That's another thing that's not equal. Women would lose their autonomy, their free will. We would have all of the free will.
LifeFuel [Soy] Thousands of Reddit Cucks supporting us on UnpopularOpinion
That's another thing that's not equal. Women would lose their autonomy, their free will. We would have all of the free will.
Good. It's the way nature intended (hence why they'd be happier). We're not biologically equal in any sense. Homosapiens are a patriarchal species
If the society wants men to work, they need to keep men happy
But the most you can ask for is equality. Not supremacy.
You can’t demand pussy. It’s how it’s worked all throughout history. Males with weak genes die out so that the human race evolves as a whole. The least we can ask for is sympathy
Says who?
Not really, in Viking society you could consult with the father of a daughter and ask him to buy her for a sum of money and that's just one example. If you think about it, civilization itself is dependent on enslaving and subjugating female autonomy to varying degrees
There's absolutely zero indication that we're moving in a positive direction where the genepool is concerned, if that's what you care about. IQ scores, testosterone and other indicators of genetic fitness are decreasing among the male population, not increasing. This is in spite of the fact that we live in times where foids are allowed an abnormal amount of autonomy. This would suggest that foids are flawed and even bad selectors when it comes to choosing whom to mate with
D
I agree with you on this. Defending Incels are akin to defending ISIS in Normie minds.
This is what I say too. The best incels can hope for is fighting for awareness and recognition of the problem, there is absolutely no way that people can condone the creation of a new oppressed minority in order to appease another one.
Some normies sympathize with us, but not the majority. If that were the case we'd have legalized prostitution (in the majority of western countries) or assisted suicide by now.
Most of them either don't know about us or think we are a joke. For example:
People always talk the talk but they never want to walk the walk. We live in a flawed reality, the human nature itself is deeply flawed, most people refuse to recognize the evil nature of people and especially foids. I'll just keep accumulating money, status and power and refuse to contribute;you can call me entitled until cows come home, I won't help a society that denies me my most crucial needs. End of story.
Oh, bullshit. Translation: I like guys who are uglier than me to feel bad and keep to themselves so I can feel better about my worthless normie existence. But god forbid if they have a spine and start hating beautiful innocent women online, oh no, can't have that.
Virtue signaling nutless normie scum. This doesn't fool me for a second.
Virtue signaling nutless normie scum. This doesn't fool me for a second.
C
twilightzone fuel
A lot or some normies outside of inceltears actually seem to agree with us, or atleast sympathise with us. Wasn't inceltears once on the front page of reddit and all of the normies shitted on the cucks and landwhales using it?
Typical normie behaviour to feed their egos. "I feel bad for the pathetic sub humans tell me how good of a person I am teehee" goes to work the next day and along with all the other normie faggots bullies the incel of the office.
Then there is this too, it's all well and good these faggots saying how bad they feel for us but what are they actually doing to help us? Nothing, just making themselves feel good by showing others how much they pity us and how they wish they could help us etc.
Typical normie behaviour to feed their egos. "I feel bad for the pathetic sub humans tell me how good of a person I am teehee" goes to work the next day and along with all the other normie faggots bullies the incel of the office.
Last edited:
E
They basically admit everything we say, but since being agreed with inkwel mysegenists is too self-defeating for normies they can't just say yes.
"Women don't owe to date you, of course, and we (cucks) can't force them to. They only want to date Chad so let them do it. What you incels is supposed to do? Get over it."
It is rational to feel as we feel. After a lifetime of being treated unfairly and being denied the basic human affection that everyone else gets for just existing, of course we're going to resent and call out the world for what it truly is. This false/autistic screeching that "YOU'RE NOT OWED ANYTHING" and "women don't owe you (insert here)" will always be idiotic hypocritical nonsense said to try and dismiss a legitimate human need(and no that doesn't mean JUST sex). The desire and right to be treated equal to everyone else(which includes gaining/experiencing all of the same benefits and milestones) are rightfully so. Equal pleasure is how it should be. It is how a truly affective and functioning society should be. Even if this soycuck is just virtue signaling, atleast he's preaching the truth.
Last edited:
Yes, this happened. And it wasn't the last time IncelTears was criticized.
Sympathizing with incels doesn't mean you should want to subjugate other people or condone suicide. I sympathize with incels, I am one. But I'm very much against suicide because I sympathize with incels.
Clap.gif
prostitution is subjugation of women
That guy is an incel or have a brother that is incel. Normies do not sympathize with us and they will never do it in the majority. Always the fault is going to be yours and the women will always come away with any criticism.
Rich coming from someone with an animu avi
While I actually agree with this, it's basically an admission that notions like equality and fairness are unreasonable standards, at least when it comes to life as a whole. Our inceldom is just one facet of a fundamental problem with existence, specifically that to "have" or possess something, then someone else must not have it. The world that you're asking for is one where life bears no energy cost, and it's simply an impossibility.
