How the fuck are there so many sex normies here now

anime has been normalfaggot tier for years user, keep up.

Their programming of social darwinism and need to fit in hilariously mixing up

>You guys realize that they are all just baiting, right?
No they aren't, some are, not all
>Nobody with a normal life has the time or will to browse this shithole
You vastly underestimate the will of certain normanfaggots
>only when you have absolutely nothing else to do you go on here
Exactly, that's why they are here

Need to fit in. Here's the thing, r9k is basically a reverse society. Positive traits that make one special are bad, negative traits that make one special are good. Other true robots reinforce this by hammering down those who avatar/trip fag, attentionwhore or otherwise try to gain a reputation on this board through their positive traits. This basically enforces the rule, that no matter what, if you are a robot, you are shit, and if you are shit, you are equal to us. Normalfags disagree with this philosophy and don't see how it's useful and beneficial for those who are actually genuine outcasts (since it enforces a sense of equality among robots, since all robots have negative traits). They don't get that true robots have only negative (social) traits and no positive ones. That's why many robots enforce the virgin only rule, as the loss of virginity is a good indicator of positive traits in other areas.

They want to fit in everywhere they go.

It's been like this for years, user.
Where have you been?

Attached: e9048c3797b3861bd63ba7e0e013691a1fd528ea116bc4cb9ea5074b1af76069_1-1-1.jpg (1053x959, 106K)

>true robots have only negative (social) traits and no positive ones

Attached: image.jpg (584x350, 21K)

Anime nerds got old. We are all 33+ now. New con goers dont even watch anime

Please tell me how robots aren't autistic, btw, by social, I meant in the way they carry themselves rather than physical traits that can technically count as social traits, such as beauty. When I say negative, I mean conventionally, as society sees it, negative.

the problem to me is that you're doing the same thing that most anons do, thinking in binary and fallacies.
>true
in this case is nonsense and means nothing other than whatever you think it means.

My idea of a true robot is only in terms of social experience and level of misery. What ideas an individual holds does not make a robot, not a robot. The question of what makes a true robot is not a fucking zen koan.

there are no true Scotsmen, user.

Whats wrong with the supposed "fallacy" of excluding things that dont addhere to a definition?

that's what they want to think they're doing but people with healthy and confident egos generally don't make fun of people, least of all for fun.

where is the definition tho
and who defined it tho