How many dimensions of chess are we on now?

...

Although, imho, the massive electronic surveillance power of the US needs to be turned on its politicians first, to ensure fair and just ruling of the people rather than focused on the people themselves.

get all the corrupt, bribe taking politicians out of office..

That's a way of seeing it i guess. Better doesn't mean good afterall.

So you would rather the country be continually ran by corrupt idpol progressives?

as the quote goes they are both worse

Not just plugging it, exponentially increasing the Holla Forumslution.

he's an anti-union piece of shit who pays his workers poverty wages

Totally not. If America cant be socialist, capitalism is at least workable. Its better than this socdem bullshit that just erodes the middle class.

Pic related. this is how you guys sound

Except the puppets represent the class interest summed over many many businesses, foreign and domestic, whereas individual "puppeteers" tend to be self-interested and/or moralist, and have no necessary overriding class loyalty, which is far more of an average feature than attributable to each individual as a generic psychological fact.

Further, under crony capitalism, there is no hard distinction between the puppeteers and puppets, just look at the Clinton Foundation.

Yes cut out the middle man. Why appoint a corrupt politician when you can employ the man who is corrupting him instead?

You go to gulag

Because its hard to tell if a politician is doing secret favors to a business.

Its pretty obvious if a business exec signs a law that benefits his business.

These people are cabinet picks they dont sign laws at all

tell me how so many politicians are multi-millionaires when they make ~100k a year for their services..

an already wealthy exec has no need to take financial favors or bribes from special interests

Then why are you complaining?

...

Yeah true dude. So long as you have bread, water and a roof you don't need anything else. These people will surely see their cup as full and do what they think is best for the working man.

...

Totally incapable of a response? Unsurprising. Never mind I'm more genuinely anti-capitalist than majority of leftists who simply want to administer a state capitalist apparatus from their parent's basements.

Thats because they are the special interests that would be giving bribes

What the fuck are you talking about?

Can't prove me wrong, better get mad about semantics.

That all the arguments like

Are not actually correct, under a proper Marxian conception of the class interest.

...

Huh? I don't know what you are saying here.

...

There's no difference between "regular capitalism" and crony capitalism.

It will always end up in cronyism because the system is inherently unequal, biased and those with wealth and power will always seek to maintain it whatever the cost. The rich do not care about some vague notion of fair and ethical capitalism built on love and peace.

What do you think propaganda is exactly?

What, like Dick Cheney and his giveaways to Haliburton? As if people knowing about it makes any difference. Everyone knew that Cheney was a murdering war profiteer of the worst kind, and it did not change anything.

You don't understand how being rich works, do you? The notion that the comfortably wealthy will be less corrupt is an old Enlightenment fairy tale.

Yours will, and you seem to be fully aware of that. Why are ancaps the only political ideologues who are okay with have a theory that does not even work in their own minds? How do you pretend that the gigantic, obvious contradictions built right into the idea itself do not completely undermine any potential for its implementation?

Emotive imagery and language to suit an ideological agenda that does not honestly consider the facts and arguments.

Still, this is semantic nitpicking, and fails to address the actual point I made.

I guess knowing this is worse than communists et al. who simply pretend theirs won't due to presumed moral highground while also claiming to be amoral when it suits them.

You get a million year gulag

Shiggy diggy

Idk, like, five or six right now, my dude?

And this means?

Who cares what you claim to be? All that matters are arguments. There is nothing outside of the argument.

is anybody really surprised ?.
the average American is a moron and we all know it.
this was inevitable.
some big corp will own everything, including your ass and you'll have to water crops with Brawndo

I'll never get over how leftypols autism is triggered by colors, shapes and keywords.

It means I'm just LARPing as Nietzsche for giggles.

Wait, you think that a power vacuum is the big contradiction front and center in ancapism?

Die now

Who do you think bribes bureaucrats?

It's one of them. Something like the state will spontaneously reemerge. Especially since you can't have ancapism in one country, as the cronys will invade and undermine, it needs a worldwide revolution.

As if I'm not.

ITT leftists can't back up their implied contention that any single member of the bourgeoisie is necessarily a representative of the entire class interest, and it's just "cutting out the middle man" to give those individuals state power, which is somehow inferior to the bourgeois politician who's only job is to represent that class interest in its entirety and are frequently the same people anyway, seemingly forgetting Engels literally owned a factory.

Was the movie idiocracy a documentary.

Feels doesn't real, anfamily.

God is your argument to individualism.

...

I'm agnostic. I just don't think you should rip the heart out of a heartless world and replace it with an autistic state atheist bureaucracy.

...

are you trying to imply I'm Milo?

...

...

I think he's trying to derail a thread about the naked corruption in Trump's incoming administration. Let's see how long it takes him to bring up feminism and pedophilia.

Never mind. Tripfem is here to do it for him.

SCREEEEEECH

...

Screech

...

Leftists autistically screeching the "autistic screeching" meme when they can't argue a single point hahahaha

Screeech

...

he's spritzing the slime

Jesus this is on a whole new level of irony

Weren't you just saying that they represented the interests of business, and that's good?

You don't seem to realize it's not about the ethical standards the rich set them too, it's about irresponsible management of resources towards the public good. When individual people own more than the public itself, it's time to get rid of those individuals and actually use that towards advancement, it's a culture of greed that allows Capital to accumulate at that point.

You're denial and making it about "well rich people can be nice" is utterly preposterous. Nobody gives a shit.

