Femanons
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
"Femanons". Are they really as bad as everyone says?
>>24585267
Someone needs to make one like this but about traps
>>24585267
Do femanons really drink lean?
If you ever meet and female and she mentions that she browses 4chan you can safety assume she is fucked up and has daddy issues.
They are just still women. With all their bads and small amount of goods. Women arent even humans.
>>24585280
>weird wig
>stockings
>convenient angles
Wouldn't have to change much
They are. I've known a few and some of them were nice friends for a few years, but they eventually start going apeshit on you because its in their nature to be messed up. If the femanon was fat and ugly, she would try some romance bullshit which was awkward to turn down. If you make the mistake of ever liking one, she will either be a lesbian, become a lesbian later on or goes the "you remind me of X, it triggers me unironically" route.
All in all if you play vidya with femanons and such and leave it at that, they arent more troublesome than dudes, but dont ever make the mistake of actually getting to know one. You will be tempted, you will do the same mistake and eventually write down this exact shit that Im typing. As every goddamn robot ever, they never listen to the warnings.
>>24585310
>If you ever meet a female you can safety assume she is fucked up and has daddy issues.
fixed
>>24585343
this tbs (to be sincere)
We're people just like everybody else. If you accept flawed men but put the bar much higher for women, you're a misogynist and the problem is you, not us.
>>24585267
I kind of want to date a girl like that 2bh
>>24585267
I dated 3 femanons
>inb4 NORMIE REEE etc...
And what can l say is :
They're selfish, annoying, jealous as fuck, won't send nudes, literally cumsluts when it comes to sex and wants you to buy expensive stuff to them all the time.
Thank god l got sex before they all started getting annoying
>"anon do you talk to other girls at the gym"
>"anon is your sister interested in you or something? Stop talking to her so much"
>"anon can you buy me this ?"
The list goes on... they're literal whores, they are on /r9k/ to find beta preys and trick them into buying expensive stuff/worshipping them. Get /fit/ and leave this pmace robots, it's the only way
>tfw most of these things apply to me except the music and drugs
>>24585319
>convenient angles
???whats that?
>>24585370
Oh and they'll cheat on you as soon as they find a chad that likes them
>>24585396
Where they take pictures of themselves at an odd angle to hide adams apples and just generally manly features about themselves.
>>24585357
>accept flawed men
Except women dont if you're not Chad. Putting higher bar? The only requirement for women is looking good, personality isnt important. For men you have to be handsome, wealthy, confident, tall, daring and have tons of experience with other women either you will be invisible.
>>24585402
So Femanons are just like all women, coulda never told you that one :^)
>>24585370
>won't send nudes
How fucking beta are you?
I've got nudes off of something in the region of 40-50 femanons. And I've only dated/fucked a few.
>>24585357
You are the closest women for a lot of us, I think that's why we obssess over you. A lot of the bad stuff that is said about you is true, but then again, male and female personality traits manifest themselves differently. Male insecurity leads to isolation, female insecurity leads to a stronger and more debased desire for external validation, usually through sex and nudes.
I still couldn't date any other type of girl at this point in my life though.
>>24585280
I did a bad job but, i made it so
>>24585389
You have pink hair?
That's p. gay.
>>24585267
Chokers/collars are my weakness though...
>>24585414
I'm talking about you, not the women. I'm not talking in terms of dating, I'm talking accept as fellow human beings. If you hate and harshly criticize all women who don't please you instead of ignoring them like a normal person, you're a misogynist.
>>24585433
There are plenty of isolated women, too. There's a whole frigid prickly ice princess trope about us.
>>24585389
get out, you dont belong here
>>24585470
I did at one point.
>>24585494
I like it here. I think I'll stay a little longer. :)
>>24585414
>personality isn't important
Then why do you only want pure submissive loyal girls and not selfish whores looking after their own interest and not yours?
>>24585493
>If you hate and harshly criticize all women who don't please you instead of ignoring them like a normal person
You think i hate women? I'm simply doing what they are doing to other men. Females with flaws have much easier time to be accepted into society than males. Being shy, introverted, depressed male is death sentence in society while females with the same characteristics are much more easier accepted.
>>24585493
>There are plenty of isolated women, too. There's a whole frigid prickly ice princess trope about us.
At this point I find it really hard to believe any woman on 4chan isn't a secret slut deep down. Just look at /soc/ or /cgl/.
>>24585495
Do you not feel bad about being such a stereotype?
>>24585493
>There's a whole frigid prickly ice princess trope about us.
>Adopting a 'so awkward' persona so you can fit into a category
You're like those girls who whisper when they talk to try to make themselves look cuter.
>>24585524
You're like fucking Thyphoid Mary everyone wants you to get the fuck away because you're poisoning everything but you like staying because it's your hobby. Fuck you femanons you're all smug cunts whenever confronted with the fact no one fucking wants you here except for the lowest of betas.
>>24585573
Yes, I think you hate women. That should be pretty clear by now as I've said it explicitly twice, but then again you're obviously severely challenged when it comes to reading comprehension. Which is probably also why you, after 2 posts, still have no clue what I'm even talking about (hint: none of what you say is relevant to that), or possibly you're unable to discuss any topic without turning it into more and more expressions of your hatred toward women.
>>24585646
it's okay anon, there's no need to be upset. you sound like you could use a hug :)
>>24585690
>You will never rape a /cgl/ girl
Feels bad sis.
>>24585705
You can if you want to Anon. What's stopping you?
>basic bitch clothing
>hair color hasn't changed since birth
>never used tumblr
>anime is shit
>never smoked weed
>or cigarettes
>feminist
Just [pic related]'ing myself, famm
>>24585653
I'm not that guy, but I only hate women who have sex with lots of men.
>>24585606
You don't know anything about me. I talk in a clear, cheerful voice that I've painstakingly trained because I've suffered from crippling (diagnosed) social anxiety since childhood and got into all kinds of trouble for speaking inaudibly. I NEVER try to make myself look cuter to anyone in any way, except for caring for my appearance so as to not stand out, although I haven't done so always. I've gone several year long periods without having a real conversation with anyone.
>>24585584
Define "slut". It's used to lightly so as to be meaningless. Does it mean a woman who isn't celibate? A sexual woman? A woman who has sex without love? What?
>>24585775
Okay, well thanks for letting me know. You're a misogynist.
>>24585762
>feminist
what the fuck are you doing on /r9k/ normie?
>>24585705
maybe one day, friend! :)
>>24585784
Is that really misogynistic? I just think you're doing yourselves a disservice with your sexual behavior. You make men view you as meat, you can deny it, but it's true.
>>24585792
>tfw I call myself a feminist and no one believes me irl because I'm conservative.
WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN
>>24585653
Misandry vs Misogyny. Probably that Chad ignored you, while you friendzoned awkward Bobby.
>>24585784
Us misogynists prefer our roast beef on our plates, not our girls
Femanons are confused faggots who believe that gender is a choice. There are no real women here just traps
>>24585776
I don't care. The reason we don't accept you is because a flawed girl is still accepted. She can still feel loved and know happiness in another's arms.
Your social anxiety is not a death sentence.
>>24585810
/cgl/ girls like you don't exist for any other reason really.
>>24585450
lmao this sucks, my entire life is a meme
>>24585776
Virtually all women are sexual, so we can discount that.
It refers to sexually promiscuous women. By the way I don't "hate" such women, I've even slept with a few, but it does describe the vast majority of women on this site (such as yourself).
>>24585811
Yes, it's misogynist. You single out a group of people and judge them for their personal choices. You neglect to respect their autonomy. When you give others the respect they're due as human beings, your equals, you don't impose your value system on their choices. You understand that they make their choices based on their beliefs, not yours.
