I was a counter-terror analyst back in my military days, and these guys [incels] are following the exact same patterns of self-radicalization that religious extremists do.
North American (and to a certain degree European) self-radicalization all starts with a young man feeling isolated and antagonized, and when he seeks out a support community, he is found by a toxic group that seeks to indoctrinate this vulnerable young man to their agenda. They offer community, a shoulder to cry on, sympathy, understanding -- they use these emotional ties to alienate the target from their IRL peers and potential support systems.
ISIS and its predecessor AlQaeda are prime examples of groups that do this. White supremacists, and other right-wing Christian identity groups, do it too, but they tend to follow the European model due to regional differences that I won't go into. The "manosphere" seems to have become one of these groups -- only instead of being motivated by religious doctrine/control or rage at diminishing social status, they are motivated by a desire to share their misery.
It's so hard to catch this sort of thing because teenagers get angry. As a teenage girl, I listened to angry rock and went on tirades on the internet and disrespected authority. Teenage boys are culturally expected to be even more volatile. Where is the line of detection? How do we separate teenage angst from the precursors to violence?
We need to target the online enclaves and echo-chambers that enable radicalization, yes -- but we also need to bolster community support and detection mechanisms -- the US government did a lot of outreach to mosques, in an effort to encourage community interventions, for example. Where is the mechanism to catch this kind of attitude and pre-emptively offer the support he's seeking? What do we need to implement?
The thing is, radical Islam and Christianity etc. are fundamentally based on bullshit religions. The "radical Incels" are based on objective realities in our current society, mating strategies of females, bullying, etc. The only way to stop it, is to put an end to the gynocentric society. You will NEVER be able to monitor or control the literal millions (perhaps even more as time goes on) of young men who find themselves screwed. It's literally not even possible computationally let alone with human power. I think this is going to be the beginning of the end for western society, and when Islam takes over, and cements it's rule via artificial intelligence, the rest of human history is set in stone.
Jordan Johnson
The bad thing is that west is like 5-20 years late depending on the individual. The obvious thing is that you need to make schools places where everyone gets along and feels like he has a place in a community. Personally I like the way army treats people regarding this; you cut their hair, you put em in similar clothing and you pressure them to work as a team. I would also advise that boys and girls be split in to different class rooms so there's no distractions and boys can be free with their peers and not have a dickwaving contest, because there's a fucking roastie around.
Anthony Rodriguez
>As a teenage girl you know what to do
but in all seriousness, anyone non-retarded can tell the difference between male angst and violence. if government agencies didn't base their recruiting process on hypersocial nepotism and affirmative action, you'd have the right people on payroll already
Jaxson Ramirez
>as a teenage girl
Aaron Miller
Also get rid of female teachers, they're fucking useless cunts most of the time and can't control boys.
Luke Hughes
>be lonely and forgotten by everybody >make threats online >FBI shows up at my door >finally someone to talk to that takes me seriously
Its the perfect plan.
Ayden Fisher
Fortunately incels aren't organized enough to do any real harm. Maybe every once in a while somebody from incel forums will snap and go on a rampage. But they're not like organizing ways to fuck with people or encouraging specific kinds of attacks and showing people how to do them because a. I'm sure they realize that would be the fastest way to get their hugboxes shut down and b. they're too busy complaining about normies and Chad
Aaron Reyes
Well its kinda like a self fulfilling prophecy. If you further stigmatize male virginity where are they going to turn? Instead of demonizing incels they need to help find coping methods or hell just help them improve to the point they can lose it naturally. You treat a person like a psycho and it should be no surprise when one day they go on a psychotic rampage.
Jayden Sullivan
Yes, I saw this post by that roastie filth on Reddit. Kek and they wonder why the US military is declining and becoming worse every year when they staff their ranks with subhuman femoid cunts.
Don't worry, as more and more men get fed up with society, they will drop out of the army and police, and then what remains will be filled up with roasties, trannies and homosexuals. Then foreign powers would absolutely BTFO it.
Xavier Torres
>As a teenage girl Lol youre telling me women work at the fucking counter-terror units? No wonder we dont fucking stop anyone these days. Arabs and any fucking crazy can just shoot some place up or van everyone without counter terrorism doing a goddamn fucking thing to prevent it. Bet you're a fucking tranny, military has a lot of trannyfaggots in disguise.
