Serious thread(encouragement thot included):

>technobabble

Well. Fuck you? But you almost got it right, I believe outliers matter, but the current moral ethos does not allow us a common sense attitude and we need a radical change

corr blimey lads imagine her stepping on yer balls

Attached: gpTdtZse_400x400.jpg (391x391, 19K)

makes sense
exceptions can fuck themselves.
i don't want their degeneracy to spread.
and you can't tell me that their shit isn't spreading.
they need less rights, not more.

thanks for the tldrs though.

>tfw I'm talking to a Palestinian chick who looks EXACTLY like OP's pic
life is good.

Some exceptions are useful. A handful of women contributed to our scientific development in a significant way.

I don't claim the "exceptional" behaviour should be encouraged or even normalized. But if a situation exists, it should be recognized as peculiar and some special measures should be taken. Don't you agree?

>we need a radical change
why? Common sense? Whose common sense? Mines says to treat all people with respect, and not discriminate against individuals. Yours says the majority rules and the minority can get fucked?

Don't take it personal, I agree with you, you just went the long way around to make a point.

You understood very little of what I wrote.

My "common sense" stance is the one with discrimination occurring but exceptions being recognized

Upvoted!

Fuck you, I understood you just fine, you need to die.

Thanks, but if you could compose a rational argument on why I'm wrong I would appreciate it more

I will die too sooner or later

I think he's just avoiding that topic for career reasons, which I don't see any issue with. The man doesn't have to be Gandhi to be an advocate of truth. The race/iq and related topics can be for the masses so no individual gets into too much trouble and is used as an example.

Radical change is required and will be implemented within the next 5 years as fembots and artificial wombs become available. Biocunts will go obsolete

That's where our society was maybe 20 years ago. Once they started start mandating wheelchair ramps in public spaces and printing government form in three languages it went down the slippery slope quickly - every aspect of society has to be redesigned to accommodate outliers of every sort.

She's more likely to want Tyrone than to further the white race, biocunts are too kiked to be a viable proposition

Basically structuralism
>gender and sex are the same
>respect the natural order
Vs
Constructivism
>it’s a social construct
>let it be a choice and encourage it

At the conservative end of the spectrum you eat Kellogg’s, sodomy (including oral) is a sin and you only use your dick to piss and procreate

At the progressive end, you’re a degenerate faggot with a gapping ass, cross dressing and considering removing your penis surgically

We’ll never go back to one and two already is at maximum and staling so it’s a non issue
Also not political at the end of the day

>some special measures should be taken
could you elaborate? in the case of women in science and technology they generally use the same avenues as men. acknowledging their contributions isnt really a "special measure".

Shut the fuck up Ahmed
She belongs to Big French Baguette

Attached: 1uwrz8xac1k21.jpg (1080x720, 69K)

>A strict association between sex and gender is objective.
sex and gender are the exact same thing. The "gender is a cultural concept" argument is bs. There are different standards in different cultures about what is "feminine" and what is "masculine", but that's about it. Gender is a made up word

You said very little, in actuality

stop posting degenerate thots

Are you a shitskin or a Kike?

Attached: white_women_white_pill.jpg (3000x2561, 773K)

So the relentless barrage of Jewish produced inter racial porn, msm encouraging women to be sluts and not fulfill their biological role is all totally wasted on...
Oh she's posing half naked, kiked biocunt who will be replaced with fembots and artificial wombs

>You said very little, in actuality
This. The OP could have been stated in a sentence. Without specifics here the argument is moot.

Neither, women are too kiked to be redeemed, the future of the white race is fembots and artificial wombs

Female education is correlated with lower birthrates. This is a problem. Most women who go to university will end up in a tertiary sector job, teaching or some soft science field, not in STEM.

Gifted women should be allowed to go to university for STEM fields(and maybe medicine?) and that's how I would include outliers while still mantaining an overall discriminating approach. I'm up for suggestions.

no
face it, we've had two million years of evolution as hominids. The sexes evolved differently, both physically and in their behaviors. We are only 10,000 years into 'civilization' and I dont care what social climate you try to change, you can't undo a million years of evolution without reversing the process over the next million years.