Do I think it's reasonable that other people (not to mention animals) have to live in destitution to ensure my comfortable life in the west? No, but what exactly can I do about that? Even if I ruled the world, all that could be done is to change who or what has to pay the suffering cost of existence, or change when exactly it must be paid, but the cost would still remain. You can't alter human nature, you can't increase the material wealth of the planet, you can't convince people to stop creating scarcity/have them heed your advice by their own choice, and you can't change the fact that you can only improve life insofar as to mitigate problems caused by it's own existence/that there is no actual positive utility.
Ultimately, if you feel that denying women the freedom of choice in their mates is unreasonable, then you shouldn't be willing to accept any of the rest of this either, and I'd even agree with you. But you have to realize the implication of what it is that you're saying, it's not a principle of striving towards an equal world, rather it's the rejection of any sort of life at all.
I don't think we can make anyone have sex with us. But what we can have is equal treatment and equal rights. Equal esteem. That doesn't take from anyone.
I don't give a fuck about what soycucks think
R
I think you've got a very faulty black and white thinking on this subject. Eg. See this thread:
Men are expected to make changes to our nature in order for society to stand. Why isn't anything expected of women in return?
Women were part of the social contract for thousands of years. Only in the past few decades from feminism have they completely opted out and now have no responsibility whatsoever.
This is a new change. There is no objective reason that a new social contract couldn't be written if enough people will it.
Yes it does take away from others, hence our situation.
Equal rights and treatment demand that the people in question are in fact equal, have the same abilities, and have identical opportunities to one another. This isn't the case, even on a biolocial/genetic level, hence why egalitarianism is both unrealistic and ultimately cruel. That's the myth of "equality of opportunity", it doesn't and simply can't exist, and presupposing that it does exist harms those who don't have access to the same attributes as others.
Equality would be everyone, men and women alike, needing to be better people.
R
Well if women are expected to be better people and contribute to society, it is not unreasonable to expect them to temper their worse impulses and stop being so destructive. ie. Same as what's expected of men.
The social contract is meant to serve society's best interest. Not just one faction (eg. women). Currently it would be inarguable that at the rate we are becoming Japan, which is a failing catastrophe that can't even make enough babies or relationships to stave off a looming credit crisis, what women are being allowed to do (violate the social contract) is not in society's favor:
Japan's 'Virginity Crisis' Threatens Credit Rating
Anthropological sleuths are rightly fascinated by studies showing young Japanese aren’t having much sex. But two more recent data sets suggest this phenomenon may soon be preoccupying bond traders, too.
www.forbes.com
This isn't about "individual liberty". Society is by definition a system of compromised individual liberty for the greater good. There is plenty men must compromise on. What must women today compromise on? Is unrestrained female nature leading to the greater good?
How would it take away from anyone? By "equal treatment" and "equal esteem" I mean society realizes that all people are equally valid and no less a person than the other. That Person A's problems and concerns aren't less important than Person B's.
If you're asking women to stop being racist and dignifying bad people, that's fair. Those are bad things. Men are asked to not do things that infringe upon the rights of others, and so women should be asked to do the same.
R
I'm also asking them to stop rejecting monogamy in favor of feeding Chad's harems. This was expected for thousands of years because their insatiable hypergamy impulse is destabilizing to society.
This has been studied extensively:
Monogamy is good for children, families, men, and society as a whole. When it breaks down kids are more subject to abuse, crime rates rise, and political systems become unstable.
Women are the primary reason monogamy is now failing and it is not a good thing for society.
Amazing read.
That creates quite a problem, so then how do you resolve it? How do you decide that a woman's freedom of choice is more important than our loneliness? As that's ultimately what this amounts to saying.
I mean I think it's fair to say that someone being physically tortured is more urgent, than say, another person being bored for example. But beyond that, conclusions of this nature become more difficult to discern. If you want my subjective analysis, I'd say that ensuring women have the choice available to fuck anyone on a whim is less important than ensuring that someone else has access to any intimacy at all.
Last edited:
But this isn't a thing that infringes on anyone's rights. Our laws aren't based on what keeps society stable, or what an individual "owes" to society, they're based on what an individual owes to another individual. If it takes something from someone or hurts someone in a way they deserve to be protected from being hurt, that's against the law.
By "Everyone's problems and concerns are valid" I don't mean "Your loneliness is important, therefore the government owes you a wife." I mean "Your loneliness is important, so you deserve to be advocated for and positively reinforced."
A lot of what I read is trash. Normies don't know that face is the most important feature, so when they see a fat guy or skinny guy that isn't over 6ft tall that gets laid they think that instantly disproves everything because they think that we think height, and muscles are everything. Another good chunk of them are boomers that didn't have to deal with tinder and social media feeding girls egos and making it easy for them to date and fuck guys way better looking than them.
