tfw you wake up in the morning and you look at yourself in the mirror
--- you're a socialist ---
and you just relish having superior beliefs and feeling empathy towards other humans
What if I want socialism, but only for white people?
A national socialist, if you will.
>empathy
Top meme mate. Socialist scum like you are just jealous because you are failures. Every 'socialist' I've ever met is a bitter arrogant cunt.
>>28553823
Superior beliefs indeed.
>>28553882
>collectivist authoritarianism
What is the difference between socialism and fascism again? Anything that doesn't value free markets and individual liberty is statism and will lead to mass murder and genocide.
>>28553862
yes, you are a "bitter arrogant cunt" who's "jealous because you are [a] failure" - thank you for typing it out for me
how does it feel not being able to claim the moral high ground that is socialism?
>>28553928
Why have the moral high ground anyway? Survival of the fittest. You Gotta look out for yourself and stop caring about others
Nothing personnel.
>>28553823
why do you enjoy empathy? I stopped caring about most other people a long time ago and man it feels good not having to feel emotions dependant on things outside your control.
>>28553976
implying having empathy and "caring about others" is bad for your own "survival"
do you really think being selfish will get you laid?
>>28554051
if you're a rapist it will
every morning is like that for me
and I'm glad the captcha was comfy pictures of Norway
Why should I feel empathy when people don't have empathy towards me?
All I hear when complaining about how it's unfair that I am ugly, short and dumb is
>hurr deal with it
>hurr iz how it is
>>28554051
>'implying having empathy and "caring about others" is bad for your own "survival"'
it is when those others are hordes of hostile low-IQ low-planning criminal foreign brown people
>>28553823
>feeling empathy towards other humans
>having emotional attachments ever
Only live for yourself, the individual > society every time.
>>28554096
under socialism, man's value isn't measured in his height and appearance. man's value is the social value of labor
being short and ugly isn't an impediment for woking
No thats terrible people have to learn there is no such thing as peace or equality
>>28554149
yeah anon who cares what you look like as long as you're able to work hard labor jobs in grueling conditions for 16 hours a day. hail socialism
>>28553823
NSfag, here. I like to think I'm acutely tuned in to the feelings and motivations of others, in terms of the ability to understand why they do what they do, or feel how they feel, but it doesn't bother me and I feel nothing. Not even being edgy, I'm literally never sad or regretful about anything.
Now, I tell you this to dismantle the argument that empathy is inherently good. An ignorant person may have only
The purest intentions yet know nothing of his enemies and be unable to understand why they're his enemies. An enlightened person may understand perfectly how his enemy feels, putting himself in his shoes, yet gleefully carry on with his wrongs against his enemy.
>socialism
wew lad
maybe if I were still 17
>>28554149
But people will still treat others poorly if they are ugly, etc. That won't change with socialism.
>>28553914
Won't business entities take over the role of the state and actively subvert or attack each other, free of a governing body? Isn't the end goal of the free market the new feudalism?
>>28553914
anything will lead to mass murder and genocide.
![o-CAMILA-VALLEJO-facebook[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bS5a1Fa.jpg "o-CAMILA-VALLEJO-facebook[1].jpg")
who here /socialist qts/???
Pretty much americas the only smart country and the rest are basically cucks or retards
>>28553849
Then you're an impressionable idiot who browsed pol for a few days
>>28554247
That's because of the amount of jews though
Israel smartest country
>>28554199
it won't matter "if [someone is] ugly", because man's face and height won't determine his value anymore. socialist men treat themselves nicely since they respect each other's social value and they march shoulder to shoulder
furthermore, socialist men are men and won't cry over someone "treating [them] poorly if they are ugly"
>>28553823
I too was fifteen once.
>>28554417
Firstly what about women?
Secondly, how does "crying" about injustice make you less of a man? If anything the one who accepts the injustice wouldn't be a man.
>>28554417
if that's a socialist man then you can already see the failure in your statement.
Way ahead of you, bro.
Capitalism is for normalfags.
>>28554118
Or you could just be a Libertarian Socialist, for the individual, society and abolition of the state.
>>28554246
This man knows the craic.
>>28554118
The """"individual""""=Chad's with private property.
Society= the downtrodden beta masses.
>>28553823
Conservatives tend to give more to charity and the poor.
Probably because they have more money then degenerate socialists as well as biblical threats of hell if they aren't nice enough.
