when did you escape the kike internet opium called porn Anon?
>>73131821
The problem is not just professional porn. Western culture has become so perverted that porn has basically normalized perversion and degeneracy. That shit is all normal now.
>>73131821
i didn't escape. they still have me.
planning on suing the porn industry for loss of manhood.
>>73131821
When I started dating
>>73131821
When I stopped posting on 4chan at 3:37 am
>>73131821
still can't quit it. I DONT WANT TO BE A GOOD GOY
>>73131821
>not sticking to amateurs and doujins
pleb
>>73131821
I'm almost there. I still have relapses though. But good behaviour is being increasingly reinforced.
Converted to Islam.
>>73131821
Made more grounds in the last four years. Been battling this demon for over 20 years.
>>73131821
Kikes aside, let's use a Marxist approach and demonstrate that EVEN libtards should stop advocating porn and other shit.
People in the industry -- namely, people who benefit from it from an economical POV -- are always defensive. It does not matter if they are redpilled bastards (like Jewish owners) or bluepilled actresses who act as useful idiots for the system. All of them repeat over and over again the same apologetic remarks:
>Porn is good
>Masturbation is okay
>The idea porn damages people is bullshit created by bigots who want to repress us
>Libtards please come and WhiteKinght us: bigots are against freedom when they argue against the industry
>Actually, we are responding to very natural needs, which shall not be suppressed
Now, as a socialist, the latter remark gets me. Fact is, if you are either a red-pilled puppet master of a bluepilled useful idiot, you will always end up defending what puts bread on your family's table.
Occasionally the accountant may have a couple of drinks and banter about the fact the financial system is rigged, but deep within him he knows that without such fake system he would be starving.
Similarly, soldiers are always very quick at saying war is wrong but muh duty to defend people, so please don't cut army fundings.
And so on.
Porn people are no exception to such category struggle. I say "category" and not "class" struggle because the 2016 meme is that there are people from all classes that defend degenerate systems. Lower classes (e.g. shitty actresses, camgirls, camera operators, etc.) defend the system because they are blue-pilled; upper classes (e.g. producers) defend the system because they are red-pilled and they know it is making them rich.
Hence, the class boundaries are blurred, because you find brainwashed people always ready to defend their exploiters... in the same way slaves defend their masters because it is masters who feed them.
[cont.]
>>73131821
I didn't I just watch JAV and porn I know was made by goys.
>>73131821
Yes, I tried many ways to get rid of porn but failed time after time and thought it was becoming pointless but after I found out it was a Jewish tool used to weaken my Christian morals I completely quit and have not seen it in probability 6 months. Praise the lord Jesus Christ
>>73135983
This post turned me into a #JesusMissile
D-g bless
[cont. from >>73135574 ]
Now let's go back to the idea porn responds to a natural need. This is false. Porn creates an artificial need by broadcasting images of sexual intercourses that do not reflect reality.
People who defend porn are either masters or slaves and, among slaves, they belong to different kinds: employee slaves and customer slaves. The former are brainwashed but still get something from it; instead, customers are 100% exploited (even when they get "free porn" because all their browsing habits provide information that is used to exploit them in other aspects of life -- e.g. by means of marketing).
But I am digressing, the idea that porn responds to human needs is artificial at best. Apologists do try to bluepill us by using porn as a substitute term for "sex" and "sexuality".
Instead, fact is porn is a degeneration of sexuality. Not even a surrogate. However, since it triggers the very same patterns in our reptilian brain (the paleo-cortex), sex is used to subdue us -- but this time not as an open threat (e.g. "we're gonna rape your women and cut your dicks"). Rather, porn used to subjugate us by baiting us into thinking we need porn as an essential component of sex, and by baiting us into thinking it is good and worth pursuing.
At this stage, you should be knowledgeable enough to understand that people who advocate porn by mistaking it for sexuality in general and call for oppression whenever we ask for regulation are either bona fide idiots or assholes in bad faith.
>>73135983
if you're on 4chan you're still in its grip
using 4chan at all == supporting porn via its environment and culture.
4chan was made by a kike too
>>73135574
now realize the whole internet is the same kind of oppression system as porn.
people only defend the internet , computers and technology because they either work for the system or are addicts
the whole internet is to the rest of life what porn is to sexuality.