Fuck your dogshit fucking faggot opinion nobody believes in radicalization. Made up fucking term you counter cucks made up to apologize for muslims being violent savages.
> potential support systems there are no real support systems for robots and barely any healthy ones for men- because unlike radical terrorists thee issues arent based of some sand monkeys imaginary friend but objective measures in society. if you hopped off your princess carousel youd realise that, vile wench
Charles Adams
>the US government did a lot of outreach to mosques, in an effort to encourage community interventions, for example. DIDNT WORK LOL
Brody Bell
>Fortunately incels aren't organized enough to do any real harm. but you don't GET IT dude it's the WHITES doing it they're fucking nasty and dangerous
Ian Hernandez
Radical religions also claim to be based on objective realities. You can dismiss incel arguments by saying they make bullshit excuses to justify their lack of social experience.
Same crap honestly. Comparing incels to religion or any similar cult is reasonable once they go apeshit and kill other people. As of now it's just memes, and the Toronto dude had many other issues for sure.
However the potential threat is there. I read somewhere that there's nothing more dangerous than an angry young man. Whenever a war pops up, who are both sides trying to convice to fight on it? Yeah... Pack a bunch of angry young dudes and no matter how autistic or weak-looking they are you have a threat. Also fucking guns exist in this era, and vehicles can also be used as shown in 9/11 and all these trucks in Europe. Like come on, mass murder by a single person has never been easier. People have a reason to be afraid.
Jaxon Watson
>women >in military
rofl
Brandon Parker
>As a teenage girl Opinion discarded. You are not welcome here, roastie toastie.
It's not the same crap. You can look up OBJECTIVE data that shows that women go for the top men, that most men have no success in data apps, that women are hypergamous, etc. What I mean by this, is unlike religions which are built a little more on sand, the incel's arguments are impossible to hide to anyone living in modern society. So unlike religion, which you can control via community outreach or whatever, the only way to stop the incel shit is literally forcing women to be monogamous and end their hypergamous sexual selection strategy.
Joshua Hernandez
Yeah, I mean let's look at what incels and radical religious groups have in common:
>group ideology you must adhere to to be accepted by the community >isolate members from society and make them hate everyone else >persecution complex where all opposition is considered persecution by people who are evil and hate the group >encourage members to become martyrs by attacking their enemies >cult of personality i.e. around Elliot Rodger
It doesn't really matter if it's not a religion in the sense that it doesn't have a God. Political groups and in this case social movements can become cults too.
Julian Sanders
Tl;dr, incels wants to be known. Bash 'em, don't clear mines for 'em.
t. roadmine specialist(kek)
Leo Morales
Lmao sure, but incels are fundamentally just angry robots with everything that makes them human stripped away from them (E.g. Ability to reason, empathy for other people). They're mentally deranged and deserve to be treated as such.
Liam Foster
Conventionally attractive people are attractive to more people. Who did you have a crush on when you were younger? Stacy or Susan the overweight girl that was also bullied by other girls?
I'll go ahead and say that teenage girls that feel left aside have more tools to become more accepted by society than boys in the same situation. Way more actually, and I hate saying that but it feels very true to me. How ever, the problem goes beyond "I can't stick my pee pee in a hole reee", people complaining about THAT and using it to justify any kind of privilege that women may have is just retarded.
No one can force anyone to restrict their own freedom, at least not anytime soon. Monogamy was not what you think it was. People have always cheated on their partners. Women in general were just forced to marry a fucking useless sack of shit with no redeeming qualities that lived in their hometown because there wasn't any other way for them to make a living. Now they have a choice, just like everyone else had. Everyone has more choices, really. Just go on with life, we are better off than those folks 100 years ago, trust me.
Just take sex out of the equation and reevaluate the situation. Then add it again if you wish.