>>24585820
I don't hate men.
>>24585821
Good thing no girls are yours, then.
>>24585843
I've never been on /cgl/ in my life, silly :P
>>24585833
Dis 3bh
>>24585792
pissing you off
>normie
I've yet to touch a penis in this life
>>24585433
I got sex from all 3 but no nudes. Weird, how did you do
>>24585861
>muhsoggynee
>then
>Good thing no girls are yours, then.
>My pussy is a prize to be given to those worthy
I wonder if you're even aware lel
>>24585267
Is there one of these for men? The best I have is the 'nu-male'
>>24585836
You don't make any sense at all. Others accepting something is no reason for you not to accept it. Do you choose all your opinions by going against the mainstream?
>Your social anxiety is not a death sentence.
Neither is yours.
>>24585859
Define "promiscuous". It's also a term that is used in a very inconsistent way.
>>24585861
You're implying a lack of respect for your personal choice to be sexually free with a lot of men implies hatred, it doesn't.
>You understand that they make their choices based on their beliefs, not yours.
We're all informed by the culture around us, and our genes. Nobody is truly "autonomous" in the sense you'd like to understand.
How many men have had you?
>>24585861
can you post a pic of yourself so we can all laugh?? :D
>>24585892
Thanks tripfuck I was looking for that one.
>twitter pixel art self avatars
Triggers me every time
>>24585881
Aware of dumb motivations and beliefs you attribute to me based on prejudice? I am now, although I wish I wasn't.
>>24585862
If you have had pink hair at some point in your life and like weeb stuff, you need to have a train run on you.
>>24585861
This is why I love fembots, this sense of earnestness. This unironic devotion to everything /r9k/ hates, this hatred of /r9k/'s animosity while embodying everything /r9k/ hates (sluttyness for example).
I'm not meme'ing. I love girls like this. I wish I could fuck this fembot so hard she screamed.
>>24585833
>women don't browse this board
Nice meme
>>24585861
I agree with pretty much all of your statements but I still feel anger towards women (most likely due to my social and sexual frustrations).
How can I overcome that pathetic anger and become a better person?
I'm not even trolling, I'm looking for answers.
>>24585873
>feminist
>wants penis inside her
Not much of a feminist are you?
>>24585897
>You're implying a lack of respect for your personal choice to be sexually free with a lot of men implies hatred, it doesn't.
No. I'm trying to explain the concept of misogyny to you. There are many forms of it, and they are not limited to simple hatred. Singling a women out for special judgment is misogyny.
>We're all informed by the culture around us, and our genes. Nobody is truly "autonomous" in the sense you'd like to understand.
The culture around us and the minds our genes create in interaction with it are both complex systems full of competing and contradictory values, drives and incentives. There is no one correct way outcome. It's amazing that you could blind yourself to the evidence for this. People are different. Societies are not simple. This should be enough.
>>24585953
What does the former have anything to do with the latter?
>>24585892
HAHA YEAH THERE IS
>>24585926
Do you love them to marry one of them?
>>24585970
>There is no one correct way outcome.
Of course there is. Whichever culture and the behavior it promotes that promotes maximum adaptivity.
The behavior you are describing is incredibly maladaptive, which is why Europe is being taken over by shitskins who embody values you hate (not that you'll admit they hold them, intersectionality and all that).
>>24585982
I dont understand that meme, please help
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT MY HIGHSCHOOL CRUSH MATCHES THIS CRITERIA PERFECTLY EVEN UNTIL THIS DAY, YET SHE CHOOSES TO SALIVATE OVER CHADS AND IGNORE HER EQUALS.
>>24585915
I can only hope
>>24586020
Fembot's sexual fantasies are always stuff like this.
>>24585991
>implying any femrobot/robot is worth marrying
>femrobots are either attention whores or really ugly
>robots just ugly
>>24586009
do you not understand the point of this image or are you just kek blind
PC Music is still cutting edge. I doubt anyone else ITT even knows what it is, let alone girls from tumblr. There are pretty much no female PC Music fans, it's all homosexual men.
>>24586037
Well seeing you're on the board, you have no right to call others unworthy of marriage.
>>24586071
Yes i do. I'm not putting myself above you, just stating simple facts.
>>24585991
I could marry one of them provided she was loyal.
>>24586062
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ43nlWmoeA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HXG2yH8HPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY9ejw1728w
A girl would never listen to music this avantgarde
If one does I'm going to need proof
>>24586092
Didn't you say personality did not matter?
>>24585267
I'd like to meet a girl who is into PC music.
Or even a guy, nobody likes PC music around me and they all think I'm a fucking retard for doing so
>>24586092
You train a woman to be loyal the same way you train a dog to be loyal. Woman are not very complex when you strip away all of the feelings and emotional stuff. Reward good behavior and punish bad behavior and eventually you will have a Westminster tier bitch.
>>24585946
Become happier, and you will find it easy to forgive other people (and yourself) for being imperfect. I don't know what your situation is, but a lot of robots (I used to) have a deep rooted commitment to denying themselves basic needs which then leads to a deep resentment of others who don't share these inhibitions. Acting as if you're entitled to have your needs fulfilled makes people who deny their own needs seethe with rage. If this is your problem, I would suggest that you make a commitment to keep reminding yourself that it's okay to want and need things, even if you've been taught to believe those things are frivolous. (Example here: robot hatred of some forms of entertainment, small talk, fashion and makeup, which are all useful tools for fitting in.) But we do have needs, and it's a bad idea to deny them. Prioritize your own wellbeing.
Many unhappy people are so stuck in judgment mode that they don't really enjoy anything anymore. They keep berating themselves and the food they're having, the people they're talking to, the film they're watching, whatever, so thoroughly that nothing is ever good enough for them. If this is you, mindfulness based approaches can help, or you can do a more freeform type thing where you keep reminding yourself to consciously look for the nice things in what you're doing and acknowledge them and pay attention to them.
I used to starve myself and that made me hate everything. If you're not in good physical health you will find it hard to feel good. Address whatever it is that's fucking your body up and that can help a lot. Exercise.
Practice relaxation techniques. This may sound dumb but it's necessary and evidence-based. Go get a massage, touch is very good for you.
Start building up a social life bit by bit. Wherever you are at now, think of a tiny step that is just barely out of your comfort zone. You can get a long way in a year without ever taking on more than you can handle.
>>24585993
>Of course there is. Whichever culture and the behavior it promotes that promotes maximum adaptivity.
How do you determine which one that is? There is no objective way. No matter how rigorous you try to be about it, you will inevitably end up making a model with built-in assumptions that leads to subjectivity.
>>24586114
I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.
>>24585762
>feminist
why would you honestly, unironically, apply such a tarnished and abhorred label to yourself?
>>24586143
I like PC music but I don't want to be your friend.
>>24586195
>How do you determine which one that is?
By whichever race and its associated culture survives in the long run. Demographics, simply.
>>24586208
>tarnished and abhorred
I don't care what bitter hateful men think about the label
>>24586267
so are you with feminism the movement or feminism the ideology? because they're two different things these days
>>24586288
She's familiar with my 9 inch dick being shoved down her throat.
>>24586317
yes, thank you for that my 16 year old friend
>>24586288
She means the "muh equality we should all juss b equals XD because peace man!!!"
Dumb bitches aren't hard to spot son
>>24586224
How do you account for change in the world? Demographic trends can only be seen on a timescale of generations, but the world has been changing faster than that for the last couple of centuries. It's impossible to look at demographics and say which group has the best strategy for the current circumstances, because you can't see into the future.