Think about everyone here who is like this:
>>4chan is about freedom of speech
>>4chan is the last bastion of freedom and dank memes against the rest of the oppressive locked down internet
>>4chan is the best place to talk and /pol/ is where you learn the truth
really, 4chan users are just like porn users, they suck the cock of internet "Culture" which is really just degeneration of conversation, community and real life contact.
>>73131821
i only watch JAV. beautiful, pale skin, feminine, you can tell the male actors respect and adore the women. western porn = le strong woman meme, grunting in your face male stars, degenerate act after degenerate act. fuck that.
>>73131821
Alpha is fucking, beta is fapping.
And that's the end of the equation. It's a hard truth for most of you, I know. I sometimes fap, it's not unhealthy to fap from time to time, but daily is turning you into shut-ins, fat anime-pillow lovers.
>>73136789
Learn to greentext.
>>73136324
>>73135574
and I have to say this: I work in the tech industry, and I'm guilty of the same things you accuse porn producers of, but for technology and the internet instead.
>>The internet is used to subjugate us by baiting us into thinking we need computers and phones and internet forums and having our information gathered as an essential component of socialization, and by baiting us into thinking it is good and worth pursuing.
[cont. from >>73136324 ]
Some may quote Feuerbach and claim that it is the artificiality of porn that makes it either wrong or a deviation from reality. After all, since porn is not a basic need (although it exploits brain pathways meant for the satisfaction of basic needs), it is just super-structure and as such it is suspicious at best.
However, I have nothing against suprestructure per se. What I argue against is superstructure that immediately translates into exploitation.
That is, superstructure is a tool. Since it is used to promote world-views, superstructural elements and apparatuses can (and ought to) be criticized if the world-view they advocate does not match our values.
In this sense, given porn is not the same as sexuality, there is no point why it should be retained. Sexuality can stay, and porn can go without necessarily damaging humanities (at best, it will damage the interests of some exploiters).
Here I do not want to commit the naturalistic fallacy and claim that just because something is superstructure, then it must be wrong. I am not a post-modern deconstructionist faggot. However, I feel like claiming that we are fully entitled to dismantle superstructures we don't like, because their existence is not necessarily a moral good.
>>73136344
Nah I only come her to /pol/ this place is pretty clean and helps strengthen my principles against degeneracy
>>73131821
But that's what sheep are for.
>>73136520
>now realize the whole internet is the same kind of oppression system as porn.
See here: >>73137168
Don't confuse the fact something is superstructure with the fact something is exploitation. I may welcome your idea that the Internet is as exploitative as porn is.
But we can think of people who maintain we can have Internet and not porn, for example.
All of these positions are welcome and, of course, they will be resolved by a clash of supporters of the opposing views -- clash that can be solved either through means of war or through means of negotiation.
What I am trying to say is that:
>Porn is not the same as sex, and those who argue against porn are not necessarily bigots
>Even if porn was the same as sex, it would be a naturalistic fallacy to think that just because something is natural, it must be good then.
Finally, to answer your qualms:
>If you say porn must go because it is exploitative, then you should also say Internet must go because it is exploitative.
Agreed if exploitation is 100%. However, as I said, there can be superstructures that are mere tools. As such, they *may* be exploitative, but they can also be emancipatory.
Thus, my argument is:
>Porn industry is always exploitative no matter what pill they make us swallow
>Instead, Internet is not an exploitative industry. Rather, it is a tool some are try to use in order to exploit people, but exploitation is not essential to the Internet (whereas exploitation of customers is essential to porn industry).
>>73137850
well if not the internet as a whole, your definitely applies to Google and other corporate search engines
>>73137082
>and I have to say this: I work in the tech industry, and I'm guilty of the same things you accuse porn producers of, but for technology and the internet instead.
Yeah, but ask yourself this:
>Is there a way in which Tech industry can be a "good" superstructure?
Tentative answer: yes.
>Is there a way in which Porn industry can be a "good" superstructure?
Hardly so.
>My rationale
Tech can be anything, from the software of a machine that pumps water for the sake of Afro kids to CIA espionage. If you are referring to the "current 2016 tech industry I work in" well, you have the socialist right to fucking stand up and criticize what surrounds you or to create something different
But what about porn? The problem is that porn is by definition the satisfaction of primal needs by means of a surrogate. Tech does have the same definition. As soon as you attach "porn" to the word "industry", you come up with:
>porn industry is by definition the attempt to exploit customers by making them satisfy their primal needs by means of surrogates rather than by means of the most appropriate satisfactory item (or action)
Now, in tech you can have this pattern, but you are not necessarily diverting primal needs. Of course, some tech companies create false needs just for profit, but many others just make it easier to satisfy the needs. Eg communication makes it easier to contact your family. This can be either good or bad: communication is just a booster, not a surrogate
Porn is not like communication. Porn is more like: let's create a fake family and then make sure we earn cash by exploiting people who need real families.