Juan Powell
>How ever, the problem goes beyond "I can't stick my pee pee in a hole reee", people complaining about THAT and using it to justify any kind of privilege that women may have is just retarded. I agree with this completely. >Women in general were just forced to marry a fucking useless sack of shit with no redeeming qualities that lived in their hometown because there wasn't any other way for them to make a living. This is bullshit. Men who work are not useless sacks of shit. The problem is that women refuse to marry men who make less than them or whatever, even though there's no point to that. What is happening is women are becoming "equal" while NOT giving up hypergamy. This can not work long term, no matter how much you may want it. If women are equal, then they can't only look for "superior" men. If women want to throw away their gender role, then they can't expect men to have to live up to ours. However, this isn't happening. Women can do whatever they want, but men who don't pick up their slack are "manchildren" "refuse to grow up" "entitled" or best case scenario, "i'm just not attracted to you". On top of all of it, women are universally submissive, yet desire to be treated as "equal". Well, the personal is political, so you can't have that either. This fundamental hypocrisy is not sustainable.
Henry Scott
The women you describe are the ones that then complain about "muh real men are gone". They are also the ones that you notice because they are, of course, the ones that make noise. They stay single. If they end up marrying someone that tolerates all their bullshit then that's not you problem, nor mine. You don't want anything to do those women, trust me. The rest just live their life as usual.
I've been noticing gender roles going away, really. Men aren't perpetuating their role just because they work and make money. They make money but don't have to feed an entire family and bust their ass all week. It's imposssible and I do see that as a problem. Having a family is expensive nowdays, it takes two salaries and that barely reaches, plus kids are growing up in daycare centers...
By the way, men that don't pick up their slack (you mean find a woman and marry her, I guess) are not being shamed. Not at all. Only cunts and sad fucks do that because of jealousy. Single men are being celebrated and glorified, look around; and this has nothing to do with self proclaimed MGTOWs and all this modern labels.
Something work related that prevails is manual work being done mainly by men, that's right. It may seem unfair, but in the end is just less competition for a potential job. The problem comes, obviously, when those fields pay shit wages, but this is a consequence of industralization and the qualification needed for higher positions. This is a huge problem already and I don't even know how things will turn out.
Camden Reed
Id rather live 100 years ago without any modern luxuries and live in a cave if it meant I could have sex.
Jackson Rivera
>Single men are being celebrated and glorified, I must have missed my celebration party then cause ive been single since I was born and been going on strong now for 24 straight years.
William Gomez
>I think this is going to be the beginning of the end for western society
Most definitley. In the 30s it was already postuled that a gynocentric society cannot survive with an excess oof man. Never worked in the past, will not work now. It just goes against the human nature.
The sad part is that it's probably too late to turn around. All the signs were there, people warned for at least 10 years that the direction we're heading is dangerous and will blow up massivley in the face of fucking everyone. Yet, instead of talking and trying to find a solution to the problem, the majority rather keeps the illusion up that everything is fine and "incels" just need to work on themselves and everything will work out when that is simply not the case anymore.
Jason Gonzalez
>You can dismiss incel arguments by saying they make bullshit excuses to justify their lack of social experience
Thank god for dating apps and online dating sites then. All of them prove time and time again that woman only want the top 20% of men, the rest is practically non-existant to them. A man who isn't in that upper crop in every way possible, is screwed and will end up divorceraped or simply lonley. And with divorce laws heavily staggered towards woman even those who could enter a monogamus relationship and most likley keep their wife, will avoid it becasue it's not worth it anymore.
Adam Hughes
>MGTOW is an example of single men being glorified Not really. MGTOW is looked down on in mainstream society, and MGTOWs even get bullied on here, occasionally.
Thomas Kelly
What differentiates an "incel" from a normal betafag virgin is that the incel feels compelled to act on his anger. You can only stop this by stopping the cause of the anger, not by stopping him from lashing out. How you do that is for people smarter than me to figure out
Andrew James
>radical christianity >falling for that meme
Ethan Baker
They don't need to be organized. They weren't in organized 2000+ years ago. All they needed were numbers and time always gave them enough to tear down the current society and establish one where patriarchy reigns. Just open up any history book and read about past civilizations how every single one made the same mistake, by leveling the lplaying field between man and woman, leading to inequality in the SMP.
Wyatt Cook
>I was a counter-terror analyst back in my military days
Nice roleplay, dropout.
Jason Torres
Religion isn't based on objective facts you can look up. They require """faith""".
>Single men are being celebrated and glorified, look around; and this has nothing to do with self proclaimed MGTOWs and all this modern labels.