Also, cultures are not a group of people acting in the same way. They're an aggregate of very diverse behavior. Your model can only say things about the average behavior (weighted by number of descendants) of a culture, not any specific behavior within the culture. You can't say which behaviors are the best for achieving desired demographic outcomes based on observing the same demographic outcomes without making tons of completely unwarranted assumptions about what is going on within the group.
>>24586171
I don't think I'm stuck in that "judgement mode".
I'm very receptive to new things and people (scared, too), so I usually don't hate people out of nothing, except for those misogynistic thoughts I told you about.
I don't even know why I'm talking to random people on the internet about this. I think I got so frustrated with everything that I started questioning the way I think, and I've been able to change some of it, but I think I still need changes.
I see that most of those women are just as lost as some of us "robots", they're just dealing with it in a different way. I want to stop being an asshole. Even if I don't really tell anyone about those thoughs, I still feel very uncomfortable with them. I don't like being angry just because I can't be better.
Sorry for the big ass text and the shitty formatation.
>>24586288
Feminism is many movements and many ideologies today. No one can support "feminism" as a monolith, because it isn't one. That would mean supporting mutually contradictory beliefs.
>>24585267
They can't possibly be as bad as male robots.
>>24586343
>It's impossible to look at demographics and say which group has the best strategy for the current circumstances
Any group which willfully promotes its own disposession and replacement by foreign groups within its own lands is clearly behaving in a maladaptive way.
>without making tons of completely unwarranted assumptions about what is going on within the group.
I'm not making any "assumptions" beyond the relative strengths and weaknesses, as it stands, of the various races of the world. See above.
>>24585762
>admits to being a feminist
>on the internet
>on 4chan
>on /arkanine/
Damn, I see you're beeing yourself pretty hard.
>>24586344
Wanting to change means that your beliefs have already shifted enough that it's now possible. It may even be inevitable.
Are you saying you get the misogynistic thoughts as a reaction to fear? That you're afraid of women or something they might do? What do you think that is?
>>24585267
That depends. Before we can look at any given person and say "they are bad" we must have a concept of the bad, epistemologically prior to our imposing it on them.
What is bad, anon?
>>24586376
>Any group which willfully promotes its own disposession and replacement by foreign groups within its own lands is clearly behaving in a maladaptive way.
Only assuming there is zero sum group selection based competition going on. Reality is quite a bit more complex than that. I don't really even agree with your assumption that population growth is the only, or even best, measure of success of a culture. I find sustainability and standard of living (not defined in simply monetary terms) to be much more important.
>I'm not making any "assumptions" beyond the relative strengths and weaknesses, as it stands, of the various races of the world. See above.
Yes you are. You're making tons of assumptions and don't even see it. Which probably means this conversation is a waste of my time, have a nice day.
![90s_black_tattoo_choker[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uqkGMlo.jpg "90s_black_tattoo_choker[1].jpg")
Why are chokers so sexy, r9k?
>>24586551
>Only assuming there is zero sum group selection based competition going on.
Of course it's zero sum, either you, as a group, are masters of your own destiny in your nation or you aren't, in which case your nation becomes first a dysfunctional empire and then worse.
>I find sustainability and standard of living (not defined in simply monetary terms) to be much more important.
These things are contingent upon whites remaining dominant majorities. A majority Pakistani/Arab/Black Britain isn't going to have a high standard of living, lol.
>Which probably means this conversation is a waste of my time, have a nice day.
Nice deflection.
>>24586478
It could be fear.
I never really approached women. I had a girlfriend once and she was the source of many emotional problems that escalated with time (which doesn't mean it's her fault).
I think that what happened between me and that girl plus what I spent years reading on the internet made me get a distorted (I hope) view of things.
Sometimes I feel I just can't do it. I can't see myself anywhere else in 5 years. Maybe dead.
Maybe I'm just beyond repair.
>>24586605
It's not a deflection, you're impossible to have an intelligent conversation with.
>Of course it's zero sum, either you, as a group, are masters of your own destiny in your nation or you aren't, in which case your nation becomes first a dysfunctional empire and then worse.
>These things are contingent upon whites remaining dominant majorities. A majority Pakistani/Arab/Black Britain isn't going to have a high standard of living, lol.
See? These, literally in the post following a claim that you don't make assumptions too lightly.
Goodbye.
>>24586576
They just make that perfect facial ratio where they cut off at the neck. same for the chest too
>>24585267
I identify with maybe half of these.
>>24585310
I'm a femanon and I have no issues and im fairly normalfag material
>>24586627
>See? These, literally in the post following a claim that you don't make assumptions too lightly.
Yes, because it's totally baseless to assume that unproductive, low-IQ, lazy, uncreative people are going to reproduce their own culture within another land, it's not like that's exactly what Muslims are doing in Europe right now, or that the fact they're becoming inter-generationally more radical is proof that liberal arguments about the idea culture can be divorced from creed and race are bullshit. Right up there with "nothing to do with Islam!" tier arguments about terrorism.
Regardless, all of this is slight beside the point - living standards are immaterial if your group doesn't exist any more to experience them in the first place. Making yourself a minority in your own country and inviting hostile aliens in to replace you is dysfunctional and maladaptive, and if you can't see this it makes me weep for the future of the white race.
>>24586621
>Maybe I'm just beyond repair.
This is what almost everyone with depression or social problems believes with deep conviction, but it's statistically true for only a tiny minority of them. Keep that in mind. It's very unlikely that you're one of those people, especially since you want to change and question your beliefs.
>>24585450
Good start. Needs more pics in the second hair. Try and find some actual trannies to put it. It's not that hard to find some manly ones.
>>24586692
how many dudes have enjoyed that obviously quite nice body?
>>24585267
>north face jackets
why?
>>24586731
5 I guess, but only 3 put their dick inside me.
>>24586759
Nice going, slut.
>>24586759
And how old are you so I can run the slut calculations?
>>24586780
Meh. I haven't had sex in a few months though. Those 3 were from the last 5 years or so.
>>24586813
>few months
exactly what a slut would say
>>24586803
24, lost my virginity when I was 19. I was a dyke until I met my first boyfriend though so I've had sex with plenty of other women.
>>24586703
>living standards are immaterial if your group doesn't exist any more to experience them in the first place.
This is your dumbest assumption. "Groups" aren't a thing, they're an abstraction and you'd have to justify why the abstraction you make is meaningful. Even if everyone in Europe is brown in 200 years' time, they will still be the descendants of pale europeans. As long as white people keep having babies, their descendants aren't going to die out. They may just be brown.
>>24586720
I hope you're right. Thanks.
I think I missed talking to people about those things.
>>24586849
I'm right, count on it.
Good luck with your change. Don't get discouraged.
>>24586830
lol I'm practically celibate compared to most women I know.
>>24586836
>"Groups" aren't a thing, they're an abstraction
Forget about the biology, the fact is that the vast majority of non-whites are convince they are real and meaningful and they're not going to give up the power that goes with organizing as a group based on race/creed. Ever. Get used to it, stop dreaming about some "raceless future" and comprehend what this means for us.
>As long as white people keep having babies, their descendants aren't going to die out. They may just be brown.
lol yes, mullattoes are totally white and european. likewise with arabs.
if you change the genome of an entire continent to that degree, you will change the culture.
>>24586813
Are you a race-mixer?
>>24586692
I remember this. That was a good thread to be in, i tell you.
>>24586861
>lol yes, mullattoes are totally white
They are as white as they are black. Race mixing is how you destroy the black race, too.
>>24586881
Hell no. I only date and have sex with other white people. Although one of the guys was like half turkish or something? I dunno, but he looked like your average white guy.
>>24586832
I guess "degenerate" sums you up quite nicely.
>>24586908
Don't make me put my trip on :P I had fun in that thread too. Good times.