"TERF" is crony capitalist propaganda to destroy gender critical feminism, and the age of consent should be 18, liking young girls is fucking gross. I'm asexual anyway. There done. Now, can you explain why Engels is a special case?

well it's not corruption if you're an ancap, the government should serve the interests of international megaacorps, that's why they want to replace the government with international megacorps.
Democrats are corrupt however, because he disagrees with them. That's the definition of corruption. Or they care about their political careers and personal enrichment (unlike republicans of course)

Fucking statist scum, the lower the age of consent the more freedom there is.

What the fuck are you saying

Who's going to set the age of consent in an ancap society? Hands off my child sex slave NAP NAP NAP!

Idpol critical theory. Bourgeoisie is not a "culture".

...

...

ITT: Rather than try to explain this blatant corruption, ancaps go and try to sweep the idea under the rug

...

...

You didn't really have an argument

The age of consent violates the NAP.

Don't you see ancom, just like next time the vanguard won't result in hierarchical state capitalism that collapses this time the porkys aren't working against your interests.

I'm not here to defend my entire ideology, but rather to address a claim made. Expecting me to do so is the same as me asking for a full explanation of every aspect of Marxism when arguing with any of them, while sidestepping their single argument against me.

...

siberia might be your dream you fucking memeball

it's basically illegal poachers vs illegal gold diggers vs illegal chinese rare ingredients seekers
why don't you move there

...

He is not asking about your ideology. He is pointing out that you are arguing about shit that has nothing to do with the topic.

...

That actually sounds like a cool setting for an adventure novel.

Nope. The topic was "how many dimensions of chess are we on", regarding picking businesspeople instead of careerist politicians for the cabinet. People claimed it was "middle man cutting", but failed to understand the difference between career agents of the dictatorship of the bourgeois and individual bourgeoisie, like Engels.

memes kill the ancrap

You don't have a question faggot, you've stated you'd rather have porky in charge than porky's shills and started screeching when you got called a faggot.

No stop agressing against me so I can fuck my voluntary child sex dolls in peace you statist faggot.

Nice Holla Forums-level reasoning.

wew, pretty mad.

So Engels is purely a porky then? I guess that shit cans Marxism.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Where did this dichtomy come from?

Those people were making a joke about the relationship between business and the bourgeois state.

Yes, Engels was bourgeois. So?

No, DoP shitcans Marxism well enough on it's own.

Dicks or Pussies?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You know, "the state will fade away bro, I swear" thing that Bakunin called bullshit on decades before the ML states proved him right.

The puppeteers tell the puppets what to do. I don't quite understand this, your entire point is extremely incoherent. There's been many, many times where particular businesses have lobbied for X or Y and politicians have gone through with it. You seem to think that once these corporatist are in power, they're not going to pursue the same policies they were previously lobbying for without lobbying. It quite literally IS cutting out the middle man.

Nice meme.

It's not about "middle man cutting" per se. It's about what Trump is adding to the so-called "trickle down" formula. In theory it's about poking a hole through which a leak of money or whatever can escape. In reality, it's about letting businesses consolidate wealth through their regulation of things like fiscal policy, taxes, and so on. The concentration of power rather does the opposite than what it tells; instead of releasing the property, the statuses of value, it ossifies and seizes up every last affair of the economy. You are correct when you suggest something like "being wealthy is, in itself, not sufficient to make one a capitalist" or "the difference between career bourgeois and individual bourgeoisie" (e.g. managers in the state sector or landlords) however, what you neglect to mention is how it is this, capitalism's necessity, as the active role of using this wealth to make it self-expansive through employment and exploitation of labour.

Nobody's ever said Engels wasn't a porky.

What does that matter if he was? It doesn't change if his ideas are right or wrong

Also, when people talk about "cutting out the middleman", they mean the facade of a middleman. Whereas before, the guy from Exon would get together with a bunch of his friends to lobby for X law, now he ask his friends what they want and they pass it. The individual bourgeois will be self interested, but the dynamic completely changed once he enters the state apparatus (there have been plenty of bourgeois in power before, see Mitt Romney) something you keep neglecting to acknowledge.

i regret making this thread

...

Are you sure you were replying to the right post? I was making a fucking meme, buddy

...

le meme wars XDDD

...

keep fighting le good fight mah brother XD

If you insist :^)

What a shitshow of a thread.
Ashamed of this board.
AnCap friendo had a point.

Exxon or CKrestaurants won't necessarily serve their whole class, but maybe merely their own fields while someone like Romney or Christie have hundreds of strings attached to them merely as requirements for their profession. A CEO, while having explicit rather than implicit incentives to turn the tides at their favour at the expense of the public, don't require that for their power.

Also banhappy vols sniped him even when he was here for peaceful discussion.
Then you wonder why the whole chan hates us.

13 dimensions, counting the three dimensions added on when you figure that the terrorists are secretly funded by the CIA

My Dad is vice-president of a small company and a lifelong democrat. If I had to guess, I'd say that there are more successful businessmen who are democrats then republicans t b q h

i doubt it. propensity to vote republican correlates positively to income

Hello, fellow leftists.

The fuck? Why

Is that why the red states are all in the South and fly-over country?

Because he was just Holla Forums trying to derail a thread about Trump fucking them over again.