Nigga you best be joking. The MSM makes no heel out of men who aren't "grown up" to look down upon. To shame them and force them to marry some used up slag. Guys like Peterson who actually speak out as to why men refuse to grow up get shit on constantly. One, ONE woman wrote a book why men don't want to grow up and marry anymore and that it's womans fault for the most part and the publisher had to remove the fucking book because f all the threats they were getting.
No, man are being shamed constantly for not growing up and bending over backwards for a roastie that spat on them in middle and high school.
Juan Diaz
Where's that guy that wanted an FBI gf? I think he would like you
Sebastian Moore
I said it had nothing to do with MGTOW. Of courte MGTOW is loocked down on, they don't fit the type of men I described, it's an online ecco chamber of sore losers. If they had any kind of success in their lives they wouldn't even give a single shit about women in the first place, even if they were single and barely getting laid.
Men also "fight" for the top percentage of women. Everyone lowers their standards eventually. For you it might be "at least I can get laid", for them it could be "at least he has money/I won't be single/I can get laid". So yeah.
You know what I meant, do be dense. 24 means you are either finishing college or whatever. Trying to start a career, maybe. If you are a neet then having a girlfriend wont fix any of your problems, trust me again. Listen to any older man whenever he speaks about his life. The married ones might be happy but there's also a lot of misserable ones that don't get to do what they like. But hey, at least the get laid whenever their wife allos them to, amrite?
Then you would have sex and the next day you would wake up without everything that you took for granted and actually enjoyed. If you need sex that badly just go get a hooker. If you need emotional conection then that's harder and as I said earlier, it's hard for a young man to make friends sometimes. Yeah, I said friends, men can help in that regard unless they are fucking morons. Being emotionally supportive is not some gay shit that women do, it's something that we all need.
Luis Bailey
Nothing wrong with being a white nationalist you stupid cunt. That is the only logical thing to do when kikes are flooding your countries with literal sub-humans with 85 IQs.
Henry Carter
What was the book called, my guy?
Robert Jones
Peterson spouts misogyny on every single video I saw of him, except the ones that made him famous where he was being harassed by a bunch of college crybabies that have yet to get stomped by reality. His online success got to him too much. That's why he gets shit on.
I don't see anyone shaming single men with a career that have enough money to support their hobbies. The mainstream media might do just to cater to a vast majority of people that are rotten in jealousy and misserable. Young men actually have a chance to fix themselves, but it's hard... There's older people, both men and women, that are too far gone and you know it was their own choices that got them that fucked because of how the express it.
Or maybe America is actually just that fucked, in which case how would I know... I have yet visit the place and go on a road trip or something to see the country by myself.
>Two nitpicked cases are all I need to convince myself
No.
Joshua Richardson
How about a biological law: >"The female, not the male, determines all conditions of the animal family" Briffault's law.
Blake Clark
>a fucking 2000s romcom
Why are you doing this to yourself?
Cameron Foster
Mothercucker most are too depressed and suicidal to bother acting out whatever terrorist wet dream you want them to, and instead of being promised 72 virgins they're just promised peace once they rope themselves. You probably never even heard of them until a few days ago, and most of them either had very little or no IRL peers whatsoever. Tell me what kind of terrorist attacks incels/the "manosphere" have made aside from some literally who Armenian Terry Davis clone running people over while spouting dumb shit on faceberg.
Sebastian Perez
We are different from other animals, more so than other animals are different from each other. I thought this was obvious. Anyways, it biology is an imperative in this case then where's the problem? Women chose the better men and that's it, don't complain.
Also the people that I know with an actual background in biology all agreed that said law is pretty much bullshit. Made up crap to support a circlejerk. There's too many of those in modern science and laymen just eat it, proving once again how critical thinking isn't actually taught at schools.
Noah Sanchez
>Thank god for dating apps and online dating sites then. All of them prove time and time again that woman only want the top 20% of men, the rest is practically non-existant to them. A man who isn't in that upper crop in every way possible, is screwed and will end up divorceraped or simply lonley Dating apps aren't reflective of real life where you meet people in social situations, through work and school. More "normies" I know have had some sort of relationship than not. Most of the time the people on incel forums aren't even that ugly, just kind of autistic.