Females were the gatherers. Gathering was safer and did not risk the childbearing females, especially with a baby clinging to their hip. Females reproduced nearly every year so were in a constant state of child-bearing, though few children lived to adulthood. They evolved to shriek and run at danger, which alerted the males to come protect the family group/clan/tribe/village. If most of the males died, the females who ran would still survive and replace the killed population. Because they were gatherers, they evolved a spatial memory that males did not; they could remember exactly where the specific plant grew from one year to the next, and see it among all the other fucking green plants. Today that ability transfers to socks and every other thing in the females environment. Females evolved to cast weaker men aside when a stronger one showed up. This improved their survival and the survival of their children. Females evolved to rely on their sexual skills to get and keep men (so they would have a protector) and ensure their own survival. They evolved to be in competition with each other to ensure their own survival. Not their fault, a tribe can come back with just 1 male and 10 females; its a behavior that evolved to ensure the species.

You get the picture. there is no 'ideology'. only science.

Attached: dick stomp.webm (1116x720, 2.87M)

oh fuck me I changed my mind

Attached: eyes.jpg (222x227, 9K)

Attached: 1518643320863.jpg (500x500, 47K)

this has to be fake

These "gifted women" would be better off being a mother instead specifically because they have higher intelligence and thus would be a better mother to begin with. IQ is also 80% heritable, so having as many children would be preferable.

Regardless, your policy would stand no chance of being implemented, as you're not identifying the real problem: STEM itself. As long as advanced technology exists the current system will be propped up.

I am afraid that if I write too much nobody is going to answer the thread. Do you want me to elaborate on something specific? The overall picture is already there and I'm glad it's not too complex.

Gender was a concept created by a twisted pedophile. We should throw out the concept of gender and only use biological sex invidio.us/watch?v=6kjAiVAzJ_Q

Attached: 1499587221932.jpg (350x708, 39K)

yikes and oofpilled

Evolution is merely a hypothesis

>These "gifted women" would be better off being a mother instead specifically because they have higher intelligence and thus would be a better mother to begin with. IQ is also 80% heritable, so having as many children would be preferable.

I had considered this idea but isn't a regression towards the mean IQ likely for the offspring of gifted people?

>Regardless, your policy would stand no chance of being implemented, as you're not identifying the real problem: STEM itself. As long as advanced technology exists the current system will be propped up

Did you also read the Unabomber manifesto? I have some doubts about his ideas, I don't believe a Luddite approach is reasonable, mostly because I don't think it has ever worked. We should probably exploit technology for our own goals.

Biocunts have become so divorced from their biological role they are no longer fit for purpose

>Gender as a culturally deterministic concept is wrong
i think its really important for us to recognize the actual definition and history of the term "gender". the main problem is that, using the leftist/liberal definition of gender, they are technically correct. in its modern context, it is a term whose existence and acknowledgement is an acknowledgement of their argument. it is very much like the recent change to the definition of racism. they have decided that racism is no longer simply racial based prejudice, but an entire emergent structure of a white majority society. in much the same way, gender is no longer the same as biological sex, but the aspect of a personality which deals with how one views their sex and its roles in relation to society. the main issue that these changes of definition have given rise to is that they are used disingenuously. they will insist that anti-white racial prejudice not be called racism, and claim that they are only doing so to be precise in their language and definitions, they are technically correct, but their motives are actually to lessen the negative connotations. they know that "racism" is WORSE than "racial prejudice" and will as such insist that the "correct terminology" is used. gender is similar. by changing the definition of gender to the basically trivial distinction of the part of the persona that deals with sex and its cultural implications, they have conflated the significance of a small psychological entity with an objective biological fact. this is the issue. they correct your definition of gender, then you must agree that psychology is somewhat subjective (because it is a baseless area of study), then therefor gender must be subjective. this connotation of gender then "carries" that subjectivity to the original definition of gender (biological sex) and you end up with the "confusion" and discrepancy that so often plagues the gender/sex debate.

sex and gender where synonymous not too long ago
they literally changed the definition

> we should probably exploit technology for our own goals.

Fembots and artificial wombs will be available within 5 years

psuedo science. you can't into all the factors involved in
>million years of evolution

>I had considered this idea but isn't a regression towards the mean IQ likely for the offspring of gifted people?
The idea is that by having many children, being a better mother, and those children inheriting a high IQ the impact her offspring have on society outweighs whatever impact the mother would have if she focused on a career. Especially if she has several genius level sons.

>I have some doubts about his ideas
I don't think we can tear it all down. Ted, like Marx, got the diagnosis right but the solution incorrect. I'm saying that your proposal doesn't work, however, because it is a function of the current system and the current system requires the exploitation we're currently experiencing. Just take a look at the birthrates in every single developed country.

I've been thinking about taking the black pill.
>there's no saving us. Because there's almost nothing worth saving.

Yes, they exploit this semantical trick to create confusion, we should probably point it out more often

What do you propose? Let's say it's technology the problem, you don't want to tear it all down, you don't want to keep it, what do you want?