>>24586913
Blacks have enough above-replacement fecundity that it doesn't work like that. Remember that relative population size of breeding age differentials over time mean you can essentially wipe out a race by absorbing it into your own.
>>24586924
If you're not some sort of ultra-slut, this is all I care about really.
Shows you don't have self-hatred if you stick to your own men, and that's probably why you haven't actually slept with that many in the first place (self-respect). Look at how promiscuous most race-mixers are (weeb girls, wigger girls).
>>24586913
They still look the average chimp with lighter skin pigmentation.
>>24586936
I'm really a sweetie irl though, not trashy at all. It's unrealistic to expect me to not have sex at all, anon. I do feel bad for those that don't get the chance too until later in life.
>>24586861
>are totally white and european
I didn't say they're white. They're the descendants of white people. It's on you to show white people should only care about their descendants if said descendants are also white.
>the vast majority of non-whites are convince they are real and meaningful
They are meaningful in many ways. The reality of oppression is hard to deny when you're on the receiving end. Oppressed people should organize politically. This is how we get a future in which race matters less.
>if you change the genome of an entire continent to that degree, you will change the culture.
[citation needed]
Also, to what degree do you think the genome will be changed if all people were to become brown? How do you justify this belief?
>comprehend what this means for us.
It's really hard to comprehend when the very basis of your arguments is nonsensical. Maybe you can give a concrete example of what you think the dystopian future will be like. Please also append a complete list of all the assumptions you base these projections on. Thank you.
>>24586941
Reproduction rates are basically irrelevant to what I said.
>>24586966
So? Those of them that are indistinguishible from the average white person, are they white or mixed?
>>24586957
Yeah I dunno, I'm really just not attracted to non whites. I think it's because of my upbringing (small, rural, all white town). The women I see dating blacks come off as being vapid and wannabe black.
>>24586938
Wew, is it you? I gotta admit i missed you a bit sonce last time.
>>24587044
Since*
>>24585854
*Ironic reply here*
>>24587044
It's a me :p I missed you too anon. I've been lurking mostly lately.
>>24587017
>Reproduction rates are basically irrelevant to what I said.
He means the resulting mixed population will be more like blacks than whites because blacks have more descendants on average. He thinks this is important and meaningful because he thinks black is bad and white is good and he wants a future where good prevails over bad.
>>24587065
Can't have people get too obsessed with you i guess. How you been?
>>24585370
>>24585433
HOW DO I HAVE SEX WITH A GIRL? CAN YOU CHADS STOP COMING TO OUR BOARD AND TAKING THE WOMEN TOO? I'M JUST GOING TO FUCKING SHOOT EVERYONE I FUCKING SEE YOU CHADS HAVE RUINED MY LIFE.
>>24587016
>It's on you to show white people should only care about their descendants if said descendants are also white.
No it isn't, genetic closeness - i.e. kinship is what determines our relationship to them. If they're 5% European, they're barely our kin to begin with.
>Oppressed people should organize politically.
It's not a matter of "oppression". Non-white people already have largely racially homogeneous nations which are de facto vehicles for racial self-interest (look at Japan or South Korea).
In regards to their diaspora populations, this isn't about reaching some sort of parity, otherwise you'd have Asian Americans demanding that more were being done to redress the academic achievement gap between whites and themselves, and bemoaning their own privilege (less likely to be in jail, less likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be in a white collar profession etc).
I find it really hard to believe you can be on 4chan and naive enough to believe non-white racial organization is based around "oppression".
>[citation needed]
>culture is 100% environment and 0% genes
[citation needed]
>Also, to what degree do you think the genome will be changed if all people were to become brown?
Do you understand what the genome is?
>Reproduction rates are basically irrelevant to what I said.
No they aren't. If black people and brown people carry on having tons of kids and pumping them into Europe it wouldn't be a case of the average "European" 200 years from now being 50% European, 50% non-European genetically, it would skew to majority non-European, for obvious reasons.
>Maybe you can give a concrete example of what you think the dystopian future will be like.
Sure, look at the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa. Or just look at your average black or muslim neighborhood in western urban centers today.
>>24587079
>He means the resulting mixed population will be more like blacks than whites because blacks have more descendants on average
So? The point is that those descendants won't be blacks by definition and exactly to the extent that they wouldn't be whites. Only the descendents of black couples would be black. Ergo race mixing is a way to destroy the black race.
>>24587105
Freezing. It's finally started snowing here.
>tfw have to leave to obtain food, but I'm in comfy mode
How's anon?
>>24587138
>Ergo race mixing is a way to destroy the black race.
Wrong, since whites do not have above replacement birth rates, whilst blacks do. Moreover, black homelands are overwhelmingly majority black, whereas white homelands are increasingly heading towards white minoritization.
Nice try though.
There's simply no way you can justify the status quo as advantageous to whites. Be honest and admit that it's only advantageous to non-whites if you want, I can accept that. But I'm not going to support something literally suicidal for me and my kin.
>>24585548
It's important to robots for the most part, he meant in general no one cares about it.
>>24585267
PC music is a shit label.
Most Grime with MCs is irredeemably shit, there's like 3 MCs putting out things worth your time these days and no, Skepta is not one of them. Instrumentals usually bang, tho.
Cloud rap is fun.
Yung Lean is garbage.
I am posting here, no?
I don't "get" tumblr.
I don't like showing off my legs, so I don't wear thigh highs. I do own a pair of them, though.
Does anyone actually dislike smoking weed, it's such a casual drug anyway.
Is there anyone who doesn't smoke?
Not gonna turn down a cup of drank.
I like anime, especially when it has cute girls doing cute things.
I don't follow sportswear or designers, but I own a North Face jacket.
Chokers are dumb.
I am trying to figure out Chinese, but I don't care much for Japanese.
Chokers are ugly.
Black hair is the best.
>>24587164
Eh, got a girl now, so i gotta stop lusting so hard after qts. Weather is still nice here, I can't wait for the ice and snow to hit honestly, i'm sick of warm weather. So you done with pics for good? Or just waiting a bit?
>>24585450
Needs some shittier j-fashion images, traps always have awful taste in clothing
>>24587182
>I like anime, especially when it has cute girls doing cute things.
Weeb girls are the worst.
>>24585894
We go against the mainstream to make things more "equal", "fair" or "leveling the playing field".
>>24587182
>there's like 3 MCs putting out things worth your time these days and no, Skepta is not one of them
name them family
>>24587173
>Wrong, since whites do not have above replacement birth rates
This is literally completely irrelevant. If you have black A and white B making C, C is neither black nor white. Therefore encouraging race mixing results in a world without black people.
>There's simply no way you can justify the status quo as advantageous to whites
Oh don't get me wrong, I couldn't give less of a shit about whites. I care about whites about as much as I care for people with black hair, or people with my height and so on. It's just that your reasoning is flawed insofar as it presents mixed race children as black insofar as both of their parents aren't white, but not as white insofar as both of their parents aren't black. Basically you treat whiteness as an abstract ideal and this is nonsensical.
>>24587138
The extents won't be exactly equal, that's what he's saying. If everyone is mixed, and blacker people have more descendants on average, then everyone will be more black than white.
I agree it doesn't mean anything either. He just attributes absolute positive value to whiteness that he does not attribute to blackness. Because he also perceives black-white group competition as zero sum, then it follows that every bit of blackness is a lost bit of whiteness, so it's a negative.
>>24585653
Not that guy but he is rightto some degree. If your shy and introvertered as a man you are socially and romantically fucked unless you force a change. End of story. Shy, unhappy men have to put on a persona when they go out to be liked by other people. Thats what I find myself doing anyway.
>>24587205
Aw, lusting is okay, but stay faithful to gf irl.