>"muh revolution"
pathetic.
>>28554246
>had sex with thousands of non white men
>has had abortions in the double digits
>literally a public health concern due to stds
>doesn't work but is feminist
>>28554440
women aren't slaves to their husbands like in a capitalist society. women are like men in that they're also workers and therefore have equal value to men
crying over someone "treating [them] poorly if they are ugly" isn't "injustice." a capitalist owning property over means of production is an actual injustice. a capitalist appropriating the surplus value is also an injustice.
>>28554565
prove that you have worth. why aren't you just another sack of meat occupying space.
>>28554548
>giving money because they think if they don't they will be tortured for eternity.
>charity.
Pick one.
>>28554565
As Plato wrote:
"What is justice?"
>>28554548
The revolution is real, friend.
And God is on our side.
>>28554565
>women aren't slaves to their husbands like in a capitalist society. women are like men in that they're also workers and therefore have equal value to men
But when choosing sexual partners, I will still be treated unfairly by women for being inferior(short, ugly, small dicked).
That's the injustice I'm talking about. It's biological. It doesn't go away, even in socialism.
>>28554594
Also Descartes wrote:
"What?"
>>28554589
>taking money from the rich at gunpoint
>noble
literally niggers.
>>28554580
Prove that you have private property.
>>28554609
and as Anon wrote "W?"
>>28553823
You sicken me. I will never understand how or why there are so many willing hosts for this cancer.
You know that you can be deeply empathetic towards other humans while not being a socialist, right?
I bet you're middle class too!
![6019739598_d2cc6ccda9_b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/67zCSxx.jpg "6019739598_d2cc6ccda9_b[1].jpg")
>>28554559
flustering you is this easy: women own their bodies
>>28554618
*holds up spork* xD
>>28554605
It does though.
The main reason to date upwards is to advance your social status, when there is no social status to advance there is no reason to seek anything other than orgasms and companionship in a relationship.
>>28553823
Am I a socialist if I want an social-anarchistic "state"
But think that having a totalitarian government that incorporates a fascist economic plan, and instils nationalism into the populace during the schooling age. While paying heed to the individual rights, and allowing completely free speech. Yet forcing at least 1, of age, member of each house in the country, into the armed forces during a war. And conscripting all citizens that turn 18 into the armed forces for a total of 5 years. That has a welfare program that gives unemployed citizens enough money to survive, as long as they are looking for a job.
Is better?
>>28554618
I don't. Nobody has worth. socialism is distracting from the larger issue that even if we manage to get society on track and save the planet from being consumed by people like ticks on a dog, it doesn't really matter. If we manage to accomplish everything we wanted on earth, we'd still be lacking because there's no purpose aside from producing some chemicals in a small meat box in our head, so we can feel good.
1% of the U.S. population owns 35.6% of all private wealth. I suppose you think that's okay. You keep defending the 35.6%. I'm sure they consider you an ally.
>>28554634
I guess that's why, like niggers, they want more tax revenue pushed their way. Because they're so damn independent.
They have ample self ownership, what they don't like is accountability.
>>28554649
There is only one thing that matters. Who do you think should control the means of production?
>>28554661
>1% of the U.S. population owns 35.6% of all private wealth.
You have 10 seconds to explain why this is a bad thing when the USA is more prosperous than it's ever been.
>>28554643
>there is no reason to seek anything other than orgasms and companionship in a relationship.
And why wouldn't women only get orgasms from Chads? Now women sometimes marry inferior men because they offer money and security to raise children. In your society, they wouldn't have to do that. They would work like everyone else and only fuck Chads.
>>28554669
M-MUH INEQUALITY!!!
BIX NOOD!!!
>>28554051
> implying chads who fuck cum dumpsters aren't selfish
Daily reminder that equality is not naturally attainable while everyone is unequal in inherent worth.
>>28554657
There is purpose. Getting comfy, that's all the purpose anyone should ever need.
Although you are on to something, people are naturally very egocentric and don't like the idea of life not having some defined mission to it hence why existentialism was invented. But one of the main points of a socialist state should be to teach people how to take it easy.
>>28554704
muh empathy
muh white male guilt
muh cuck
>>28554669
Actually, the U.S. is the 11th most prosperous nation. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Prosperity_Index#2015_Rankings
>>28554672
What would be the point? In our current situation both parties only really benefit from such a relationship for the social status of it. Women gain from being with Chad, Chad gains from being with lots of women.