There were some recent volunteers added lately. Some are obviously retards. This might be the same guy who banned a tankie for calling the Paris commune ancap. I made a post in the moderation feedback thread and they unbanned him. If it's the same guy the mods should definitely know about it so they can dismiss him.

Thank you for that comrade

Why is he holding his hands like that?

I mean as someone with germaphobia/OCD I can kinda understand but I at least try not to look that awkward

Why is this even an argument who cares if Exxon guy or whatever serves one industries interests rather than spread across hundreds like a career politician the point is that Trump said he would drain the swamp and get big money out of the White House and he did the exact opposite. This cabinet will categorically not serve the interests of the public and that's really the heart of the matter. The ancaps in this thread have just cried about crony capitalism or whatever forgetting that crony capitalism is just normal capitalism and really has little or nothing to do with the topic of the thread anyway. And yes Engels was a porky, Marx outright stated that petit-bourgeois would be instrumental in the revolution since it's hard to write theory and organise inbetween being slammed at your wageslave factory job

Why is Trump standing in front of a flag of Latvia?

My experience isn't an empirical study or anything like that but I'm saying this as a guy who lives in a very red state. The key word is successful, republicans go after the kind of small-business owners who are extremely stingy and usually fail in their first year or several times over their lifetime. I've met a number of guys who own a used car lot and vote republican but how long do they usually last? How much money do they really make?

Usually, smart business owners are people who can get what they want out of their employees without making them too resentful or burning too many bridges with the outwardly bombastic scrooge Scrooge McDuck-in-training attitude.

I'd say this post is mostly on-point, the blue state capitalists are the biggest and craftiest capitalists that's why they often conclude that the democrats can serve their interests better then republicans.

No we're saying his interests as billionaire and fast food chain owner are fundamentally opposed to ours his lobbying of politicians was what made them corrupt why should we expect him to be better if they served his interests to begin with?
Unless you unironically believe he hasn't offered 'camaign donations' to political candidates before

I see "crony capitalism" come up a lot, even among regular people talking about capitalism.

What's the best way to refute this idea that we are in "crony capitalism", and that a reversion to "true capitalism" would be better?

When you drain the swamp, you're not supposed to fill it with sewage again, Trump-san.

All the ancaps did was make the mystifying and somewhat baffling argument that this isn't true crony capitalism because Trump is putting big money directly into office instead of having them work through lobbyists and trying to use this to claim that this isn't somehow big money getting in cozy with the government.

What "point" are they trying to make? How is this anything more than circular mental gymnastics?

And an Exxon representative can't have strings attached to him because directly serving one corporation magically prevents you from serving others?
I am yet to meet a single tankie who isn't a Holla Forums tier idiot.

"Crony capitalism" is the liberal version of "communism has never been tried" except it actually comes up a lot.

You can always point to society before the Great Depression, a pretty good example of "real" capitalism and how terrible it is.

To many.

I-if an objectively bad thing is happening it'll be better if it continues happening but more in the open duh

The hilarious thing about ancaps is that most of them are actual paedophiles. Like, it's not a strawman, that's quite literally how they are. Of course, many on Holla Forums are no better, but at least Holla Forums isn't representative of the actual socialist demographics, whereas internet ancaps' antics paint a pretty accurate picture of how they are like IRL.

They were not trying to make any point. It was just a derailment.

Ask anyone who says "crony capitalism" to point to an example of true capitalism. That always gets them. I have heard them come up with stupid shit that wasn't even capitalist like tenth century Iceland.

That's insulting

I'm a hebephile you sick fuck

There are plenty of reasons to declare ancaps to be faggots beyond just what they beat off to. Besides, pedos are better than the furries that infest the nazi ranks.

That's not the point.
See, this is why I'm glad that Holla Forums doesn't represent socialists in general.

At least own it like a real pedo, faggot.

Everyone is better than furries.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually advocate for pedophilia in any of these communities. I hope people aren't just making shit up to make people they dislike look bad. There are ways to do that that actually address their ideas.

Hebe=/=Pedo
I'm not really a supporter of either but even I know that much.

Like any other kind of rape, both are about power and not sexual attraction per se. Any possible difference is purely semantic.

Yeah, pretty much everybody who does not have a granny fetish is a hebe. It's hilarious that certain faggots try to make an identity out of it.

For those who don't know,
pedophile = attracted to pre-pubescent kids
hebephile = attracted to pubescent kids
ephebophile = attracted to post-pubescent but below legal age kids ("jailbait")

I agree that the distinction in the different terms is arbitrary but all three of the above are distinct from being a predator, either molester or rapist. People can hurt kids without being attracted to them and people attracted to kids are not all predators. Equating "pedophile" with any form of attraction to people below the age of consent while also equating it with the act of sexual predation is a bad idea for reasons that should be obvious.

They are not bringing any peer reviewed studies of fetishes cross-referenced with political ideologies, so I think that it is safe to assume that is exactly what they are doing.

It was a fucking joke you autists

The thing is is that pedophiles on leftypol don't try to derive a political system that satiates their sexual fetishes.

...

I'm not one to tell people that certain topics are off-limits for jokes, but if you're going to make a joke about something like sexual attraction to kids you have to expect that some people will take you seriously. Especially if the joke is to repeat the kind of shit that a hebephile might actually say to rationalize to themselves that they're not monsters despite what society says. Do you see how this is a "I was just pretending to be retarded" scenario?

Stop this meme. I love women and I want them to be well rounded adults instead of being told that their highest aspiration is to be a diversity hire CEO but the next best thing is to have a successful blog complaining about social minutiae and subtext in movies.