I've just been lazy lately with the pics, but when I'm in the mood next I'll take a bunch :D it usually depends on how my self esteem is doing on a particular day lol
>>24586697
Ride my dick or fuck off
>>24587251
>This is literally completely irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant?
One group is literally producing more people, proportionally, of breeding age.
I'll break it down in simple terms for you.
Suppose whites continue with birth rates of well below replacement, and non-whites continue to have well-above replacement rates. Suppose this state of affairs continues for say, 10 generations.
What do you think the end result is? A 50/50 split?
>I care about whites about as much as I care for people with black hair, or people with my height and so on.
Of course you do.
The mistake you make is in assuming non-white people feel similarly. They don't and they never will, and that's the great tragedy of white liberal earnestness.
>>24585821
This to be quite honest family. There is no point in arguing with these fucking buzzword spouting mouth breathers.
>>24586957
>3
>not many
>>24587220
Flow Dan
Riko DanTopshopman Dan aka the bossman
>>24587290
I feel you. I'm trying to limit the lewd intake for my girlie, but i'd love to see more when you're feeling up to it. I'll definitely be there when you post more. that last thread you were in got me hooked
>>24587296
>One group is literally producing more people, proportionally, of breeding age.
What you're saying is that if you have group A and group B and they are both reproducing at different rates, the one reproducing at a higher rate will increase arithmetically relative to the other. What I'm saying is taht if a person from B reproduces faster with a partner from A, for this exact reason, B loses part of its arithmetic advantage, because comparatively more children that could be black are now mixed than children that could be white.
>The mistake you make is in assuming non-white people feel similarly
I don't think that non-white people necessarily think similarly, and it doesn't have any bearing on my thinking the way I do.
>>24587137
>culture is 100% environment and 0% genes
This isn't my claim. My claim is that you can't assume without good evidence that culture would necessarily change if the genetic composition of the population were to change by amount X. The magnitude of X was another thing I asked you to address. You didn't.
>this isn't about reaching some sort of parity, otherwise you'd have Asian Americans demanding that more were being done to redress the academic achievement gap between whites and themselves
That is absurd. Asian americans aren't idiots. Only a machine intelligence that fails the turing test, or a disingenous debater, would come up with statements like that. It is assumed that everyone thinks that everything should be better for everybody, and this does not need to be mentioned separately for cases that don't require special attention. Oppression is a case where it's legitimate and purposeful to pay such attention. The achievement gap between asians and whites is not due to oppression, as whites are not oppressed.
Of course it's not about parity, it's about fairness. It's in everyone's interests that a group should exercise it's comparative advantage if it has one, as long as it's not an unfairly earned advantage.
>Do you understand what the genome is?
Yes. Do you?
>Sure, look at the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa. Or just look at your average black or muslim neighborhood in western urban centers today.
You left out the important part, the justifications and assumptions.
>>24587212
That's a post hoc rationalization. It's a convenient, rational-sounding (to you) excuse to believe what you already believe for some other reason. It's absolutely ridiculous to everyone else, people don't work like that.
>>24587365
I'm flattered :p I'll have to do that soon.
>>24587332
>don't disrepect dan
>cos you know dan
>you will get a box from dan
>cant rob on dan or plot on dan
>cos you will get shot by dan
>straight up and dan
>whos great its dan
>make space i'm here its dan
still my favourite grime verse ever tbf.
you're wrong on all 3 counts though
>>24587269
Shy, unhappy women also have to put on a persona. They are also socially and romantically fucked.
>>24587380
>What I'm saying is taht if a person from B reproduces faster with a partner from A, for this exact reason, B loses part of its arithmetic advantage, because comparatively more children that could be black are now mixed than children that could be white.
Yes, and? We are already at a net negative arithmetic disadvantage to begin with ourselves, and they already have the luxury of mass immigration and differential birth rates.
Over the course of several generations, the results are obvious. You're just being willfully ignorant here.
>I don't think that non-white people necessarily think similarly
Of course they don't. White liberals always project their universalism onto the rest of the world, which is why they genuinely believed the Arab Spring was going to be about LGBT rights and feminism.
Unfortunately, non-whites remain staunchly tribal and always will.
>and it doesn't have any bearing on my thinking the way I do.
Again, that's immaterial. A tribal group is always, in the long run, going to outcompete an individualistic group that refuses to see the reality of group competition.
>>24585267
>weeb
>stoner
>chokers
>ABOSOLUTE TERRITORY
muh dick,
I don't even care how degenerate they are.
wouldn't even care about dyed hair, or how much of a tumblrina they are.
I lot of the druggie/ stoner girls I've met are chill as fuck, so I doubt they'd get on my case about PC shit that much.
>>24587424
Third is shit and I'm obviously taking the piss.
Except for those two nobody has actually managed to get a good release out in the past year.
>>24585267
What's the cup with purple? What does it stand for?
>>24587450
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHg4GQqmWhA
>>24587428
>they genuinely believed the Arab Spring was going to be about LGBT rights and feminism.
The arabs thought so, too, you know. The women (don't know about LGBT, but women definitely) have been enthusiastic participants in all democratic movements in the middle east. They just get screwed over when the dust settles, much like democracy does.
>>24587385
>My claim is that you can't assume without good evidence that culture would necessarily change if the genetic composition of the population were to change by amount X.
If it's not your claim, then you already either accept my assertion implicitly or you deny sociobiological reality. Behavior is part genetic, part environment - culture is part genetic, part environment. If you change the people, you change the culture. We shouldn't even be discussing this, you're quite welcome to come to my city's heavily Islamic areas and see it for yourself if you like.
>It is assumed that everyone thinks that everything should be better for everybody, and this does not need to be mentioned separately for cases that don't require special attention.
Straight out of Orwell:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal [or require more special attention] than others."
>The achievement gap between asians and whites is not due to oppression, as whites are not oppressed.
I see what you mean, good point. The litmus test here is if there's a disparity between white people and non-white people, that's down to oppression, since white people's success is down to phantom discrimination, whereas Asian people's success is down to hard work and self-sacrifice.
...And you wonder why we call you "anti-white".
>Yes. Do you?
Yes, and the European genome is irrevocably changed by mass immigraition and miscegenation.
>You left out the important part, the justifications and assumptions.
No, you asked me what the future dystopia looked like, and I gave you a clear and present example of what is already happening and what it already looks like, from the Paris suburbs to the inner cities of the continental US.
>>24585267
>the north face
am i a meme girl now?
>>24587446
yeah i don't really follow too much anymore
skepta has blatantly had the year locked though.
wiley is grime
i like chipmunk
all them dan's just gave me an excuse to drop meridian dan's verse on private caller tbf
>>24587428
>Yes, and? We are already at a net negative arithmetic disadvantage
Which as I have shown can be turned around by means of race mixing. Consider it like this. A and B are white. C and D are black. If A and B produce white children together, and C and D produce black children together, we could say get 1 white and 3 black children. If we get race-mixing couples A and C and B and D, we instead get 6 mixed race children that are neither black nor white. The opportunity cost of a mixed race child is a black child but only 0.3 white children. Meaning that black people lose their reproductive advantage.
>>24587428
>A tribal group is always, in the long run, going to outcompete an individualistic group that refuses to see the reality of group competition.
Only assuming that individuals don't defect from the tribal group to the individualistic group in significant numbers. Keep in mind that, for an individual, individualism is always in their best interests.
>>24587487
>The arabs thought so, too, you know.
No they didn't. The bulk of the Arab population in most Arab nations overwhelmingly support political Islam, usually in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islamic History would understand this is both unsurprising and expected, since Islam isn't a trascendental faith, it's a works-based religion which is explicitly political, social, legal and administrative. The idea of divorcing Islam from Shariah is in direct contradiction of the Sunnah and the Quran itself. And not just one particular component of the former two elements, but all of it, in its entirety, would be contradicted by a "non-political, liberal islam".