But at the end of the day women and Chad have feelings too, when everything else is accounted for all you need from a relationship is love and orgams all of which are best accounted for by one person.
>>28554667
mixed, only businesses that help the state and people should be Allowed. And these are would be quickly broken up into smaller businesses, before getting too large to ruin the economy if they fail.
>>28554714
Perhaps I was not clear enough. We should not strive for equality, as it is not naturally attainable. Everyone has a different inherent worth, so it is idiotic to place the same value on everyone.
>>28554716
for carrying a permanent underclass of black criminals, single mothers and illegals, 11th is outstanding.
>>28554716
>Ireland beats Amerishoots AND Britburqas.
>>28553849
You're actually in the right.
You can't have socialism, when the life of a white guy is at the same level of a savage nigger.
>>28554739
>when everything else is accounted for all you need from a relationship is love and orgams all of which are best accounted for by one person.
Ever heard of hypergamy? Women will be glad to share a Chad. And if they don't have to rely on betas for support then betas are out of bussiness.
>>28554741
Then no you're not a socialist.
>>28554716
I said more prosperous than it's ever been, not number one in the world
>>28554716
Some of that is cultural.
We have a lot of dumbasses.
>>28554767
Well what the fuck am I?
>>28554760
They do that in our present society because the hierarchal nature of social status rewards dating upwards.
In a world without social status there is no dating upwards, the only thing people can gain out of a relationship at such a point is love. Which is a burden that falls on everyone evenly.
>>28554785
a god damn retard who needs to be lined up against trumps wall and executed by firing squad
glads its happening soon
>>28554785
A nationalist social democrat.
>>28554783
Well, we all know where on that chart the U.S. would come for cultural prosperity.
>>28554795
But people love the very attractive people. And that's only a few. Betas are still fucked.
Unless you're really so retarded that you think women wouldn't be trying to get impregnated by men with the best genes possible in your hypothetical system.
>>28554785
You're a stupid faggot.jkkjhjkkiau4885tifshh
Why do lefties thinks they are so above everyone else?
>>28554797
B-b-but I support Trump desu
>>28554829
just a note - this is an essential /pol/ image - needs to be linked in the sticky or something.
>>28554814
Do they really though? If you've ever loved someone do you think you did it because they were the most attractive person? Do you naturally love the most attractive person you see? No, of course not.
Love is a very irrational thing, you don't rate it on a pure eugenic basis.
>>28554839
If you love /pol/ so much maybe you should stay there.
>>28554863
>complaining about /pol/ in a leftypol shill thread
>>28554863
Not an argument leftist scum.
>>28553823
if socialism is so great, why are its main supporters women, children, and spics?
>>28554890
Literally the jews.
>>28554855
I don't know. I've never been loved(not in a romantic way for sure). Also the women I've "loved" they were one of the few women I talked to. I had no choice. But women can choose. And they will choose. They will choose Chads.
>>28554890
Because the future is now.
>>28554908
how can it be the current year if it is also the future?
>>28554890
Because whites aren't that smart.
I mean--- Niggers, amirite?! xD
Please go back to r3ddit.
>>28554900
This is my whole point, women can't choose their own feelings more than anyone else. Although social pressures in a system built entirely on social status can influence it ultimately feelings simply cannot be reasoned with.
And more to the point Chad can't choose either, why bother having a million meaningless in a system that doesn't reward you for it when you can have one fulfilling one?
>>28554931
*a million meaningless relationships
>>28554931
>And more to the point Chad can't choose either, why bother having a million meaningless in a system that doesn't reward you for it when you can have one fulfilling one?
Because biology you fucking retard. If you can impregnate many women, you do.
>>28554949
>Calling people retard when you lose an argument
You right now.
>>28554949
Do you really believe that biology is compelling you as a man to want to do that?
>>28554967
are you pretending to be retarded? or
>>28554958
>implying I lost
>>28554967
Yes. The succesful organisms have more offspring. You have more offspring, you are more succesful. It's easy as that.
>>28554972
No, I'm asking if you really believe that that's all you want romantically.
>>28554977
Dude, you're a huge retard. Just give up. You lost, faggot.
>>28554977
No it isn't, mating habits differ widly across animals with monogamy (as well as lifetime monogamy) being found in nature.
And on the count that humanity is more or less evenly divided between men and women it's quite likely humans are supposed to be monogamous naturally.
