Been here a while and one thing I don't get is the hypocrisy and sense of entitlement.
Yeah Chads and Staceys are cunts. But I've seen girls posted here, nice girls, cute girls and then a barrage of insults about how ugly she is.
Then there'll be countless threads of whining about how Stacey only wants Chad and how you'll never have a *insert preference here* QT waiting for you.
If a Stacey does post here and complains about not being able to get a boyfriend (probably a fake post) then the replies will be "lower your standards".
Guys, shouldn't we be realistic about what is obtainable for us? We're not going to fucking get Stacey, because we're a fucking mess. So why do we realistically think we can be so critical when we're throwing bricks from glass houses?
It's not rocket science. If we expect them to lower their standards and not just go after Chad, we can't go after Stacey.
In fact, Chad and Stacey are made for each other, that's their place in the food chain. We should be going after people we can realistically get instead of whining about our lot in life and just get on with it.
Lmao k
>>29642962
Robots have the lowest standards around you delusional fucktwit.
>>29642962
>Yeah Chads and Staceys are cunts. But I
TL;DR, my dude
>>29643032
So why is it we're so fucking critical of girls posted here?
I mean if they're landwhales fine. Everyone has standards. But we don't get to be picky about average girls that are cute when we're the dregs of society.
>>29642962
Fuck off normalfag fuckhead.
>>29643032
>Robots have the lowest standards
hahahahaha
robots are permavigins, doomed by their ridiculous standards
get fucked
>>29643077
What I'm a normalfag for pointing out the obvious flaw? It's logical. There's no reason why people like us who are low down on the food chain should expect a Stacey qt. That's commie tier entitlement.
jocks get cheerleaders
nerds get nerds
hippies get hippies
druggies get druggies
losers get losers
etc etc.
>>29642962
>We should be going after people we can realistically get
I have no idea where I stand, no idea how high I can go on the food chain.
>>29643061
Because we don't want them here. All they do in attentionwhore and never contribute to the discussion without revealing they have cunts. Then all the shitpost starts and the threads focal point becomes that.
>>29643220
No, they're doomed because they are autistic and held back by there own fears and insecurities. It had much less to do with standards.
>>29642962
Most robots don't have high standards you idiot normie
Normies always come here and say, "You robots need to lower your standards"
You don't get it
Most robots don't have standards
>>29643278
>Because we don't want them here
I don't actually mean legit roasties turning up. I mean in general, when pictures of girls are posted and everyone jumps on and gets critical. And I'm there thinking "no, I would, she's cute" but then everyone seems to expect a supermodel even though they're probably not exactly mr olympia.
It's because usually whenever girls make a point of mentioning they're girls (not always -- but often unfortunately) it turns into a barrage of white knighting and misogyny. Most of the time there's no real reason to mention your gender (unless it's relevant to the context of a story, but that's not usually the case), so people usually freak out and try to make r9k a hostile environment for women.
>>29643328
I don't understand. Do you mean pictures in general?
Because they always, ALWAYS receive positive comments, unless you go out of your way to post someone disfigured.
>>29643428
>Do you mean pictures in general
Yeah, but maybe I've just been in different threads where the criticism has been higher, because I've noticed it enough to point it out.
You have to aim big to achieve anything i mean ofc if your a 2/10 u wont be pulling an 8/10 but ive seen some solid 5/10 ugly normies that have confidence with 8/10 chicks. Pic related
>>29643610
Which one is the 8?
>>29642962
You're not wrong
oreganol
>>29643610
>8/10 chicks
>pic related
Yeah, it's not hard to see how 5's get other 5's
>>29642962
women turn into gremlins when they age
and yes i look good
so no i dont deal with uglys
they have an expiration date and i just keep getting better
>>29642962
>Do robots have double standards?
Most do here. Which is irritating. It's beyond me how robots can rip females for being ugly.
I'm not one of them. I only request a female that isn't fat.
>>29643663
>>29643674
what exactly would be an 8/10 in your eyes then? or a 10/10?
>>29642962
I swear to go a "sense of entitlement" is just projecting. People are too fucking stupid to tell the difference a desire to earn something and "acting entitled". No one, fucking NO ONE has ever said "im entitled to a gf!" Ever.
Shit's getting old normalfags.
>>29643663
Blonde
>>29643674
Mad
>>29643222
Logic is masterbation without soundness. Your argument doesn't address the common r9k argument regarding the topic.
Way to address my post, normie.
>>29643724
I would say Pudgens is a 8/10
>>29643762
Mad over average girls? lol
>>29643765
The common argument being what? That you're entitled to a Stacey? That isn't an argument, it's wanting something you haven't earned.
>>29643865
Disingenuous conversation has really been on the rise since you faggots got here.
>>29643817
Ur on r9k u cant get average girls m8