Most of leftypol's views on feminism are varied but seem to usually derive from the same logical points that they bring other viewpoints in. That it's disruptive because it tries to focus on immaterial identity, that it's not class focused enough, that it's necessarily a part of class analysis, or that it's needed to gain a broader group of support. Those are all arguments that have applied to plenty of other arguments in the past. Why does it suddenly become about ulterior sexual frustration when it's feminism?

Notice how I very specifically mentioned sexual attraction and not sexual behaviour. Not everyone who has rape fantasies would like to actually be a rapist or a victim of rape, but that doesn't mean that the source of the fantasy doesn't originate in a person's perception of power dynamics in a relationship. You could make an appeal to man's biological nature that you read about in a pop science article somewhere, but I'm just going to reply that human nature is biosocial, i.e. it doesn't matter if it was okay for forty year olds to fuck nine year old children in the stone age, for everyone who grew up today such attraction is most certainly a product of their power fantasies and isn't just pure hormone play.

t. a biologist

No shit.

How does that even follow what he posted?

Why conflate sexual attraction with any kind of relationship? They can't just like the aesthetic?

I always err on the side of clarity because I know you and I aren't the only people reading what I write, so please forgive me if I come off as presumptuous. I saw a way that your post could be read and wanted to address that as opposed to what I figured you actually intended.

Yeah, feminism is clearly the only exception to the rule that such movements by and large represent their members because some people on Holla Forums, who by complete coincidence are all men, can cherrypick some examples.
This meme is tired even for Holla Forums. It's literally the only argument against feminism that you present that only and exclusively applies to liberal feminism, and any attempt to bring up any issue that feminism is concerned about out of the multitude that are present simply result in a storm of name calling that goes nowhere.

See, it's one of those cherrypicked examples that have been refuted a million times (like by mentioning socialist feminists who outright reject liberal feminism, for example de Beauvoir whose support of feminism rests on her anti-capitalist views) that /lefrtpol/ keeps bringing up because the board owner keeps banning everyone who cares to refute the point for the million and first time.

Because this subject has already been scienced, and by this point it's no longer an issue of opinion, maybe?

That's reasonable. Glad that was cleared up.

And the persecution complex kicks in. Fuck off, faggot.

Wow, I'm actually prescient. Brb, hitting all the casinos.

You remind me of Holla Forumstards who call people who disagree with them kikes.

Being male is a disadvantage in the west.

Yeah, you're projecting.

Is it bad that I genuinely can't tell whether you're fucking around or actually being serious?

It's funny that you mention the anti-anti-Semitism folks because a good portion of those are also trolling for outrage and douchebag Zionists who bother Jewish people who have a conscience. To put a finer point on what I said before, feminism =/= women's liberation.

Being a man has dick-all to do with being able to evaluate whether feminism liberates women or not. Loads of feminists are men and loads of non-feminists are women (hint: most women aren't feminists). As for whether feminism liberates women, not "represents [its] members, we should look at the thrust of the movement and what it accomplishes which is mostly complaining about inane garbage and passing obviously biased laws like the Violence Against Women Act. On the topic of where you seem to be coming from, you phrase this as a matter of feminism "represent[ing its] members" which of course it does. The problem here is that 1 feminism's members are a mix of men and women, and that 2 not all women are feminists. Right off the bat you drop any pretense that feminism is about liberating women but instead about representing the group of people called feminists. Even you, who would defend the movement, are aware on a conscious enough level that you put its primary flaw right in your description of it (and say as much about the other movements you list, but I won't get into that).

It's funny that you think this is the only argument I have against feminism when you literally just responded to a different argument from me, albeit one I expressed more succinctly. When it comes to distinguishing leftist and liberal feminism I don't see much of a point because when I don't see "leftist" feminism taking off the mask to reveal liberalism underneath it's mostly just an ineffective sideshow to class. I have disagreements with leftist feminism that I won't go into here because this post is already long, but my primary bone to pick is with liberal feminism and so is Holla Forums's by my reckoning, so using "but there's good leftist feminism" to me is much like saying "but there's good moderate Islam." Cool. That's not really what I'm concerned with to be honest, and you seem oddly eager to wash clean a banner that crazy people fly.

10/10 memeing you can go kill yourself now.

...

That is really how it feels when leftypol talks about feminism and racism for me.

If you're not being retarded and look at the average person, then yeah it's pretty obvious that men have a rough time because men are supposed to be tough, gud werker, etc. Bourgie idpolers for some u n e x p l a i n a b l e reason tend to only look at how identity works in the upper echelons of society though.

i want you to know i love you asian anfem

Women are muh privileged. Even on this board people worship the only confirmed woman.

Asian Cunt Trip is a confirmed woman?

I'm less enjoyed than Muke and Rebel combined what on earth are you talking about

I had no idea I was a confirmed woman either

It must be terminal :(

Actually, I mentioned anti-judophobia specifically because a case can, and must, be made against rightist cunts who play the judophobia card to excuse their own despicable behaviour — and yet that does not mean that judophobia itself is not despicable or any less of an issue because of those people. You missed my point entirely in a way that very nicely supports it. Cheers.

watch as it crumbles.

That shit is mostly ironic.

Yeah, I didn't say different. I made a point to say that it's a portion of bad actors who do that shit.