>>28555014
>No it isn't, mating habits differ widly across animals with monogamy (as well as lifetime monogamy) being found in nature.
This isn't about mating habits. This is evolution.
>it's quite likely humans are supposed to be monogamous naturally.
That's not true and you know it.
>>28555021
>This isn't about mating habits. This is evolution.
Yes, and it would seem like humans are naturally inclined towards monogamy.
>That's not true and you know it.
Actually it is, humans have been monogamous since pre-histroy. Even the earliest known human civilizations were largely monogamous with this only being broken by the very powerful, which supports my case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Biological_arguments
Being a socialist is the most cuck thing you can be. It means you're so pathetic that you want to project that failure on to everyone else, when in reality if you actually were to work hard you could be an exceptional and successful person. I know many people who have done it including myself.
Even if it's in a small little niche, you can work hard and practice and you'll become the #1 master of your niche with enough time. Socialists just don't want to work hard, and insist that if anybody else invested time in their pursuits, they're actively being shorted.
I'm not racist, sexist, anything like that, but if someone identifies as a socialist, I immediately lose all respect for them as it means even they see themselves as helpless and pathetic.
>>28555082
>I look down on the helpless and pathetic.
So what are you doing on /r9k/? Go to Facebook or something with this self-righteous shit.
>>28555064
That's nice and all, your wiki articles. But it doesn't correspond with reality of today.
>>28555094
I look down on them because they've resigned themselves to it, when in reality if you work hard you honestly can do just about anything. I look down on them not because they are pathetic, but because they've resigned themselves to being that way, try to convince others they are the same type of "victim", then exploit the hard work of people who don't resign themselves to the same failures.
I'm on /r9k/ because I'm a kissless, handholdless virgin, but being on here doesn't mean you have to want to take away the success of everyone else because you feel slighted by the world.
>>28555116
That's because the reality of today is caused by the capitalist system rewarding dating upwards to advance your social status, which has been happening since hierarchy first reared its ugly head as evidenced by the fact that the kings of Mesopotamia would fuck multiple women despite the rest of society being monogamous.
Thus is the crux of my argument, a society without social hierarchy is a society without hypergamy.
>>28555116
I'm not him but
1. you are ignoring well sourced and researched fact because it doesn't fit your worldview and
2. if you actually believe the ENTIRE WORLD AND HUMAN BIOLOGICAL BEHAVIORS have done a 180 in the last 50 years after millions of years of this one method, you are delusional.
>>28553823
>feeling empathy towards other humans
>feeling empathy for normies
>being a normie
>omegle
figures
>>28555082
>I know many people who have done it including myself.
And how many people worked hard and never became succesful? Just because one man wins the lottery doesn't mean everyone can. People like you tend to ignore all the things out of their control which helped them succeed. Without these things your hard work wouldn't have the same results.
>Even if it's in a small little niche, you can work hard and practice and you'll become the #1 master of your niche with enough time.
Bullfuckingshit. Even in something fucking dumb like video games, you can play and train as long as you want, but when some guy comes along who naturally has better eye-to-eye coordination and reaction time, you will get fucked. And that's JUST video games.
>it means even they see themselves as helpless and pathetic.
But most people are. the people who aren't are the ones who got lucky to get good starting position.
You retarded just-worlding faggot.
>Not being Ancap masterrace
Anyone short of being a libertarian is an idiot and needs to take an econ class.
>>28555138
I disagree with you just as much as with him. Hypergamy will always exist even in a communist/socialist society, but instead of wealth and power it will be based entirely on looks. People want to marry the most attractive mate possible, preferably more attractive than them.
Capitalism is the be all end all boogeyman for you helpless socialist types.
>>28555147
>Ancaps
>Austrian schoolers telling others to take an economics class.
GO AWAY.
>>28555147
b-but muh other states that will...uh..take over!
m-m-muh....national defense!!
When will women's vaginas start being socialized? When 10% of men have 90% of the women, how can that be fair?
>>28555139
Who gives a shit about his well sourced articles? I didn't even read that whole page and all the sources. Obviously because it would take me few hours and by that time this discussion will be gone.
>>28555138
>Thus is the crux of my argument, a society without social hierarchy is a society without hypergamy.
You are a retard. The social hierarchy won't be gone if you introduce socialism. People will still be getting born ugly, diseased, retarded on one side and attractive, healthy, smart on the other.