Well that's only helpful if it's resolves the problem tbh. I'm all for alternative solutions, but telling people that their problems and concerns are valid without actually doing anything to help resolve them, well it amounts to little more than virtue signaling.
Ultimately any actual solution is going to be uncomfortable for someone, hence my first point.
Hey soy bunshins (Guests: 59) we joke like edgelords, but we would never go ER crazy so stop bullying us losers into submission. Be a "decent human being" as you so claim and leave us alone, stop wasting your life attacking virgins and adding fuel to the fire.
Virtue signaling is when you don't actually care and are only in it for brownie points. You can care about incels, but understand that incels aren't the only people with rights.
They're supporting us probably because they are close to being incel themselves
I agree with that, it's just that at some point I feel you have to make a decision regarding which action(or inaction) would prevent the most harm. Maybe we just disagree upon exactly what that would entail.
"of course not the radical ones who hate women"
if he considers just hating women to be radical then he doesn't really support us jfl
if he considers just hating women to be radical then he doesn't really support us jfl
Society doesn't ask "What action/inaction prevents the most harm?" Rights of the individual tends to trump everything else. If a woman's right to not be chattel results in a beta uprising, society isn't gonna be all "We were wrong for not giving men what they wanted, it was truly the more ethical thing to placate men at the expense of women." They would say "No, these betas are wrong for believing their rights matter more than other people's rights."
At least they’re acknowledging that “incel” is now a term used to silence and dehumanize anyone the don’t like.
this
I hate women and don't want the phony empathy of anyone who does not.
R
Wow man. You really have zero testosterone left. Who gets to take from who and who is protected from what are determined based on political and social process. Political and social process is intended to serve society's best interests.
Eg. The government takes my income to feed children of single mothers who are home on welfare because they made bad choices in mate partnership. How is this not harming me to benefit them?
Law changes for example to make divorce more difficult or to incentivize marriage would not violate anyone's rights. You've got such a low IQ perspective on this you don't even realize public policy completely can be used to change people's patterns of behavior and this happens every day.
Part of why women behave the way they do is they know the system is rigged to protect them no matter how they behave. There is no absolute reason it should be designed this way. You imply our current laws and system comes from God and is immutably correct. It is not. It has insane flaws which are what are leading to this situation.
Look at China's one child policy to see how much policy can change a society. In the end that has become a problem for them too but it shows the power or regulation or deregulation of the sexual marketplace. And yes it demonstrates sexuality can absolutely be regulated. Our cucked divorce laws are a perfect example of failed regulation which is damaging children.
In short grow some fucking balls and try to remember what it felt like to be a man who was capable of standing up for something beyond just his hurt feelings.
Don't shit on this redditor and the replies. When normies side with us the foid-chad coalition will fall down and we'll win the war.
The thinking is, it's a social program that everyone benefits from. Like taking your income to fund the police. But you're right, there's valid critiques against welfare programs and even non-incels say this.
It would infringe upon people who want to divorce. It would infringe upon the person who doesn't want to be in the relationship anymore. When it comes to the rights of the individual, the individual has the right to not be in a relationship they don't want to be in.
I'm not saying our laws come from God, but they are pretty much immutable. Once you give people rights, they aren't likely to give them up without a fight. Once you give individuals rights, it's understood that the rights of the individual are more important than anything. You couldn't impose a one-child policy in America without a fight. Because an American family owes American society nothing. It owes American individuals, but not society. An American family isn't obligated to adhere to any standard just for the sake of looking good as part of a whole.
Well even if you made bad choices in life it shouldn't determine whether or not you get help.
Unless you are a perfect being other people will also probably pay for your fuck ups.
Unless you are a perfect being other people will also probably pay for your fuck ups.
R
Your obsession with individual liberty is asinine and misguided. We live in a world where you can be jailed for ordering a plastic sex doll in the mail if it arrives and turns out to have the wrong size and proportions. Where is liberty there?
Laws reshape individual liberty every day. What can't be shaped through laws can be shaped through public shame.
The fact is man you've just completely given up. You're a dead husk of a man. There's nothing left inside you except a desire to be hugged and said "there there". You have no ambition or vision for a better world.
If the feminists were as weak as you they'd still be stuck in the kitchen. The US recently passed one of the biggest restrictions on individual liberty in recent history (mandated health insurance) and it is now more popular than not.
You are being willfully stupid to support your broken soy mind. You are broken so you want to believe you ought to be. But that failure is your own. Maybe once the feminists have finished their subjugation of mankind they will keep you as a housepet.
I'm not saying what society does, I'm saying what it should do. By the same reasoning, I might as well be allowed to rape, since forbidding me from doing so would be a violation of my autonomy and individual rights. See how society has to limit individual freedom to be functional? But I'm saying that it's unacceptable that the sexual excess of women comes at the cost of our inceldom.
This tbqh.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