It's pretty telling that you found the one thing you thought you could kind of get me on and ignored the rest.

Rebel is almost universally hated and muke is either considered an illiterate moron or boipussy for thirsty niggers.

I like you better and want to watch you cuck nogfnazi

First, this — . Second, it's funny that every time I see this picture, it's posted by an alt-rightist or someone who might as well be one, notwithstanding the fact that it was obviously drawn by one.

Didn't bother reading the rest, sowwy~

I think being cucked by a lesbian is what all terrible people need in their lives. A bit of a shock to the system to get them out of their bubble.

What do you think "ignore" means?

Alas it'll never happen, because nogfnazi will never get a gf. Still the object of his desire getting fucked by a lesbian would be funny and the closest he could get to being cuckolded.

What about terrible straight girls or gay dudes?

Straight girls sabotage themselves constantly enough. And they're afraid of it.

Eh, Idk. I'm not really that knowledgable about their inner fears. Maybe their lover going tumblr? Who knows.

"Ignoring" would imply that I read the rest of your post and decided to not answer it, whereas I simply didn't give a fuck to finish reading a post that's just you masturbating over your own cleverness.

I think gay dudes are mostly too chill for that.

Is that why you're still replying.

...

The alt right are loathsome

To play devil's advocate, the alt-right is split between nazi wannabes and conservatives who are just smart enough to figure out the republicans are not working in their interests.

The alt-right are escapist losers who think that pretending to play politics will make their lives better (yes, yes, exactly like tumblrinas and Holla Forums). They aren't scary, only creepy, and they don't deserve hate, only disgust. That is to say, I'm not implying that you are a bad person, only that you're delusional and impotent to inflict change upon your own life.
Just saying.

Point me to the place where I said I was alt-right :^)

I think they ran out of chess boards.

Yep, you're an alt-right type.

Yep, you're an alt-left type

Getting real tired of Redditors thinking they belong on imageboards. Or anywhere else, really. Ancaps, flawed as they are, are still better than "socialists" who don't support the people's control over their own sex lives. Some people on this board are woefully uninformed on this topic, even to the point of calling someone Holla Forums for disagreeing. Guess most of the left isn't really any smarter than the right.

What if - now hold on, I'm going to go slowly here - don't get left behind now -

What if society is wrong?

You know, like it was about racism and gays and gender roles and videogames causing violence and basically everything else in the history of fucking ever? But oh wait, the majority of the world actually finds nothing wrong with adults and teens being together, so if a majority is all that's required to win an argument, you lose that way too.

You shouldn't joke about things like that, you know. Your words sound exactly like what bigots would say to rationalize to themselves that they're not psychotic fascist retards.

Most people aren't attracted to nine-year-olds. Most people are attracted to teenagers. Why do you feel the need to pathologize natural, healthy sexual relationships based on slipshod studies with sample sizes that would get laughed out of any actual scientific conference, never mind how stupid your methodology is? Why do you feel the need to posit some form of exploitation where none exists because all parties involved fully understand how sex works thanks to this thing called sex education? Do you object because of some vague-as-fuck "maturity" idiocy that you've failed to quantify in any way that would prove your contention? Do you think people need to be electrical engineers before they use a potentially dangerous power tool? Do you think people need a large body of completely unrelated experiences before having sex with someone they find attractive? Your "theories" have the same level of credibility as drapetomania or Holla Forums's "race realism" bullshit.

You should have your degree revoked. Your "studies" are not replicable and therefore are not science, and the average teen is smarter and more qualified to grant sexual consent than you.

t. chemist

The science shows that ephebophobes are objectively wrong. Unfortunately, bigots don't like being proven wrong, so they blacklist anyone who tells the truth, like what they did to Bruce Rind.

Ancap being a faggot to age of consent to feminism. Trump's chess game has us dimension hopping like crazy.

Is there even such a thing as alt-left? Never heard of it.

Racialist socdems, so pretty much nazis.

you don't belong here

Wow.
Immediately after I said that any appeal to le human nature meme is bollocks, you went straight to appealing to the human nature meme. You didn't even fucking attempt to refute my statement, you just said exactly what I said one such as you would say. You even fucking quoted my words against the argument you are trying to make. Are you stupid or what?
I wonder just how much time did you actually spend cherrypicking studies to bash just in case someone mentioned studies regarding the nature of unequal relationships in a discussion concerning paedophilia?
M8, that paedophilia is all about power is a proven bloody fact. You can't go into denial and then still expect to be taken seriously.
All right, the realisation that I'm replying to a genuine idiot that hit me after reading this sentence actually made me chuckle out loud. Have a good day, I'm done wasting my time on you.

I'm not defending ancaps as a whole, just this one thing.

OK, now on to the rest of this pseudointellectual pile of shit.

But it's not. Simply asserting it to be the case doesn't make it so. The claim that we should deny our nature, which is having sex with teens, is an extraordinary claim because it goes against all of humanity's evolutionary history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and not only have you not provided that, you've provided no evidence of any kind, and the burden of proof is on you to do so because you're making a positive claim that harm is derived from acting on our natures. Why should anyone believe you?

You've failed to establish a consensus to pick at. Countries other than America have never replicated any of the studies you fraudulently hold up as proof. It's hardly cherrypicking to point out that literally every single paper claiming what you claim is demonstrably false for a multitude of reasons.

Just to be clear about saying your degree should be revoked, biology as a whole is a perfectly valid discipline. Your conception of it, however, is not.