Hierarchy will form. It always does. Removing income inequality WILL NOT CHANGE THIS.
>>28555160
Nice arguement, bucko.
>>28555165
Don't forget muh roads! How will we ever drive to work without daddy government blessing us with roads?
>>28555153
I don't believe that. As mentioned earlier more or less the only thing to get out of a relationship at that point is love, which isn't dictated by who is the most attractive person you can find.
For Chads and women alike there would simply be no point to hypergamy, having lots of sex or having sex with exceptional men wouldn't advance your position in life at all. However having a loving relationship would bring you great fulfillment.
>>28555144
>And how many people worked hard and never became succesful? Just because one man wins the lottery doesn't mean everyone can. People like you tend to ignore all the things out of their control which helped them succeed. Without these things your hard work wouldn't have the same results.
Yeah yeah yeah the privileged white male talk, we get it. I am white so I am successful, literally has nothing to do with the hundreds, probably thousands of hours I have spent not only on my education and training, but also my hobbies where I spend time researching and further training to move up the ladder. Disregard all that because it doesn't fit the narrative- if one other person hasn't been successful, I was just the lucky one and all my work ought to be disregarded.
>Bullfuckingshit. Even in something fucking dumb like video games, you can play and train as long as you want, but when some guy comes along who naturally has better eye-to-eye coordination and reaction time, you will get fucked. And that's JUST video games.
I know because I've done it. I'm 27 so scientifically my hand eye coordination is worse than the many people who also speedrun the exact games I do- I still hold world record though. Nothing to do with hard work, right, despite the fact I can play the game in my head literally any time, even while focusing on something else? Just luck and genetics.
>But most people are. the people who aren't are the ones who got lucky to get good starting position.
Yep, I got a great starting position with a dad who beats me and gives me drugs as a young child while my hopelessly drunk mom rolls around in bed trying not to choke on her vomit. I definitely was lucky to grow up in an impoverished and abusive household.
>You retarded just-worlding faggot.
"Hey guys, I know a logical fallacy! So HA, I disproved your entire world experience!"
The world has some shitty stuff going on, but the general rules remain the same. Work hard and you can escape almost anything.
>>28555168
Of course there would still be the handicapped, there's nothing anyone can do about that.
However being ugly doesn't necessarily preclude someone from a relationship. It's just a matter of at present similarly ugly women being rewarded for dating upwards and so on and so on.
With the incentive of raising social status removed there would simply be no point in doing so anymore.
>>28555195
To women and men under 25 for the most part, fulfillment and love is based entirely on how attractive the person is. When you take everything like financial situation and status out of it, the only thing left to base this on is physical looks.
You literally just hate capitalism, so you look for ways to blame everything you perceive as bad (when there's nothing wrong with hypergamy, it's understandable and natural so long as it's monogamous) on it.
>>28555221
>The world has some shitty stuff going on, but the general rules remain the same. Work hard and you can escape almost anything.
But what if people with <90 IQ really CAN'T escape their shitty position? I think this is why socialists are worried about themselves.
I am for socialism as long as the people who recieve benefits are whites only.
>>28555221
>literally has nothing to do with the hundreds, probably thousands of hours I have spent not only on my education and training, but also my hobbies where I spend time researching and further training to move up the ladder.
I didn't say that. I have said that and will say it again. Hard work is necessary for success, no question there. But it's not nearly sufficient. Many people work hard, but those who actually make it are the ones who are also lucky/predisposed.
>Just luck and genetics.
Read the post above, you dumbass.
> I definitely was lucky to grow up in an impoverished and abusive household.
That's nice and all, but tell me. Are you tall? Attractive? Smart? Yeah.
>The world has some shitty stuff going on, but the general rules remain the same. Work hard and you can escape almost anything.
No, the rule is "work hard and you have a chance to escape almost everything". But if you are inferior in things you can't change, the chance is fucking low.
>>28555243
>When you take everything like financial situation and status out of it, the only thing left to base this on is physical looks.
Do you really believe that?
Do you really believe people feel love on pure utilitarian grounds?
>>28555244
Kek
Low IQ doesn't mean you can't work hard. I know some pretty damn stupid people who have worked the same job for a long time and make a decent living.
>>28555241
>With the incentive of raising social status removed there would simply be no point in doing so anymore.