>The women (don't know about LGBT, but women definitely) have been enthusiastic participants in all democratic movements in the middle east.
lol yes, and the bulk of those "rebels" in Syria are freedom-loving liberal democrats who idolize Voltaire and George Washington too. Derp.
>>24587559
>Which as I have shown can be turned around by means of race mixing.
No it can't. If the white group is not producing children at above replacement rate, and the non-white group is constantly reinforced by mass immigration, it's the complete opposite.
Study the island model of migration. This has been understood for years.
>>24587108
Not Chad, but can you shoot me please.
Take me out of my misery
>>24587554
Skepta is pathetic. Bait grime isn't interesting is it?
Wiley did do a thing with Zomby, I forgot it existed.
Chip is a joke.
>all them dan's just gave me an excuse to drop meridian dan's verse on private caller tbf
I was gonna say Meridian Dan for the third one so I could've had all Dans, but I couldn't have made a shitty Nov joke if I had done that.
Nov is pure shit too.
>>24587566
>Only assuming that individuals don't defect from the tribal group to the individualistic group in significant numbers.
See, the funny thing is the complete opposite is happening. Non-whites are becoming more racially conscious in the West. In Europe, Muslims are statistically and demonstrably becoming inter-generationally more Islamic, which stands in direct contradiction to liberal dogma about culture being some totally malleable thing attached to nothing more than a passport.
>Keep in mind that, for an individual, individualism is always in their best interests.
Your mistake is you view the individual and the group as antagonistic forces. They're not, they're symbiotic forces. Non-whites understand this very well. Blacks, in a primitive way, understand this very well. Asians certainly understand it.
>>24587559
>If we get race-mixing couples A and C and B and D, we instead get 6 mixed race children that are neither black nor white.
His point is that the population becomes progressively less and less white over time, which is correct. Of course 1000 years form now those people may have 0.5% European admixture, but it's so tiny as to be irrelevant.
>>24587628
if you don't like skep i can't fuck with you desu fem.
i didn't even listen to the zomby bit because he's such a nobhead and hasn't finished a tune in about 7 years but wiley literally IS grime. top 1 selected.
i get why chip is hated but he buried bugzy this year and had loads of good tunes, idk.
>>24587385
>The achievement gap between asians and whites is not due to oppression, as whites are not oppressed.
Whites are ruled by elites whose literal stated aim is to make them minorities in their own homelands. I'd call that oppression desu senpai.
>>24587513
>I see what you mean, good point. The litmus test here is if there's a disparity between white people and non-white people, that's down to oppression, since white people's success is down to phantom discrimination, whereas Asian people's success is down to hard work and self-sacrifice.
We know from elsewhere that white people are not oppressed, and that black people are. I can't believe you'd deny racism exists.
>Behavior is part genetic, part environment - culture is part genetic, part environment. If you change the people, you change the culture.
The latter does not follow from the former. Genes and environment interact to create behavior. It's way, way more complicated than simply something being down to environment and something to genes. Environment alters gene expression. This means that different genetic makeups can create similar behaviors in the same environments. Features that are present in one population in one environment can disappear in another environment.
>We shouldn't even be discussing this, you're quite welcome to come to my city's heavily Islamic areas and see it for yourself if you like.
What do you think that would show? Is your reasoning literally "they're genetically different but they are in the same culture as the white people, and they're different from the white people, so that must mean it's their genetics doing it"?
>Yes, and the European genome is irrevocably changed by mass immigraition and miscegenation.
I asked you how much you think it will be altered, and why you think that amount is important. You still haven't responded.
>No, you asked me what the future dystopia looked like
Funny, I thought I said
>Please also append a complete list of all the assumptions you base these projections on. Thank you.
Too bad it's not like we can go back and quote me. Hm.
>>24587723
>i didn't even listen to the zomby bit because he's such a nobhead and hasn't finished a tune in about 7 years but wiley literally IS grime
Fair, apparently I missed a Wiley EP.
>i get why chip is hated but he buried bugzy this year and had loads of good tunes, idk.
Chip is the same vein as Skepta, feels bait, you feel me?
He's got the kinda flows, the kinda bars people seem to want to hear.
>>24587729
>We know from elsewhere that white people are not oppressed, and that black people are.
From where do we know this?
>I can't believe you'd deny racism exists.
Define racism in a non-subjective, non-emotional way.
> It's way, way more complicated than simply something being down to environment and something to genes.
Actually no, it's quite simple. You want it to be more complicated than it is so you can handwave away the fact multiracialism isn't working, but really, all it boils down to is that changing the stock of a nation's people changes the culture. That's the particular topic we happen to be discussing here, don't try and pull away from it.
>Is your reasoning literally "they're genetically different but they are in the same culture as the white people, and they're different from the white people, so that must mean it's their genetics doing it"?
Yes, I believe genes account for at least a non-insignificant part of the way they behave. Hence the hardcore monotheism common to most Semites. I don't believe human beings are magical animals for whom divergent evolution magically stops at the neck, no.
>I asked you how much you think it will be altered, and why you think that amount is important.
It is already being altered. Most European urban centers are on their way to becoming majority non-white.
Nope, you said:
>Maybe you can give a concrete example of what you think the dystopian future will be like.
To which I replied:
>Sure, look at the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa. Or just look at your average black or muslim neighborhood in western urban centers today.
>>24587828
Funny thing is blacks reproduce the same behavior in their neighborhoods even if it's in Japan (Nigerians in Roppongi) or China (Africans in Guangzhou). So we can see that even in incredibly alien environments, very different from each other, blacks produce low living standards, high crime etc.
>>24587633
>In Europe, Muslims are statistically and demonstrably becoming inter-generationally more Islamic
I doubt you could show this without resorting to white supremacist sources.
>which stands in direct contradiction to liberal dogma about culture being some totally malleable thing attached to nothing more than a passport.
This isn't a liberal dogma. Culture is totally malleable, but societies, history and even individuals of course have a lot of inertia, so it takes a long time to effect significant change. However, given sufficient time, total change is inevitable.
>Your mistake is you view the individual and the group as antagonistic forces. They're not, they're symbiotic forces.
There is a conflict of interest. Group cultures can be constructed such that the conflict of interest is minimized, where group rules serve individuals' needs. You know what that is called? It's individualism.
>>24587487
Look at the Pew Global Research poll that was done a couple of years ago. The most extensive poll ever done on social opinions in the Muslim World. The overwhelming majority of Muslim women believe in Shariah.
>The arabs thought so, too, you know.
lol no they didn't. The whole thing started as Islamist organized opposition to ruling autocrats, who, for all their flaws, were far more civilized than most of their population.
>>24587794
i can't hate skepta for having dozens of reload tunes, and jumping on stuff to make bank. boy done good
like i said i don't follow too much anymore, the bugzy stuff was really the only chip i've heard recently, his beard is fucking hilarious though.
my viewpoint is way skewed by 07-09' era though, i don't even know most of the newer guys.
tbph i've not listened to anything but young thug and future for about six months so yeah.
good chat pfam
>>24585762
>>anime is shit
take that back
>>24587888
>I doubt you could show this without resorting to white supremacist sources.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html
>40% of British Muslims between the ages of 16 to 24 would prefer to live under Shariah Law
>The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
>This isn't a liberal dogma.
It is. You just don't understand the epistemological history of what you're espousing. John Locke is one of the founding fathers of liberalism and a crucial axiom he established was that of tabula rasa. It's the reason you assume disparities in outcome are down to "discrimination" by default (unless these disparities are disadvantageous to whites, which you yourself have admitted).