Hudson Foster
I hope it happens and the world will fear the name Jow Forums
Ryder Davis
>We are different from other animals, more so than other animals are different from each other. I thought this was obvious. Anyways, it biology is an imperative in this case then where's the problem? Women chose the better men and that's it, don't complain. They don't choose the better man for the current environment. Objectively, the best male in our current environment is a 2-3 foot tall (proportional, not dwarf, which doesn't really exist but if it did it would be the best) genius. Women wouldn't ever go for that >Also the people that I know with an actual background in biology all agreed that said law is pretty much bullshit. Made up crap to support a circlejerk. There's too many of those in modern science and laymen just eat it, proving once again how critical thinking isn't actually taught at schools. Ignoring your condescension about how "critical thinking isn't taught in schools" (I'm in graduate school for mathematics, I am pretty confident that my critical thinking skills are better than yours) this law is obviously a simplification, but it's not totally wrong. The female IS the sexual selector in the vast majority of species, including humans (ovum and gestation are more expensive than sperm). This is why the males have to bring nuptial gifts, and do the mating dance, and compete. Now, the female may pick a male that has prettier spots over a male that has higher intelligence, or is stronger, meaning the female may be picking based on purely aesthetic preferences rather than actual advantages, but it's still her who chooses. People denying this law are coping, trying to push away anything that goes against gender equity for some bullshit feminist ideology. If men knew women inherently advantaged in mating strategies, men would create a true patriarchy in a day.
Jeremiah Sullivan
>Objectively, the best male in our current environment is a 2-3 foot tall (proportional, not dwarf, which doesn't really exist but if it did it would be the best) genius. Women wouldn't ever go for that Says who? There isn't an "objective" choice for who's the best mate, natural selection occurs via our receptivity to the environment. This is some Lamarckian bullshit.
Anyway not that user but the law is manifestly not true if you look beyond the Western world where arranged marriages are still the norm.
Kevin Ramirez
We WERE different from animals. The whole thing about building up a civilization and enforcing monogamy made the whoe thing work and seperated us from animals who aren't able to think longterm, unlike us. But right now that very foundation of the modern civilization gets torn down. We're regressing to animal bahavious only thinking of the shortterm pleasure and not longterm survival. In fact, we're acting more and more like stupid animals that will die out in due time. Pick up a history book, or better yet, go read "sex and Culture" by Unwin. Was written in the '30s and already forshadowed what will happen if the "patriarchy" gets abolished, simply becasue it happened countless times before in the exact same way.
Adam Ramirez
You're giving him too much credit, from a quick look on google the only places that actually support this shit are other incel and redpill groups. Can't find one article on google scholar which cites it positively.
Evan Gutierrez
>Says who? There isn't an "objective" choice for who's the best mate Yes there is, based on a fitness rating which is based on their ability to survive given the environment. Such a man would need very little food, very little space, and be incredible skilled with firearms (as his small size would make him difficult to shoot and he would be able to draw and fire his weapon faster than anyone larger than him). Women don't need to be small as female fecundity is directly proportional to their size, and they don't need to fight as that's the males' duty. The best dimorphism for the species in modern and future society is like a 6-7 foot tall female and a 2-3 foot tall male. >Anyway not that user but the law is manifestly not true if you look beyond the Western world where arranged marriages are still the norm. i.e. patriarchal rule eliminates the females' sexual selection power. That's not against anything I've said.
Parker Hall
Well then, why is it wrong for women to make a choice? You not liking that choice is irrelevant because of biology, according to yourself. If you are math grad then you should not be quoting shitty pseudoscience a century old. Also yes, critical thinking is not well taught in schools, even I fail to evaluate thing sometimes and I admit it. Don't go full "math degree btw", even though here I was indeed a bit condescending so I understand. I'm in what I think is the equivalent to grad school in America, for physics, if that even matters (we call it a masters degree here).
Lucas Miller
No there isn't you utter brainlet. Natural selection doesn't work based on this sort of teleology. There is only what "is" and "is not" leading to reproductive success. Evidently, the way things are going right now is leading reproductive success for certain individuals and those individuals are passing on their traits and keeping them in the gene pool. There's no "objective" choice based on some race war fantasy where you're hard to shoot (or whatever this is).
>i.e. patriarchal rule eliminates the females' sexual selection power. That's not against anything I've said. My point is its evidently not a biological imperative so its mindboggling why you think its a biological imperative now. Besides I can find: - no scholarly support - my own experiences with friends who were sexually active has shown me many cases in which girls will bend over backwards for a guy and he has most of the power Seems like you're an angry incel.