So you're telling me that women don't choose their partners subconsciously to give their offspring the best genes? And if one man can provide these to many women(who now don't need a beta because everyone earns the same). It's obviously not gonna work.
>>28555288
Yes because humans are largely monogamous creatures by nature.
>>28555324
Not answering my question. Do you really believe that women don't try to get a partner that has the best genes?
>>28555347
Yes, I think women are just as sentimental as we are.
>>28555370
Then I don't have anything to tell you. You are obviously too invested in ignoring reality. Otherwise you couldn't ignore something so obvious.
>>28555370
Women are as "sentimental" as men?? Fuck you, shitfuck. Women are NOT pieces of shit like men.
>be socialist
>be a white knight cucked faggot that takes black homeless men's dicks in my ass
>love women and think they're not parasites
>>28554605
For that we need transhumanism or transhumanist socialism which give way to biotechnology, body modification, anti ageing therapies, robot companions and myriad other good things.
Humans should have freedom to make informed modifications of their bodies.
>>28555380
I suppose this is fundamentally a disagreement of experience.
Maybe one day I'll come to see it your way, but thus far I don't think my experience supports that.
>>28555413
>I don't think my experience supports that.
I wonder what kind of experience do you have. You must be really retarded to be honest to not understand, that the more fit and better suited specimens survive, while the weak and inferior don't.
Which means women will choose a 6'3" Chad with broad shoulders over a 5'9" beta with normal frame. This is proven. You can't argue against t.
>>28555413
That's because your experience has been you being taught things by your single mother and your all-female teacher staff.
>>28555431
If it's so biologically proven then by rights manlets should be extinct.
>>28555453
>hurr if we evolved from monkeys, y dere still be monkeys
That's you. You should see why your argument is retarded.
>>28555453
Most women can still spread their genes on in a hypergamous society. That includes short genes and bad genes.
>>28555474
Okay so howcome there are manlet dads running around?
>>28554760
>>28554814
The real solution of this problem is for socialist government to finance R&D and mass production of artificial companions. Everyone can get robot bf or gf (or even something in between) for free. The artificial companion will help you with housework, converse with you (by default it will try to make you well versed in a wide variety of topics), will look after your health (including trying to get you do exercise regularly) and also will have as much sex with you as you could possibly want.
>>28555476
raising your wife's son doesn't make you a "dad"
>>28555263
>I didn't say that. I have said that and will say it again. Hard work is necessary for success, no question there. But it's not nearly sufficient. Many people work hard, but those who actually make it are the ones who are also lucky/predisposed.
So I'm just lucky to have put in those thousands of hours? You just have to "get lucky" and all those hundreds of hours is nothing compared to hard work?
>That's nice and all, but tell me. Are you tall? Attractive? Smart? Yeah.
5'7" so below average for US where I live, ugly as sin and a virgin, I am smart sure but that doesn't disregard my work.
>No, the rule is "work hard and you have a chance to escape almost everything". But if you are inferior in things you can't change, the chance is fucking low.
There is no chance about it. If you work hard at a job where you make minimum wage and are very frugal, you can literally move to an apartment and live all on your lonesome and survive. You could have an IQ of 80 and the same would be true. What you actually mean is "chance to get rich" which, again, is influenced far more by hard work, timing, and research than ANY luck.
You can excuse your failures all you want but don't punish me by charging me for putting in hard work where you won't. Accept that you are a lazy fuck and then we'll be talking.
Anyways, it is clear you don't wish to have any real discourse other than "you are lucky and a privileged white male", and you are too deadset in your self pity to believe other wise.
>>28555270
I do, because it's true. Physical looks are a sign of health and success. Hypergamy will not be eliminated with socialism.
You can sit here and tell me that in a socialist society, women wouldn't have sex with good looking men, but you'd be ignoring the basic reality of the fact that women as of right now choose terrible men, with no job or life prospects, based on their looks despite an uglier but more successful beta. You know, alpha fucks beta bucks?
>>28555533
Yes, but /r/theredpill paranoia isn't real life.
>>28553823
indeed, one day there will be a worldwide socialism, western capitalism is not sustainable
>>28555555
I wanna check the gets of the future so bad.
>>28555541
I know, I dislike those guys strongly. But if you don't believe a man or woman sometimes ignores financial situation based on looks, you are sorely mistaken.
You are more akin to redpillers than me because your entire argument is based on the idea that women only marry men for money and status.
