I made a cartoon thingy on robots and the modern society that created them
Did I do a good job?
to be honest, there is a shocking lack of arrows drawn over it pointing to different things
>>28563390like this
You have been muted for 2 seconds, because your comment was not original.
You could use more iconography and less walls of text, but it's pretty good.
>>28563377
>>28563520
I actually like the text. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on matters, OP.
I'm also interested in the idea that the 60s-80s were the best time for average men to get sex (I assume we're talking number of sexual partners). I'd love to hear your reasoning, particularly the interplay of factors to create a perfect storm. Does that, therefore, make it the most sexually open time in the history of the Earth?
>>28563377
I can't figure out how there are somehow more Chads for women to go after now than there were then. There's more interconnectivity, sure, but women should be multiplied by the same factor men have multiplied by, yes? So if there were 3 women for every Chad then, there would still be now, because the rate is still the same, regardless of the scale.
Your art's pretty decent, though.
>>28564318
As the number of Chads increases, the Chaddiness of the Chadmost Chad also tends to increase. Therefore, as the number of Chads increases, the standards for Chadhood tend to become stricter. Therefore, number of Chads correlates with total population, but increases slower than total population does.
>>28563377
I largely agree with your conclusions, but there are several deeply flawed premises that lead to strange warping of the truth. This is probably because you've dismissed Christianity as a cuck religion and are consequently lost in a nonsensical secular worldview.
The obvious problem is that you seem to waver in your support for monogamy. It is never right that anyone should have more than one lifetime sexual partner, and you almost seem to understand this. But you also praise the 60s-70s-80s for being "the easiest time for average men to get sex", and associate monogamous values with "small little shitty town[s] in Ohio or Indiana in the 1950s".
I think I know what the problem is. Your support for monogamy does not truly come from truth or empathy, but from the misapprehension that extramarital sex causes genital damage. (It does cause damage - but the damage is to the soul, a thing I suspect you do not believe in.) You do not fully grasp that women are people. Indeed, men and women are very different, and the idea that they're the same is a hostile lie. But men and women are both human, and are the same in many basic human regards. Indeed, in many regards sexuality ought to be symmetric in an ordered society. But you do not grasp this. You do not have a right to sexually explore multiple women, just as women do not have a right to sexually explore multiple men. The ideology that seeks more than one sexual opportunity is the ideology of the Chad you despise.
As sexuality should be symmetric, so too the devastating consequences of degenerate sexuality are ultimately symmetric in their awfulness. You are not any worse off than the modern woman being thrown in the toilet by a pack of Chads, because she is not gaining anything by being thrown in the toilet. She is lost and despairing as a result of her secular sexual values - and so are you.
Repent and set yourself apart. Stop looking at porn, stop marinating in shit and cum.
>>28564318
now because of the scale of society women have much easier access to those chads
>>28564391
If the number of Chads increases slowly, then there should be a period with relatively few Chads, yes? Shouldn't the robots thrive during this time?
>>28564949
But there still aren't enough Chads to go around. Ergo, women should be settling for people who aren't Chads.
>>28564391
Oh Jesus lmfao
>>28564963
Chads have a "maximum Chad capacity". An upper bound on the number of women they're theoretically going to be capable of fucking. In a small social circle, no Chad reaches their maximum Chad capacity. But as society becomes more interconnected and social circles approach "meaninglessly large", Chads become able to reach Chad saturation. This separates the lesser Chads, who burn out quickly after fucking a number of women similar to the number they would have fucked in a small town, from the greater Chads, who never stop fucking women. Ever. Those greater Chads are the Chads of the new society. An ever-smaller proportionally group of men fucking an ever-larger proportionally group of women.
Your description of Now is very good.
Your description of the 1950s and before is pretty good but could use some more fleshing out; talk about societal things like the Great Depression and WWII. Aren't people more likely to settle down when the world is unstable?
Your middle description needs the most work. The crucial thing about the 1960s through the 1990s (it continued one more decade after the 80s) was the presence of many, many fragmented subcultures. My parents are both weird, dumb, and ugly but they found each other through the mid-1980s Seattle hardcore punk scene. Social networks may have been more macroscopic on an urban university campus than in a small rural town, but there was also a great deal of microscopy in scenes and subcultures.
interesting read
obviously a 2D account filled with generalisations, assumptions and personal bias though