>Well then, why is it wrong for women to make a choice? You not liking that choice is irrelevant because of biology, according to yourself. My point is twofold - women don't ACTUALLY make the best choice( see ), and we defy nature in all other fields so why is this the one place where we allow nature (and women) to stay? >If you are math grad then you should not be quoting shitty pseudoscience a century old. I agree, but I don't think it's psuedo science. All biology is "squishy", the only reason modern biologists don't agree with this law is because it's not feminist/gender egalitarian. It implies women having an advantage. >Also yes, critical thinking is not well taught in schools, even I fail to evaluate thing sometimes and I admit it. Don't go full "math degree btw", even though here I was indeed a bit condescending so I understand. I'm in what I think is the equivalent to grad school in America, for physics, if that even matters (we call it a masters degree here). You're right about this I apologize for that. It's not a racewar fantasy (I don't even know what you're talking about here). My point is, there are objectively better forms given the functions and environments an organism lives in. A species can select for traits that aren't bad enough to die off, but still aren't the best (like females choosing dumber weaker males that have pretty spots over males that are more "boring" looking but are smarter). >My point is its evidently not a biological imperative so its mindboggling why you think its a biological imperative now. It's a general biological law that, like many others, can be overwritten given human intelligence. That doesn't imply it's not an imperative. You're not making a point here. >Seems like you're an angry incel. I have a girlfriend and I'm in grad school. Your sour grapes ad hominem is tired and pathetic.
Gabriel Reyes
What is there to try when someone fucking posts the cover of a shitty romcom? I had already lost.
Jackson Howard
>It's not a racewar fantasy (I don't even know what you're talking about here). My point is, there are objectively better forms given the functions and environments an organism lives in. A species can select for traits that aren't bad enough to die off, but still aren't the best (like females choosing dumber weaker males that have pretty spots over males that are more "boring" looking but are smarter). And my point is that this is bullshit Lamarckianism which has no relation to anything remotely scientific. Do you seriously have no fucking idea how natural selection works? Organisms don't strive to possess traits which are "objectively" suited to the environment. Natural selection works (mostly) passively (I say mostly given that organisms take a determining roll in crafting their environments). Individuals who happen to possess traits which make them fitter have more reproductive success.. You're putting forward some sort of teleology. If the traits you were talking about lead to reproductive success, they WOULD be selected for. The reason they're not selected for is because they don't lead to reproductive success. If you changed the given environment, you'd change who is selected for and then maybe your bizzaro midget world would be the norm. But it's not because other choices (like choosing a male with "pretty spots") leads to reproductive success, while being a ninja midget does not. >It's a general biological law that, like many others, can be overwritten given human intelligence. That doesn't imply it's not an imperative. You're not making a point here. Lmao it's not a general anything because its pseudoscience with no scholarly support whatsoever. Ahh yes, all those biological laws we can override with intelligence... if I think hard enough I won't have to eat or drink! >I have a girlfriend and I'm in grad school. Your sour grapes ad hominem is tired and pathetic. So you're just retarded then? Oh okay.
Chase Lopez
>too stupid to understand an easy point >that was even written out plain as day
>CT analyst So you made slide decks and dicked around in Analyst Notebook, big woop. I swear intel kids have some of the biggest egos around when they barely do anything.
Easton Jackson
Oh great, now Jow Forums gets LARP posts too.
Dominic Jenkins
>Organisms don't strive to possess traits which are "objectively" suited to the environment
Are you underaged? Did you never attent any biology class? Becasue this level of retardness is far beyond what you usually see around here.
Lincoln Cooper
If they don't make the best choice then the law doesn't hold. Call it the Bradford conjecture then. If I hold my mouse over the flor and let go it will fall and break, and this will happen with everything I decide to replicate this with. There's a law that explains this. Laws are called so for a reason. Calling that kind of pseudoscience a law only makes is more suspicious. Had he calle it a theory or something it could have been considered outside of meme sicence.
Also I wouldn't call ALL biology squishy, the most fundamental development of medicine is being made by biologists, since they are the ones doing the investigation and understanding the patterns. Biology is fa rmore developed nowdays than it was a century ago, and that's exactly the reason why they don't hesitate to speak against bullshit like Bradford's.