>>28555533
> So I'm just lucky to have put in those thousands of hours? You just have to "get lucky" and all those hundreds of hours is nothing compared to hard work?
Yeah, you are lucky to be eligible for MBA "studies" and "hard" executive work, to get your 10M$, put them into bank and retire at 40. Upper class' "hard work" is a meme developed to rationalize their ruling position.
>>28555533
>So I'm just lucky to have put in those thousands of hours? You just have to "get lucky" and all those hundreds of hours is nothing compared to hard work?
How is your reading comprehension this bad? I'm saying that if someone else also put in the thousands of hours, they wouldn't be guarranteed to succeed because they didn't have good starting position. If you take a very small guy with puny frame and low testosterone compared to a tall big guy wigh high test and make both of these guys lift weights for two thousand hours, the results are going to be worse for the small man. That's what I'm talking about. MUCH WORSE.
>I am smart sure but that doesn't disregard my work.
See? If you had someone who was dumb and he worked as hard as you, do you think he would have also succeeded?
>There is no chance about it. If you work hard at a job where you make minimum wage and are very frugal, you can literally move to an apartment and live all on your lonesome and survive. You could have an IQ of 80 and the same would be true. What you actually mean is "chance to get rich" which, again, is influenced far more by hard work, timing, and research than ANY luck.
Wait so "surviving" is your definition of success? JUST LOL.
Actually the success you are talking about, what do you mean? How much do you earn? What do you do? You have a house of your own? A wife? How many kids?
>>28555577
No, my argument is based on the idea that monogamy is chiefly a sentimental thing wheras hypergamy only exists for social status.
At the end of the day whilst hypergamy exists, lasting marriages don't come from it.
>>28555578
>Yeah, you are lucky to be eligible for MBA "studies" and "hard" executive work, to get your 10M$, put them into bank and retire at 40. Upper class' "hard work" is a meme developed to rationalize their ruling position.
Yeah you're overestimating my success. Like I said earlier, my upbringing was extremely shitty and poor.
But cry about white males all you want, if you stopped shitposting about "wahh hard work" and instead did some, you might be able to call yourself a man some day.
>>28555122
Honestly just do anything? You've obviously never been to the third world. You are aware that the vast majority of the world's population lives in abject poverty, and in many cases simply to supply affordable products to the west. Go to a sweatshop and ask the children there and tell them the reason for their predicament is that they're not 'working hard enough.'
>>28555533
To eliminate hypergamy we should push for advanced body modification and/or artificial companions. If you can change your body like you can change your car, many problems go away.
>>28555594
Monogamy is evolutionary adaptive because one should be committed for some time to raise children.
>>28555510
Why would we waste money on that when there are plenty of women not in relationships that could be forced to share their body with a single man?
>>28555634
For each woman, a single man I mean.
>>28555634
That is basically slavery and goes against the very spirit of socialism.
>>28555634
>>28555644
Because humans are not ideal companions for other humans. We make each other unhappy due to high standards. It's a fairy tale that the humanity is split in two parts evenly and everyone has someone else waiting for him/her. It doesn't even work arithmetically, the gender rate is skewed.
My proposal is very humane: give each person a chance to experience a nice life with artificial companion. Reducing loneliness is a very humane thing we can do.
>>28555677
It's not slavery, it's the justified sharing of their bodies.
>>28555692
But women should be choosing their male counterparts, not just the top 10%. And humans are very ideal for other humans. That's basic biology.
>>28555842
> But women should be choosing their male counterparts, not just the top 10%.
It's hard to fight against nature, it's a genetically hardwired preference. Talking that you can change that with mere politics and education is hypothetical.
> And humans are very ideal for other humans.
Modern humans are just to different, their values and interests are different due to varied media they consumed while growing up.
You will have to either force humans to be with each other or give them artificial alternative. I prefer alternative.
>>28553823
>sossar
>actually socialist
>>28553928
Feels great, watching you still believe in fairytales like morality.
>>28555908
"genetically hardwired preferences" doesn't mean much when you're being forced to do the opposite. It's not going to change with politics and education, its just going to be done by force.
>Modern humans are just to different, their values and interests are different due to varied media they consumed while growing up.
And this contradicts the first part of your post. Modern humans are still humans and are genetically programmed to be compatible. Whether women are compatible with men is the question that bypasses that. But it doesn't matter. They'll be with them in the way the men want whether they want to or not.
>>28554512
Wow Bernie made a great trap