Once again, ephebosexuality is not pedophilia, and once again, simply asserting something to be true does not make it so. If you were an actual scientist, you'd understand that.

That's the ball game, folks. Ephebosexuals (aka normal people) win, 90 million to 0. Be sure to buy your foam fingers, caps, and more overpriced concessions on the way out of the park.

Wow, it's been some time since I was genuinely entertained by stupidity instead of being frustrated by it. Cheers.

So are you going to post an actual argument or just sit there acting like a smug fucking moron who thinks your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge?

Here's a better question: Why did I just ask a question I already know the answer to?

Why did you?

Fucking hell, h e ' s f o r r e a l .

it's evolution guys, it's human nature, there are pedophiles all over the world!

look at all those times i used the word "because"!

It's unfortunate, but that's American politics for you.

Good question. I guess mostly to make a point about how dumb this "biologist" and his snickering Reddit memer friends are. If anyone's being entertained it's me, though, because their arrogance and unwilligness to actually give any specific rebuttals are so far off the charts, they're making people convert to our side out of pure spite. Honestly, most children are more mature than they are, never mind teens. Maybe they're the ones who shouldn't be allowed to consent to sex.

The doublethink is real…and staggering. Too bad it's impossible to convince you through the use of logic or facts because you didn't use logic or facts to get to your current beliefs. I'm just having fun tearing your shitty "arguments" apart for the benefit of any lurkers or curious posters who may be fooled by your false claims to some kind of intellectual authority because they haven't heard the truth on account of your side censoring it.

because

You triggered yet? If I say because enough times, will you shriek in pain like the Knights Who Say Ni? We should do a paper on that. It'd be more credible than any of the garbage you've put out.

Good answer!

It's almost too pathetic to be laughable.
I'm tempted to buy a fedora just so I could tip it to you.

Well, there you have it. The bigots are using Reddit memes to handwave away not only the facts of this case, but the very concept that facts exist, all while their propaganda pushers claim to have the facts on their side. Nothing I could say could possibly make your intellectual and moral bankruptcy any clearer than what you just said. You don't care about whether a certain opinion is correct or not. You're a typical liberal crypto-reactionary who only cares about whether adopting that opinion would present a hazard to your social status. Like everything else liberals do, your rejection of logic is a threat not only to us, but to the working class in general. If people like you were allowed to run society you'd run it exactly like the capitalists do, only with a veneer of populism. You'll accuse people of crimes you have no proof for if they pose a political obstacle to your personal gain, because people who base their opinions on popularity only care about personal gain. You'll appoint all manner of bourgie scum to your administrations and bullshit about it like Obama did, and like Trump is doing now. You're not a progressive and your arguments carry no weight with any remotely rational person. Interesting how you didn't use the same fedora meme on the guy who claimed to be a biologist, by the way.

I think we're done here.

But you are precisely the type to wear a fedora. About the only thing preventing you from that is mass fedora shaming, and even still then I'm not sure if you don't wear one. I'm not even mocking you, just making an observation.

...

You know, for a board that loves to tell people to "read a book", there sure isn't a whole lot of desire to read here.

Really fires those synapses doesn't it?

And another one bites the dust. Anyone else want to get rekt?

I don't know who's redditing whom anymore.

...

You know the answer. Listen to the power of the double dubs and it will come to you.

I was just making fun of how inane the conversation had become. I know who's who. It's supposed to be a friendly kick in the pants to remember something important.

What now, agecucks? Your arguments ain't shit, bitches. You faggots should just run crying back to your hug box on Reddit with all your fallacious bigoted motherfucking shit and leave freedom lovers in peace.

THE DUBS HAVE SPOKEN.

Redpill on Trump. Spread this around. If this won't convince Holla Forums then nothing will.

> If this won't convince Holla Forums then nothing will.
FTFY

Are you actually mental? By this point I'm starting to think that it's the most likely possibility.
Nice dubs streak, though.

You know that crazy people often come up with good ideas that nobody else would think of because they ignore lots of social barriers, right? And that crazy traditionally has been used to discredit people whose ideas deviate from the mainstream. Also, that's ableist you shit lord.

i aint runin ur little skiddie pdf fgt

You should be careful saying things like that. They might come back to haunt you. I can see it now:

Wow, you aren't simply delusional, you're actually living in a fantasy world that you've constructed about one particular sexual fetish and are confusing said world for the real one, and your way of getting back at me for saying mean things to you is to write a story about me not fitting in in your imaginary world. I'm honestly impressed.
Oh, and by the way, are you an anarchist? I have a nagging suspicion that you're an anarchist. What kind, then?

You know what, on second thought, you're probably right. 15 is just a tad higher than it actually will be.

Stay jelly, fag.

Daily reminder that you can't be a true proletariat unless you're a pedophile. Shit like AoC is bourgeois and was invented by capitalists in capitalist nations.

Back to Holla Forums, false flagger…is what I'd say if there wasn't a decent amount of them who can also see through the bullshit. You're more likely to be from Reddit. Ephebos are neither pedos nor doing anything immoral or unhealthy, and even some Holla Forumsacks can understand that. Pity that some people who claim to favor tolerance and progress don't. Then again, Redditor SJWs were never big on actually adhering to what they claim to believe in.

I wanted to post this picture since you first surfaced in this thread, and now that you're making friendly comments about Holla Forums, it couldn't be a better time.