>Do you seriously have no fucking idea how natural selection works? Organisms don't strive to possess traits which are "objectively" suited to the environment That's literally the point I'm making you utter fucking moron. Natural selection, and in our case women's sexual selection, does not yield the objectively best form of the human organism in our society. If some subset of the population WERE to breed themselves to my specifications they would completely dominate the other people and their forms. >Individuals who happen to possess traits which make them fitter have more reproductive success No, individuals who happen to possess traits which make them more attractive to the females at this particular moment have higher reproductive success. That might not be the most fit. >You're putting forward some sort of teleology. If the traits you were talking about lead to reproductive success, they WOULD be selected for. The reason they're not selected for is because they don't lead to reproductive success. I never disagreed, I'm saying that their reproductive advantage isn't because they are actually the best, in the same way an intellectually or physically inferior organism might be selected for just because they have pretty spots. The "pretty spots" in this case are small females (who are "feminine" and large males (who are "masculine") even though those two forms are worse than the inverse. >If you changed the given environment, you'd change who is selected for and then maybe your bizzaro midget world would be the norm. But it's not because other choices (like choosing a male with "pretty spots") leads to reproductive success, while being a ninja midget does not. Again, that's my point. Why are we allowing for a 'free market' when it comes to our species? Why are we allowing women and men to sexually select for objectively inferior specimens? I need to make another comment cause i'm hitting the limit...
Thomas Rodriguez
>Lmao it's not a general anything because its pseudoscience with no scholarly support whatsoever. Ahh yes, all those biological laws we can override with intelligence... if I think hard enough I won't have to eat or drink! People literally set themselves on fire for political protest, next you'll say that living isn't a biological imperative lmao. >So you're just retarded then? Oh okay. No, I'm not, but I've I'm retarded, you're really screwed.
John Ross
>incels unironically think not getitng your dick wet is a good and valid reason to commit homicide
Eli Kelly
these fucking incel murders are runining it for me. goddamn i dont want a government crackdown on KHVs i just want to live my life in peace before i go into the night.
Nicholas Miller
>That's literally the point I'm making you utter fucking moron. Natural selection, and in our case women's sexual selection, does not yield the objectively best form of the human organism in our society. If some subset of the population WERE to breed themselves to my specifications they would completely dominate the other people and their forms. But this means absolutely nothing because the survival of the species is contingent on what traits are best suited to a particular environment. My point is that this is meaningless because evidently the traits best suited to genetic fitness are the ones being selected for, and are NOT these. >No, individuals who happen to possess traits which make them more attractive to the females at this particular moment have higher reproductive success. That might not be the most fit. But "fitness" is defined in regard to reproductive success, so this means absolutely nothing. >I never disagreed, I'm saying that their reproductive advantage isn't because they are actually the best, in the same way an intellectually or physically inferior organism might be selected for just because they have pretty spots. The "pretty spots" in this case are small females (who are "feminine" and large males (who are "masculine") even though those two forms are worse than the inverse. But there's no "objective" standard. The only objective is whether one leads to reproductive success or not. Since your formulation fails, then its not the objective best. >Again, that's my point. Why are we allowing for a 'free market' when it comes to our species? Why are we allowing women and men to sexually select for objectively inferior specimens? I need to make another comment cause i'm hitting the limit... Because they aren't objectively inferior, they are objectively superior because their traits lead to reproductive success while yours do not.
James Adams
It's all just memes don't get your panties in a bunch retard.
>People literally set themselves on fire for political protest, next you'll say that living isn't a biological imperative lmao. Obviously when I say override I mean "choose to live without it" (which is what you're implying here - we can choose to live without this Law by "thinking"). You're equivocating here.
Jackson Bell
Explaing how it isn't and give an example of what is a good and valid reason.
Eli Gray
Because no one owes you their body just because you're sexually undesirable.
Aiden Powell
I'm gonna lay the terms out here for you again friendo: - Natural selection works passively, so trying to understand fitness of an individual in relation to their environment as some teleologically grounded objective is inherently misguided - this process IS currently, and DOES select traits which facilitate individual survival, and therefore reproductive success - this means that the "chads" with pretty spots being selected for are the ones with traits which best facilitate reproductive success, so its impossible for this to be "objectively" inferior.