>You know what that is called? It's individualism.
No, invididualism as it exists now is the outright denial of the concept of group interests for whites. Which is why you are genuinely confused and shocked when stuff like the above data is pointed out to you, you have projected your atomized individualism onto Muslims, and they aren't buying it.
>However, given sufficient time, total change is inevitable.
Again, you make the mistake of assuming change means "change in a liberal direction".
Whites are just inherently more liberal than non-whites. It really is as simple as that. Asians are more hierarchical and group orientated, semites more monotheistic and so on.
If you accept these differences of kind, not in totality, but accept them as things that are, at least for the forseeable future, fairly immutable, maybe you can make peace with yourself and stop trying to make square pegs fit into round holes, or more precisely, non-whites into white societies.
>>24587828
>From where do we know this?
I won't start proving it. Too ridiculous. You could so very easily find out if you wanted to, I'm sure your mind is made up and you don't give a shit about the truth.
>Define racism in a non-subjective, non-emotional way.
A lot of things can't be defined in a non-subjective way. Were you aware of that?
>Actually no, it's quite simple. You want it to be more complicated than it is
I'm cringing now. You're saying gene-environment interactions are "actually quite simple". Clearly you know absolutely nothing about the entire field.
>it boils down to is that changing the stock of a nation's people changes the culture. That's the particular topic we happen to be discussing here, don't try and pull away from it.
First off, you don't get to unilaterally define what we're discussing.
Secondly, I'm not pulling away from it. I'm addressing it head on. I just don't accept your assumptions, I keep asking you to back them up with something. I just told you why it's not a given that changing the stock of a nation changes the culture, and you dismissed it just like that, without addressing the substance at all.
>It is already being altered. Most European urban centers are on their way to becoming majority non-white.
Still not a response to the actual question I asked. Which was, how much do you think the genome would be altered by making everyone brown (in the original context, I just meant it as a theoretical lower-upper bound kind of thing, but if you want to respond with what you think would happen in real life that is also fine), and why you think that specific amount would be enough that culture would inevitably change significantly.
Clearly if we just changed everyone's skin to brown without changing anything else, culture would not change.
>Nope, you said
I literally quoted my own post, so I think I said exactly what I said I said.
I'm a femanon how red flag is my meme outfit? Everything is Nike
>>24586113
>>24586062
PC Music is fucking garbage lmao
It's like tumblrwavecore for middle class London types. There's nothing avant garde about, it's just pure shit lol
>>24588069
Very /fa/
>>24586062
M L A O
L
A
O
>>24588069
retards will eat up the corporate brands, just the target the corporations are aiming at
>>24588121
I buy Nike bcus I can afford it lmao. And Adidas is shitty
>>24588023
I give up. You're impossible to have a conversation with. You're telling me what I believe, that modern liberals can't believe what I believe because historical liberals believed different things, you require the existence of racism to be proven to you, and you keep making assumptions. Nothing good is going to come of this.
>Again, you make the mistake of assuming change means "change in a liberal direction".
Where did I say I assumed this? Why would you jump into such a conclusion? Why are you so adamant in telling me what I think instead of letting me tell you?
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html
>The study, by the Right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't fulfill the stipulation I made.
>>24588051
>I won't start proving it. Too ridiculous.
So it's both incredibly obvious but you can't start proving it.
>A lot of things can't be defined in a non-subjective way.
Yes, meaningless waffle phrases words like "democratic", "social justice", "bigotry", "discriminate" etc.
>You're saying gene-environment interactions are "actually quite simple".
No, I'm saying that the statement: "Changing the genetic profile of a Nation significantly also significantly changes the culture" is fairly simple.
>First off, you don't get to unilaterally define what we're discussing.
No, civilized people stick to a single topic. Retarded, dumb people branch off in all directions when they're called out.
>I just told you why it's not a given that changing the stock of a nation changes the culture
So you think, for example, gradually replacing, over the course of 200 years, all Japanese with Africans wouldn't change what "Japanese" culture is, to the point of it being nearly unrecognizable?
>and why you think that specific amount would be enough that culture would inevitably change significantly.
Because it already has changed the culture significantly and is changing it significantly, in very obvious ways, many of which I have already illustrated.
>Clearly if we just changed everyone's skin to brown without changing anything else, culture would not change.
Race is not merely skin color. This is pretty elementary stuff...
>>24588069
terrible, simply terrible. is this early 90s great britain again? has irony gone so far we're now experiencing new sincerity IRL life?
>>24588069
post more i need more to rate
>>24588069
Your outfit sucks balls but I would plow you profusely, without a second thought.I could have made a pun about you sucking my balls here, but I didn't because I'm a gentlesir
>>24588140
>You're telling me what I believe, that modern liberals can't believe what I believe because historical liberals believed different things
I'm telling you:
1) You don't understand the actual epistemological roots of what you believe, since westerners see their liberalism as default and non-ideological.
2) That modern liberal thinking is very much still predicated on notions of blank slate cognitive development, hence why disparities of outcome of any kind (except those disadvantageous to whites) are instantly assumed to come from a source of "discrimination" or "oppression".
>right-wing
>white supremacist
This is a really absurd conflation here. Anyway, don't attack the source's legitimacy, go to their methodology and criticize that. Anything else is fallacy tier.
>I give up. You're impossible to have a conversation with.
Ok, I'll let you get back to your "#islammeanspeace" posting on twitter now sweetheart. Good afternoon!
>>24588151
Fuck you I'm fa
Everyone irl says so
>>24588214
>that outfit
holy FUQ is your life literally a 90s after school special or something LOL
>>24588214
literal 0/10
Frumpy shit a down syndrome girl would have worn twenty years ago.
>>24588208
>That modern liberal thinking is very much still predicated on notions of blank slate
I'm not who you're talking to, and I have no interest in a discussion with you, but just so you know, literally no liberal philosopher, ever, subscribed to the blank slate. Both Locke and Hume who are usually touted as representatives of that view had a concept of the categories of understanding as natural associations. Basically the concept of the blank slate was constructed ex post by those arguing against it.
>>24588069
pure bait
>>24588069
hate that hat tbph
>>24588275
I'm fairly certain, from what I can remember, that Locke's "Human Understanding" uses tabula rasa to justify the concept of self-ownership. Now you can say he didn't mean it as necessarily applied to the development of cognitive functions, but the fact is that the influence of the idea came to be felt in that space through things like Boasian cranial plasticity, as well as Marxian ideas on human development (On Feuerbach is clear about the fact Marx believed man was wholly a product of material conditions). It's also omnipresent today in the way I described, namely that disparities in group outcomes are by default chalked up to environmental causes.
So try again.
why do people think women are oppressed again
>>24585836
>you're homosexual
>guys think thats hot
do you know what lesbian means oh my god
>>24588402
I think it's unfair when women completely write off men and call themselves lesbians.
>>24588239
Uncultured swine. 90s is fa as fuck.
>>24588351
>I'm fairly certain, from what I can remember, that Locke's "Human Understanding" uses tabula rasa to justify the concept of self-ownership
Ewwwwwww. Locke doesn't prove self-ownership in the essay concerning human understanding, and in fact self-ownership has nothing to do with the tabula rasa. Self-ownership and ownership in general are taken to be prepolitical rights by Locke, not deriving from the general will, which is what distinguishes him from the rousseuvian tradition followed by Kant. The tabula rasa view in the essay concerning human understanding has to do with epistemology, not human development. It's obvious that Locke doesn't believe humans are infnitely malleable, first of all because he believes them to be vehicles of natural reason.