Just when I think the ephebophobes couldn't get any dumber or more willfully ignorant, they invent fractal stupidity. Somebody ought to ring up the Ig Nobel Prize committee and nominate you. You deserve it for a job well done.

…people who hate 16 year olds?

Now I know what to call myself.

...

how the fuck do you label all your "positions" on a left/right spectrum
are you multi dimensionally retarded?

This thread is ripe for this image.
You're welcome.

I'm trying and failing to imagine how a 12 year old can be mentally ready for sex.

Were you never twelve? Is the idea of twelve year olds wanting to have sex unthinkable for you? Do you imagine sex requiring considerable mental faculties?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted by paedophilia as much as the next cunt, etc., but you're approaching the issue from the wrong side.

I don't know about your particular circumstance but I remember being 12 and wanting to fuck. I also remember hating school, wanting to drive a car, having my first beer, smoking my first joint and then two more before I spewed and passed out. At the time it seemed like I was ready for anything, I thought my parents were stupid and were trying to hold me back. The point is there was lots of shit I wanted to do when I was 12 but looking back all those things would have been fucking retarded and damaging, that's part of growing up user, you don't get to do all the shit you want and then when you're old enough you can make those decisions.

You do realize that WWE is extremely predatory and puts small wrestling companies out of business, right?

Wanting to have sex and being ready to have sex are different things. I wanted to be an adult when I was 4.

Fingers crossed this gets the petit-bourgeoisie 'b-but what about my small business?' on our side

I doubt you would have many objections if everyone in the house listened to your commands for a day.

Define "being ready to have sex".

point to how 19th century "true capitalism" lead to horrific slums, poverty and working conditions

just 'capitalism' would do

I wouldn't like the results, which is the point.

Being emotionally mature enough to process the emotions that come from having sex, being physically mature enough for the body to engage in sexual function, and being intellectually mature enough to understand the social dimensions of sex so that you won't end up hurt because you feel you got something different than you signed up for.

I would have. You do realise that children start becoming adults as they play at being ones? You don't become mentally mature the moment you turn twenty, becoming an adult is a long and continuous process. I imagine that having… exercises… where a child is treated as an adult could be really beneficial to the child's development if the wards know what they're doing.
What does that fucking mean? No, really?
So by your definition, many, if not most people on this planet are too immature to have sex? Because if you've never had an experience like that as an adult, then it shows that you aren't getting any. :^)

just bribe the watchers, or better yet only take bribes from the watchers, untill they own / protect you

neo Hover ism when? [spoiler] last decade [/spoiler

Yeah but if the process is anywhere near completion at age four something extremely traumatic has probably happened.

You can't just become an adult, but in a controlled environment you can accelerate the process and make it smoother. It's not at all comparable to sex in this respect, as having sex is a matter of intent instead of capability (unless you're fat and ugly :^)).

Do you have no memory of being a child and having trouble processing emotions that you got better at as you aged? This shit is a process that takes years.
It's one thing to have a miscommunication. It's another to have no understanding of what's going on or what's expected. And yes, a lot of adults are not mature enough to have sex. This is a societal dysfunction, not teaching kids about sex so that they can transition into adulthood prepared to deal with it.

I got worse as I aged, actually, due to becoming dead inside. You really picked the wrong cunt to make a point to about this.
It's not about teaching children about sex, it's about human interaction in general. We fuck up at communicating all the time. It's not incompetence, it's life. You can't really make an argument that children are qualitatively different from adults in this regard.

Complaining about this is like complaining the sky is blue. The is far beyond who the current person in power is.

You're an unusual case, what can I say?
Yes, but we were talking about sex specifically. The general rule applies in this specific case.
Sure I can. At a certain point a person develops a robust enough theory of mind and understanding of the stakes of sex that they have the ability to make accurate risk assessments for the situation and are able to process a normal sexual encounter without serious trauma.

I can still handle sex emotionally. Certainly don't find it anything I couldn't have handled when I was twelve.
Yes, and my point is that your point doesn't apply to the issue, i.e. basically, you're wrong on that one.
I can't tell whether you're an actual twenty plus virgin or just started your sex life late.
Teens, including young teens all the way down to twelve, and even some tweens, do have sex, and they generally don't become traumatised from it if it isn't the kind of experience that isn't likewise traumatising to an adult. Ask people on the internet and just hope they don't lie about it, I guess.

Teens are more than capable of handling sex; the problem with paedophilia doesn't stem from that. You're right for the wrong reason.

Post on Holla Forums, then.

Sexual identity… not even once.

I call bullshit on that. For one, there is no determining where that point is. For another, it has been my experience that nobody understands the social ramifications of sex until well after they have had sex a few times.

It's a different thing between kids who are both exploring sex and between a kid and an adult. I feel like this has been glossed over and the reason we're still going on about this.

I'm not arguing that, given that it's the point I was making since the beginning?
The reason we're still going on about this is because you're stupid.

I dunno this whole thing started with me saying I don't see how a 12 year old would be mentally ready for sex and as far as I can tell you've been nitpicking ever since.

BASED

Literally the most autistic branch of feminism

TERFs are a reductio ad absurdum of gender critical feminism.