Blake Scott
>the problem is that women refuse to marry men who make less than them or whatever Who the fuck wants a leech? Pull your weight or kill yourself, you useless piece of shit. No, I don't care if you would support a stay at home wife, that's YOUR choice to be retarded. Not mine.
Alexander Phillips
Going for a partner that doesn't make as much as you isn't a 'leech' though.
Austin Russell
A military is a group of people whose sole purpose is murdering people to take their objects from them. Therefore you are a terrorist. You just straight up announced that you work with people who murder other human beings, experiment on human beings, and slaughter trillions of animals when they are done experimenting on them, and you are using your role as an accomplice in murder as the reason you are qualified to declare people who write words on the internet some groups don't like as precriminals.
Daily reminder that 90% of people setting rules don't follow their own rules, and are just using their made up titles and magical paper dollars to dominate other people while disguising themselves as the fucking second coming. 100 people will starve to death today because Seth Rogan needed a second car. He could have just been satisfied with one, but instead 100,000 in resources were used to give him another toy instead of feeding one of the millions of people who are going to die from hunger this year.
Your world is fake and gay. Kill yourselves. People who are directly responsible for suffering existing celebrate curing suffering every day with millions of gullible retards. Your society is so fucking pointless that people have entire sites dedicated to ego masturbation where they celebrate fixing things they make worse. Sad!
Brayden Jones
use that cooter, stop a shooter
also bugger off
Adrian Clark
You still are not understanding the point I'm making. It doesn't matter if the people with pretty spots breed more because the forms I laid out are objectively superior in that such forms would completely dominate the other ones. What I'm saying is, in the same way we ignored and crushed nature by building vehicles to travel without walking, or creating medicine to stop dying from sickness, clothes to survive in cold climates, we should do the same thing for reproduction to produce the superior form of the species. There is no reason to allow this to be up to some "free market" of sexual selection just like there's no reason to keep who dies or doesn't up to the "free market" of who doesn't get sick. If people won't select for the proper traits, then we (by that I mean myself and any other authoritarians) will make that choice for them, just like we force you to get vaccines.
Samuel Morris
>my military days >As a teenage girl what is there even left to say? The government is planning to hand out pamphlets and start AA meetings for single men? how fucking pathetic.
Let me just sort of clarify what I mean: This whole thing started because I made the point that women, as the sexual selectors, aren't actually selecting for the best males, they're selecting for the "pretty spotted" males (and males select for the "pretty spotted" females). In this case, the pretty spots are what would be considered traditionally 'feminine' and 'masculine'. In reality, these things should be completely flipped given our environments, but our past evolution is still with us so we select for inferior partners in terms of the best form (this will become dangerous in the future as resources and space deplete). You then sperged out yelling about "YOUR TELEOLOGY THE SPOTTED PEOPLE ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY'RE REPRODUCING", which itself is a tautology you're making. I'm just saying, at this point, we should not allow people to choose if what they choose is worse than what would be done under my design. As such, we (I and others like me) should not allow people to make their inferior choices.
Dominic Adams
>as a teenage gi- stopped reading.
Nathaniel Carter
>introduce woman into the general workforce >pay them acordingly to their workload >gendergap myth gets introduced and goverment forces companies to employ woman and pay them more >so pay them the same wage as men for less work >somehow suprised that woman make the same as men now >yet don't want to date down Equality is awsome, right?
Dumb shit, I used that because OP said it herself. >"other right wing Christian identity groups
Hudson Hernandez
this in the military you're forced to get along, can literally get in trouble for not getting along, even when you're operational, everything is tailored towards people at least being friends and close comrades for the time they work together. while you may not be best friends, nobody treats you bad or bullies you without the threat of paperwork or a demotion
HOWEVER women still try to fuck things up in the military. Pretty much every male gets along with each other but women (luckily a rare occurrence) are either barely dealt with or try to fuck things up.
>Jow Forums will be designated a terrorist group in your lifetime If it ever happens, I would be surprised if it wasn't during my lifetime. I mean, Jow Forums itself isn't even that old.
Logan Baker
>Jow Forums will be designated a terrorist group in your lifetime normies btfo
Christopher Murphy
Why do you people make yourselves so easy to scapegoat