It's like, say, drinking coffee. So one thing is creating something that makes coffee more available for everyone.
Another thing is to create a fake coffee and then go around advertising it as the real thing, to the point that people who feel need for coffee take the surrogate instead and delude themselves they are drinking coffee (fact is, they are not).
>>73138947
anonymous communication though one could argue that actually exploits primal needs in a very unnatural way.
ironcially 4chan is less healthy than facebook, since at least with the latter it's connecting you to real family and friends rather than hundreds of strangers who could easily be lying
>>73131821
I've been trying to go cold turkey for months after I made it a year and a half and fell off the wagon. I can't really do it, but I've given up porn, just use my imagination and a fairly lewd but not pornographic image. Feels somehow less disgusting that way. I see porn now and view it as all cuckoldy. I can't get erect from it. Why would seeing a man take another woman in front of me turn me on?
>>73139303
This
>>73139170
>ironcially 4chan is less healthy than facebook, since at least with the latter it's connecting you to real family and friends rather than hundreds of strangers who could easily be lying
I'm surprised by this remark.
Actually, I read the problem with FB is that it amplifies what you already know.
At least here, even though it is full of liars and trolls, I have a chance to meet somebody who does not think the way I do.
Instead, when browsing FB the vegan gets only vegan updates, the fascist only fascist update...
You might have noticed hoaxes are faster spread on FB than 4chan, precisely because you deem your friends to be reliable sources (protip: no-one ever is). Here, you enter a room with the right attitude. Instead, you enter Fb supposing you will be safe.
So what is more close to reality, in fact? Anonymous interactions on 4chan or a Facebook that deludes you into thinking you are safe with your tribe no matter what (but in fact this is just because it makes it harder for your world-view to be shattered by truth).
>>73139641
oh no I agree, facebook is worse now.
but I mean the CORE PRINCIPLE of facebook, is in theory healthier for society than the core principle of 4chan. If you had an ad-free network that functioned the same way I mean. Since it maintains shaming and accountability that would also occur in real life.
Sadly the way it's used and marketed the mainstream social networks are worse.
of course I'm probably just projecting, because I myself barely ever used fb and 4chan is my main internet vice (it all but replaced porn as an addiction)
>>73140034
>Since it maintains shaming and accountability
Historically, these two things keep society glued together, but they are the worst enemies of truth (precisely because truth is not a very good social glue).
>>73140316
you're right, I should actually screencap this post for everytime I get the urge to do nonstop anti-4chan projection shitposting
>>73140034
>>73140316
>>73140776
Let me make an example to prove my point.
What kind of lies can you spread on the Internet?
I would say:
>lies about things (and people) external to you
>lies about yourself
The former category is divided into:
1. Blatantly false facts
>E.g. Everest is in the USA.
2. Omissions
>E.g. Most Ukrainians dislike Russia
There is also a third group that is not strictly a lie, but merely an unverifiable fact.
>E.g. the actual king of France is bald.
Of course there is no actual king of France, unless you bend the concept or unless we are talking fiction. So he is neither bald nor hairy. The proposition looks verifiable, but it is not.
Now, all these kinds of lies can be debunked. So if a troll goes around saying gas chambers didn't ever exist, well... it might take time, but you can go there and verify if he is right or wrong.
But what about lies about yourself?
The core question is: are they really lies at all?
Think of the following statement:
>I am myself on Fb.
What does this mean? It is true only if you believe it. It just means you attribute to Fb a great relevance when it comes to constituting your identity. But why, for example, should you claim (to the contrary) that you are NOT yourself on 4chan? You can be yourself in both scenarios, or neither.
In this sense, there is no lie or truth: just an act of self-affirmation.
A lie is saying you are a doctor while you are in fact a barber.
But things like "it is accountability on Fb that makes me act like a better person"... well, let's talk about why you would ever say this and why should we agree that you are correct and not the opposite: that is, you are a better person on 4chan, even if your behaviour on 4chan might not match your bluepilled idea of what a good person is.
>>73131821
Yesterday. Compulsive masturbation has given me erection problems when I want to have actual sex.
