monkey do. I saw someone called that in an FPS game and I liked it very much. Only later did I realise it was French. I'm not French, you can figure out where I am from just by searching really hard.
Ok. I see. In French, it is a really common expression
B
So basically, Marxism commits the logical errors in reasoning that, by default, invalidates their philosophy and alleged super moral position from the start.
But how does "everyone do it all the time?" Give me some every day examples, if it's that prevalent.
This is all sophistry. Unintentional, I hope.
When somebody says, "I believe that A is true, because of evidences X, Y and Z," they're not implicitly saying that they have that approval from a body that has reached consensus on X, Y and Z. If you believe that science is advanced through consensus, then you don't understand how science is conducted. The methodology is there so that anyone can do the science, given enough resources and the requisite understanding. I may not be able to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson on my own, because I'm not a trained particle physicist and don't have acres of land with a particle accelerator underground, but I can do the next best thing which is to educate myself on the topic and read the reports (papers) of their experiments.
If I prove a theorem, I don't need other mathematicians to agree with my proof to then be passed with a seal of approval to the Ministry of Science. If the logic is consistent, then anyone could follow it and reach the same true conclusion.
This doesn't make any sense. Such an institution would be the result of a polity that enacts such a thing into existence, not the result of data and fact driven conclusions from a universal methodology.
OK, good luck with that.
Last edited:
The global warming people do it all the time, and so do "progressives" of all stripes.
If they say "I believe that the Higgs Boson exists because of physics papers X, Y and Z", yes, this is exactly what they are doing. Here "the body" is the particle physics community, an in particular CERN.
It is the same if you say: "I believe Stalin murdered all old communists in the 1920s because I have read papers by historians who have seen the old Soviet archives" Here, "the body" is the community of historians specialized in the USSR who have had access to the said archives (quite a small group)
In such situations (and they are many), you have only two choices.
- Either you believe in JTBs and you have to posit (implicitly at least) the existence of a body that justifies the evidence because you cannot do it yourself.
- Or you just accept an account that only relies on "trusted beliefs". I am perfectly ok with saying "I believe that the Higgs exist because I trust the guys at Cern" or "I trust that Stalin did such and such because I read it in a book by Steven Kotkin and I trust the guy"
@SlayerSlayer or @TheProphetMuscle could you please pin this thread? It would be interesting to see what numbers the poll gets eventually
Fucking based
what is that?
I liked your thread about escort/paid sex being the only allowed sex and separating making children from having sex. because it is realistic actually (compared to many others)
I liked your thread about escort/paid sex being the only allowed sex and separating making children from having sex. because it is realistic actually (compared to many others)
You mean this thread?
Yes, I think we are going to come to that eventually. It will be the final result of the "Sexual Revolution"
Uh?Blame the jews
Nigga you think Athena is real
St Brandon bless you with big booty bitches
Nigga I was sleeping, heard of it?
Marxists Rodgerists will use CRISPR gene editing to redistribute the genetic wealth
@proudweeb Please do not pin this poll (which my side is winning) because it is a shit poll with no objective commonly agreed upon definition given
and made by a person biased against Marxism Rodgerism who created a second thread where he pestered SF cels to vote No
and made by a person biased against Marxism Rodgerism who created a second thread where he pestered SF cels to vote No
Marxism-Rodgerism. Opinions?
It may seem difficult to understand the realities of the blackpill. It may be hard to come to terms with how - and why - the world functions as it does. And even when you do, it is even harder to understand where to go next. But there is one set of techniques which shines a clear light on the...
incels.is
Imagine the DMV equivalent of a woman. Obese (500+lbs), never showers/shaves, terrible attitude, always late, and aggressively black.
No. I'd rather fuck a goat. Call me volcel, but I know that this system will produce Chernobyl tier foids. Foids so worthless a warmed up watermelon will have more sex appeal. As an escortcel who has had both terrible experiences and non terrible experiences, I can tell you that your government provided prostitute/gf will drive you to rope/homicide faster than rotting alone.
The government will force her to be thin and shave. The government will raise her from birth to be feminine. And there's always other ways to discipline women. Such as perfectly pacifist monetary incentives (inb4 FBI fucko's me)
The results are telling. Despite all the efforts of @mlcurrycel, the yes vote is only barely in the lead. The fact the Marxism-Rodgerism divides the Incel community is indisputable
The government can make all the rules they want. They will degrade and be broken eventually as has happened with so many other laws and rules before. All it takes is a few men who believe the bullshit women will tell them and "poof", there goes your patriarchal system. Just like what is happening globally as women continue to gain unearned and unneeded rights. If the power brokers in your proposed system feel as though women having power will give them power, then both our asses are grass.
The only solution is to replace women entirely with machines and AI. Artificial wombs and sexbots/holographs/VR/AR AI powered waifus. This is the only solution that will solve the female question that we have been fighting for 3000+ years.
It swings like a pendelum between being barely in the lead to wildly in the lead. Probably has to do with timezones. I'm clearly winning.
BTW the post in my signature just got into Must Read because people in this thread kept asking for a definition of Marxism Rodgerism.
If you call dividing the Incel community nearly 50/50 winning, then yes, you are
Get mad son, you're the one that started a poll that showed me so many incels support me. I thought no one was taking me seriously until now. I've convinced multiple No voters to switch to Yes. I just keep winning.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