This is true, and actually a much deeper level of understanding than I usually expect. I'm actually surprised you're an ancap.
The bourgeois state is a -socialized- monopoly on force, established and maintained by the pursuit of bourgeois self-interest. If the administration becomes less "pluralistic" with respect to the whole bourgeoisie, in proportion, the dynamic will be somewhat different and hence parts of the bourgeoisie will be more likely to oppose it - exactly as we've seen. Elevating five puppetmasters above the other fifty thousand isn't what most bourgs signed on for. So it's "no fascist USA" and a fashionably liberal general strike, for one day in January, that you kindly clear with your boss in advance.

Though ultimately Trump, and the real Hitler, were more palatable to them than a destabilized bourgeois government or revolution. Right-wing populism, like SJWism and like the welfare state, is just one more device of class rule

What about the /bi masterrace/?

Pick a lane you little fuckboy

They are
Source: was 12 once
And aoc is a spook anyway

And why am I not at all surprised that a fucking trot agrees with ancaps?
I honestly can't see any possible parody of trots as not being inferior to what trots actually are like IRL.

How are you people this incapable of detecting irony? Do you think a Marxist ancap asexual male TERF who makes a Derrida joke is for real…

It was astonishing how so many people missed the point due to their brains being shut down by a flag. If you can't handle flags, maybe disable them?

And yes, you don't even really need Marxist analysis to understand this. Politicians tend to not respond to the preferences of the bottom 90% of wealth at all, only at top 10% do they even matter, and it's a sliding scale. They have donors from across whole industries, some in direct conflict (sustainable energy vs oil/gas) many foreign interests, and even if they do lobby for a particular industry, the firms within that industry are usually in competition. They spend the vast majority of their time dealing with donors, and getting bills ghostwritten for them by surrogate think tanks, PAC's and the like. Whereas the most a single bourgeoisie might realistically do is directly benefit their own corporate interest, or at the most their industry, which is far more obvious and easy to detect as a conflict of interest, whereas the politician can obscure the shilling through all the noise. The politician is like the antennae through which the entire bourgois expresses their will. A single capitalist may have any view whatsoever, from Engels to Gates to Zucc to Soros to Koch. I'd argue that due to their wealth and power, their elite status in society necessarily warps their perspective relative to the rest of human beings, so even if they have the purest heart and the Correct Ideology, they still can't help but be somewhat detatched from the normies. We see this in all the disconnected 'philanthropic' billionaires and their TED talk masturbation.

the interesting thing here is what is it about an apparently hostile ideology that causes people's minds to reject any kind of point, no matter it's quality. Is it that their arguments largely amount to group ad hominems?

Here you say:
Rather than TERF is.

The real point of contention is that unions and public interest lobby's no longer get an input. And it's in almost every capitalist's singular interest to do something about unions. Things of that nature. But honestly, how powerful do you think they are, comparatively? If an administration can come in and wipe union power off the map, they were class collaborators and neutered SocDem labor-lite (/literally fascist """seat at the table""") to begin with.

That's a good thing because when this country goes to complete shit we will be there telling the Ancaps we told you so

This. The dynamic changes when a bourgeois enters office.

Nothing I've said is controversial among Marxists.
The British and German bourgeoisie took the world to war twice because they had material interests counter to one another's, for instance. Are you actually denying that there is any qualitative difference between specific individual members of the bourgeois? The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is literally over the basic tactical questions of carrying out class rule today.
And maybe you've heard of at least one feudal monarchy that has had a succession war?

There's no real way of knowing whether all ancap flags are a single poster or multiple ones. We use the flags to satirize our opponents pretty often, so all you can really do is respond to the actual substance of a flagpost.
Eh, not strictly, no. Yes, it's an empirical fact. But Marxism is the theory which rationalizes and predicts this fact. You can say "the government serves the One Percent!" all you like, but it doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about why or how to fix it. Consider OWS.
While political consciousness does have material influences, ideology always has a class character and always has a historical purpose. There are well-intentioned people that sincerely believe in ruling-class ideology, and insist it stands to solve the world's problems. They are "conscious" but wrong. Commodified ethics under late capitalism is a good example. Nobody is ever involuntarily restricted in their thoughts by material freedom
Have to say you're really reaching here, though.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

GET OUT

...

its a truism

there is no such thing as free market capitalism

it cannot exist by definition as all trade based around property and capital is coercive and fradulent. therefore its decided by the state or military institutes what is theft and what is trade. its arbitrary and therefore not based in laws, which economists don't understand because economics is metaphysics

This is quite a problem, as shown by like half of this thread, where a bunch of pretentious fuckwits made sweeping moral generalizations, refused to respond to legitimate objections to those generalizations and then acted like they won anyway before scurrying off because they couldn't take the heat. It should probably be archived because it's a textbook example.

The thing you have to understand about why they act this way is that for most people, self-image is far more important to them than their material interest. This is the single biggest obstacle that any political movement faces. People like to see themselves as strong, intelligent paragons of morality, regardless of what the facts say. That's how SJWism got so much traction to start with. It relied on people wanting to feel like they were smart and doing the right thing, and that's how status quo capitalist university professors conned them into accepting language policing and all the other shit that goes along with it. Members of the bourgeois are no exception to this. Some of them are being duped to the same extent as the proles.

If you can't either convince people that they need a new self-image or that their current one is compatible with what you want to do, you won't be able to get the support you need.

What do you propose we do?

If I knew that, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would have used that knowledge years ago to fix all the world's major problems. That's for the board and the socialist movement as a whole to figure out.

no

there are many humans sexually capable and mature at ages 14-16
hence, age of consent being 14-16 in most of the world