Or maybe you are not sure? If we remain behind other countries in technology, we are going to lose eventually, regardless of our system, aren't we?

have you looked into John Money and David Reimer? fucking horrifying

We should stop pussyfooting around the issues at hand and become a global technocracy.

Super computers exist to serve humanity, not exploit an old and obsolete pyramid scheme.

It would take 2-3 generations to turn things around if we placed more emphasis on teaching science and not emotional group identity politics.

.....shit
i feel the same way sometimes....its getting harder and harder to get up in the morning

I've been searching for a solution for a long time now and the conclusion I've come to is that there is none. A return to traditionalism is not going to happen. You can try to live your life as traditional as possible, but society as a whole has abandoned it for good. The best we can do is take the honkpill and ride the Kali Yuga into oblivion.

Attached: honk honk.png (848x887, 571K)

Attached: Euphoria.gif (362x270, 1.22M)

I can't do that. I can't let myself go like that.

Historically technology created problems and later on it resolved them. Think about factory workers in the 19th to early 20th century, they lived like shit but the technological and economic progress they contributed to led to a comfortable life for a lot of people in the mid to late 20th century,

I think technology can be the solution. Maybe fembots can balance the power of women and turn them into decent people again? I don't know user, I want to fix this shit. I refuse to believe WW2 was the last opportunity for a massive change.

in the future don’t make a thread if the image is more interesting than the post
t. didn’t read whatever you wrote

>comfortable life
This is part of the problem.

>I refuse to believe WW2 was the last opportunity for a massive change.
Had the Nazis won, the system would have eventually degenerated into what we have now it just would have taken much longer. The Jews have accelerated the problem. I understand you don't want to "give up", and you don't have to at the individual level—like I said you can still try to live as traditional as possible. But you're looking for a societal wide solution that doesn't exist.

I remember seeing the one where the woman accidently punctures the bloke's ballsack with her stiletto heel and it starts bleeding heavily.

>what are ya doing in me pockets

We all want this shit fixed, Italiabro fren. But there's few of us, and we're scattered, and low in power, and the systems driving the collapse are elaborate and potent.
Do any of us even know what to believe anymore? Do we even know what to hope for? I think the Honkpill is most of us - not giving up, but perhaps knuckling under.

You seem to have a deterministic view of our society.

Do you really believe there is no chance, as insignificant as it may be, that this situation might be fixed? I believe this is quite unrealistic, we live in a probabilistic universe, user. There is a certain set of actions, events, factors, that can solve it all. We might never solve it but there is almost certainly a solution. If you never try you are going to lose for sure

I still haven't seen a viable solution presented, so yes it does seem like we're not going to change course. Outside of an asteroid wiping out 99% of humanity and starting over, that is.

What sort of fucktard gets their jollies this way?

Attached: Thot provoking.jpg (768x491, 100K)

If you believe technology leads to almost deterministic results what would be the point of starting over? We are always going to reach this point.

Correct. It would be a short term solution, but in the end it will always be the same. Why would you expect something so radical, the development of which increases exponentially, to not change traditional society? They're mutually exclusive.

What you're essentially arguing is that there must be a solution. Why? There are certain things that are deterministic. Death, for example.

Peterson isn't wrong on everything. He's closer to truth I imagine on many things he speaks on. It's just matter of the things in which his is wrong on, matter an extremely great deal.

To put it bluntly, niggers throw a monkey wrench in any blind-eyed near-absolute libertarian idealism. Peterson practically is condensed libertarian idealism in his stance, minus some rational sexism he holds. Realize said problem with low iq brown people, or, be foolish and wrong and see your ideology fully fail. Peterson chooses to be foolish and wrong for sake of idealist feels. This in effect makes Peterson a gatekeeper for the same sort of opposing views he himself supposedly stands against, intentionally or unintentionally.

>Why would you expect something so radical, the development of which increases exponentially, to not change traditional society? They're mutually exclusive.

If the right people were in charge of tech development maybe technology could be railroaded in a certain direction. So I guess I have to be against the free market now. Fuck.

>What you're essentially arguing is that there must be a solution. Why? There are certain things that are deterministic. Death, for example.

Immortality might be possible, what do you know? I am not sure there is a solution, it just seems unlikely for a solution not to exist. Imagine a 1984-tier dictatorship which has the goal to prevent technological progress. Unlikely but not impossible.

FUCK WOMEN

Differences show themselves naturally in a free society. When governments try to impose their utopian vision of equality, then someone is having their rights infringed upon. Looking for similarities as opposed to differences in culture to find a better understanding of differences between genders.