>Marxian ideas on human development (On Feuerbach is clear about the fact Marx believed man was wholly a product of material conditions)
Double ewwwwww. First there is no "on feuerbach" There is the end of german classical philosophy which is written by engels. You might be thinking of the theses, which are deeply hegelian and have to do with the opposite, namely marx's rejection of saint-simonian moulding of people through education and his conception of immanent critique. Secondly, Marx has a very specific conception of the human species-essense, see human nature, which is why half the analytic marxists are perfectionists.
Basically the person closer to what you call blank slate, is burke.
>>24587404
Still technically fair, give me a reason why I shouldn't do it.
>>24588523
>there is no "on feuerbach"
I'm referring to his "Theses on Feuerbach", here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
Now refer to this part:
>the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relation
It logically follows from this that if you can change the "ensemble of the social relation", you can totally change human nature. To deny this is fundamentally a huge part of Marxism is just to play games with words.
Going through marxists.org I'm reminded of another illustration of this that is even more stark, from A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
>"The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ (from the preface).
Marx is literally saying here that the totality of consciousness is determined by the mode of production people live under.
>>24588523
>Ewwwwwww.
>Double ewwwwww.
>>24588622
>It logically follows from this that if you can change the "ensemble of the social relation", you can totally change human nature.
No, because
>The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
So basically to think that you can change the social totality in order to change humanity presupposes the social totality as ontologically distinct from humanity. I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of marx's view on structuration, namely alienation. Social forces arise at first from human sensuous activity from which they are alienated and act back upon. Basically the above, changing social relations and thus humans is a saint-simonian notion which he criticises exactly because it must presuppose an educator abstracted from the social totality. All of this is marx's conception of the hegelian notion of immanent critique. The point is that you need to criticise the internal logic of an institution from within the point of view of that institution instead of imposing some sort of blueprint from without. That would be impossible.
On Marx's views on human nature you can always check his philosophical manuscripts and especially the part on alienated labor.
>Marx is literally saying here that the totality of consciousness is determined by the mode of production
The quotemining game won't do you any good when you have no systematic understanding of what the quotes mean. I could quote his analogy about bees but the point is, marx is a material reductionist, not a determinist. At first there are humans in social productive relations and then there is culture. Its form might be spontaneous or determined by a multitude of factors, but it must reduce to a certain way of organising the production and distribution of surplus.
>>24588523
> Ewwwwwww
Please don't say that, it's terrible. I don't know why it bothers me so much but it really does.
I lived with a femanon for a month until she kicked me out because I was "too quiet" and she thought I was trying to kill her. Didn't even give me any advance notice, like I was leaving to another state for the weekend to see my family and 30 minutes before I left she told me to pack up my shit and leave forever.
>>24588827
>marx is a material reductionist, not a determinist
Yes, that's the point. He was an economic reductionist, no matter how you want to dress him up, that's the point. Hence:
>It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
This is totally at odds with our understanding of the nature-nurture debate now, in fact it was at odds with it even back then, since most biologists had a good understanding of Mendelian Inheritance.
I'm less interested in the raw philosophy as it existed then and more interested in what it has morphed into in any event. Perhaps Marx didn't truly mean that man is without genetically derived cognitive and other abilities that place him on an innate hierarchy relative to other men, I can't comment with any certainty.
What I can say with certainty however is that the default assumption of disparities in outcomes today is that they are caused almost entirely by environmental factors and that this is, in no small part, derived from the west's liberal philosophical tradition.
It's also totally at odds with everything we know about gwas, psychometrics, genetic inheritance etc but that's a discussion for another time.
Any Femanon from Germany here? Wanna chitchat, email or skype perhaps?
>>24588929
No, you misunderstand. When Marx is talking about peoples' social being, he's being perfectly literal. This has nothing to do with nature or nurture. What he's saying is this: Hegel begins from a conscious being, that is not yet fully human before it comes in a relation with other human beings in order to recognise itself in them. But hegel is wrong, for a human being must first exist in a social relation with other human beings before it can be conscious at all. This is exactly what he means by saying he turned Hegel upside.
A human must exist before they can think, therefore a human's existence precedes human consciousness, or culture (or the rest of the superstructure). But a human can't exist without eating, drinking and so forth. In order to eat, drink and so forth he must come in productive social relations with other human being in order to produce and distribute, or just distribute a social surplus, food, drinks etc. This is the case even if he wants individualist institutions.
So, you must have a mode of production. Any mode of production, even a primitive tribal one, even one you form reflexively, before you can have intellectual life, consciousness, culture, a state etc.
This is what we mean when we say he is a reductionist and not a determinist. The form of a culture is not determined by the economic relations of production, but it must reduce to them because it can't exist but on top of them.
There is one of his letters where he is clear about that, but I can't find it right now.
>Perhaps Marx didn't truly mean that man is without genetically derived cognitive and other abilities that place him on an innate hierarchy relative to other men
I don't know what "innate hierarchy" means here. Hierarchies must be social because they are relational. My being smarter than some guy in kentacky doesn't put me in any hierarchy with him.
>>24589156
>tfw learning a lot from this debate
I didn't know Marx wrote about human consciousness and I never understood the full influence of Hegel on his thoughts
>>24588929
>What I can say with certainty however is that the default assumption of disparities in outcomes today is that they are caused almost entirely by environmental factors
Also let's take this seriously. Rawls is obviously liberal extraordinaire, but he would be glad as fuck if you could prove all disparities are caused by genetics. Why? Because genetics are unchosen, arbitrary contingencies of nature withour moral worth. In fact he's making exactly the argument that because talent must be either socially acquired or genetic, institutions that reward talent must be intrinsically unjust because they are reifying essentially luck, and someone shouldn't be better able to promote their good just because they were lucky, or at least the institutions shouldn't treat him better for that reason.
>>24585982
T bh tho, Franku, Jontron and Maxmoefoe are pretty cool
>>24587207
DON'T THEY?!
I've been browsing trap threads for years. It's so rare to see traps that no simple things about skin color complimentation and matching and shit.
>>24589306
JonTron is a sellout, fuck off.
>>24589363
You're retarded and in no position to critique someones fashion.
>>24589497
buy colors that compliment your skin you sissu fuk
>>24585310
If you ever meet a person that mentions that he or she browses 4chan, run away lmao
>>24585357
MUH
SOGGY
NEE
2015
real fembots don't leave their house/flat.
/thread...
>>24585267
Why is the D so far from CLOU in cloud rap. That really bugs me
>>24589271
It's only "luck" if women give birth at random. They don't.
>>24589271
Also, that is exactly what Rawl's argument is, and it's a bunch of bullshit because:
1) People choose to have children, and they choose whom to have children with. That's not "luck".
2) The person behind the "veil of ignorance" isn't necessarily going to pick the most equitable society as a "rational" forethought. What if he associates equity with chaos and disorder, and assumes - rationally I might add - that the more hierarchical society is desirable as it's probable the more peaceable.
Honestly out of all liberals, I think I hate Rawls the most. It's such a half-assed attempt to square away the fact that human beings aren't inherently equal. "B...But what if you were placed behind the veil of ignorance?"
And remember this: the only materially rational reason for making societies economically equitable is that it makes said group more competitive from a group evolutionary strategy perspective.
>The form of a culture is not determined by the economic relations of production, but it must reduce to them because it can't exist but on top of them.
Economics is just an expression of phenotype in many respects. Economics can be subordinated to human will. Consider Japan - No natural resources, no real arable land, nothing. Fabulously wealthy because it's able to leverage the INNATE superior intelligence of its people to develop export-led capital intensive manufacturing.
>>24586692
to bh pham
>>24585389
Im guessing your not like other girls huh
>>24585280
>>24585319
Exactly, just make the stockings stripey
>>24585267
>tfw no "im not like other girls" gf
Why live friends
im not like the other men...