>If the right people were in charge of tech development maybe technology could be railroaded in a certain direction.
>Imagine a 1984-tier dictatorship which has the goal to prevent technological progress.
Can't happen. Technology yields power. Has there been any indication whatsoever throughout human history that it's possible to stifle technological progress over the long term?

>it just seems unlikely for a solution not to exist
Why? When you haven't see a solution presented, after thousands of years of the greatest thinkers pondering the question, you usually infer that there is none unless shown otherwise. Not everything has a solution.

Does that make the Jews the true accelerationists?

>Has there been any indication whatsoever throughout human history that it's possible to stifle technological progress over the long term?

The Middle Ages?

It's not the same thing though, industrialization changed everything, so I guess the answer is no.

>Why? When you haven't see a solution presented, after thousands of years of the greatest thinkers pondering the question, you usually infer that there is none unless shown otherwise. Not everything has a solution.

Industrialization has been around for 250 years. And maybe the solution is out there but nobody has adopted it.

>serious thread
>posts whore
Opinion discarded

Yes, but it depends on what you mean by 'accelerationism'. Do you mean just accelerating the rate of something? In that case, yes. But usually, 'accelerationism' assumes that whatever you're accelerating towards is unstable and will thus collapse. Whatever the Jews are accelerating will not collapse and that's what we've been discussing. The technological system becomes stronger over time.

>Industrialization has been around for 250 years. And maybe the solution is out there but nobody has adopted it.
The philosophy and theory of technology has been around much longer. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it is highly unlikely all things considered. That is, unless someone can show that traditional society and technology can coexist over the long term.

The term gender was created by a pedophile jew scientist who made two brothers perform sex acts on each other while one was brainwashed to be a girl.

>A strict association between sex and gender is objective. It exists. It is tangible. Evolutionary psychology and neurobiology confirm it.
This isn't remotely true. Sex does not determine whether or not someone wears a dress/makeup, speaks in a feminine voice, or occupies a feminine role in the household and society.
Even if you take "gender" to mean the neurological expression of sex, this has been shown to not always correspond with biological sex in fMRI studies on cis and trans brains.

>Sex does not determine whether or not someone wears a dress/makeup, speaks in a feminine voice, or occupies a feminine role in the household and society.

There is only a massive correlation between those behaviours and sex

strict =/ deterministic

To be fair, strict might not be the right word to use. But I hope you get what I mean

I mentioned neurobiology because men and women have different brains with different average size. This alone could be used as basis to explain difference in intellectual achievement

It was a pleasure talking to you. I hope we make it

Likewise. Thanks for the thread. This board could use less shitposting and more discussion of ideas.

KYS YOU MARXIST FAGGOT

If you put a basically naked ass in my face as the thumbnail I refuse to take your thread seriously

why isn't blood squirting out from his dick?

She and I could be happily raising our 6 children, but she is too busy having her whore pictures taken.

Women are sexdolls, who know that their power is on their potency on luring men into their schemes.

Beautifully crafted by nature to ruin and leech men dead.

Fuck them hoes.

Attached: ift.jpg (463x759, 165K)

If you have a dick you are man, i don't give a shit how you feel about your dick man.

>technobable
Carefully laying down an argument is now being pedentic. The absolute state of Jow Forums.

Reminder that these savages don't even hide their intentions.

>John Bolton admits to lying and deceiving the public
youtu.be/WGvoX9GMml8

>Israel Lobbyist calls for false flag to start Iran war
youtu.be/LTcCivoG3mo

>That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War
archive.is/5HhZ8

archive.is/fbXqU
>It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, “Project for the New American Century,” which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

>The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Trump has grown frustrated with national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as their hawkish posture risks spiraling out of control.
washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-frustrated-by-advisers-is-not-convinced-the-time-is-right-to-attack-iran/2019/05/15/bbf5835e-1fbf-4035-a744-12799213e824_story.html

>We need to guard against another mistake in the Middle East. Here’s how the march to war has begun.
>Break with Europe, Russia and China and withdraw from a nuclear deal that had completely stopped Iran’s work to build a nuclear bomb? Check. Unilaterally reimpose sanctions designed to cripple Iran’s economy, without buy-in from our allies? Check. Take the unprecedented step of designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a move consistently opposed by U.S. military leaders? Check. Move the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group and a bombing wing into Iran’s backyard? Check.
eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/14/donald-trump-john-bolton-mike-pompeo-war-iran-column/1192516001/

youtu.be/hLuG98Yithg
JFK's efforts against Israeli nuclear program, which led to his assassination.