Why exactly do Holla Forums and /r9k/ want to be forced into loveless and likely sexless marriages with a partner who will more than likely cheat on them with men they're actually attracted to? Why do they prefer this to systems and programs that will break down barriers and help them find a genuine mate?
Do they want to be dispised and cheated on? I thought they were against cuckoldry.
A loveless relationship where they get sex is better than nothing to them.
Also cause they're cucks.
You did this to bait "sexual free market" user out of the woodwork, didn't you ?
Hah, you're fuckin' naive, huh?
The reason why they care is because the source of their issues is predominantly due to sexual insecurity. This is why when presented with an alternative form of society, they want to know if they'll have a sexual partner. They say "will the state give me a gf" for two reasons: they don't understand what Communism is (what else is new?) and because they want to ironically approach this topic because it is hurtful to some level, and so it is best to approach it ironically and avoid the actual problem, whilst still bringing it up. When someone asks if Communism will give them a gf that is the exact time to start talking about alienation, and how alienation ruins our relationships with our partners. It is not the time to go "WOW U VIRGIN LUL" or talk about how relationships are spooks and shit.
Why do women want to be in committed relationships in which the terms of the commitment are enforced with state violence. Don't they know this is likely to bred resentment within their partners and cause uncommitted men to reject marriage.
Why do women want to have children they cannot afford and have the state force men to subsidize the cost even often the men don't have the resources either because it's far more costly to raise children when both parties have separate homes. Don't they know it's going to breed resent and fear against women and make them weary of marriage.
They don't just want "state appointed girlfriends", they want a society where women are raised to be submissive and absolutely obediant to their husbands. There wouldn't be much cheating in such a society, and most women would accept their fate since they would be indoctrinated from birth to fulfill their duty.
Before women could sell their labor at parity to men and before there was a welfare state men got de facto state or capital if you will issued girlfriends or wives.
If society stripped women of their ability to sell their labor women and dismantedl the welfare state like pol wants women would come crawling back to these men that cannot find partners because being unwed would carry to great a risk as it did in the past.
This REEEEing at the "state issued gf" meme is deeply hypocritical because there is no call from these same corners to dismantle marriage or child support. Both set up under the assumption that women cannot sell their labor.
Why is it when women fail to financially support their children the state will fill the role and women do not owe the state for it, but the same is not extended to men.
*before women could not selll their labor
I don't know. I just make sure to remind people without capitalism gold diggers couldn't exist so they will be forced to like you for personality, looks, and social status only.
Are all Titoists crypto-Holla Forumsyp idiots?
So basically they're retards that think you can unsqueeze toothpaste.
because like every acne-riden teenager they think they will tear down the world to claim their rightful pussy, never to realise it was all a tv-commercial induced delusional fantasy
I'm not a Holla Forumsyp. You're deleusional if you think marriage and relationships weren't primarily economic partnerships and continue to be so.
You're also delusional if you think there are not kernels of truth of Nazi propaganda.
Not sure what pointing out the fact child support and marriage are state institutions enforced by viloence, in effect giving women "state issued husbands" and "state issued fathers" with no reciprocal commitment.
omg, how can you against market monopolies, yet still want a monopoly on your partners sexual life in a monogamous relationship
That is not how it works, no matter how hard idpolers on both sides of the spectrum wish that changing culture would change material reality.
has the right idea.
Because delusion is a powerful anesthetic.
Proletarian women have always worked
I know that, but they weren't always able to sell their labor at parity to men, ao they weren't able to access markets at parity to men.
everyone is raised to be submissive and obedient to an authority, fuck off radfem
I moved out in this new citiy, and I already made 3 girl friends and a bunch of guy friends, I think any of them would agree if I asked them out. I can't imagine the level of individual failure necessary to advocate for state-enforced relationships. Despicable.
Are you ugly and autistic? That seems to be their main complaint, as someone who is neither and has had a lot of sex in a major city I can't relate to it though. still no gf and want one, but not interested in dating girls I get matched with
stop bringing this bullshit up, it isn't politics. The best way to shut these people up is to ignore them completely
Their ideas and concerns are simply not feasible and will never be part of the conversation, and they have to accept that.
We can offer only liberation from work. I refuse to acknowledge anything outside of that
just get a hooker and don't bring your shit here ever again
This, honestly. There's lots of gender and relationship issues worth talking about, but "I can't get a girlfriend" isn't one of them, generally speaking.
If you're not fat, it works for you. I used to be fat, now I'm attractive.
Nobody gives a shit whether you've had a lot of sex. I used to be ugly, yes. Now I'm sure I have aspergers but I'm doing tremedously better than I did a year or two ago.
A lot of the robots and other khvs do. If they ever have sex it's going to be a rude awakening afterwards in that they won't feel any better and will be just as lonely as before.
Dating is for finding a partner, which leads to marriage and children.
Child support and marriage are both state institutions enforced by violence. Both institutions place men in extreme amounts of debt. Debt is just labor that isn't complete yet. Dating and sex have everything to do with politics. The woman or man that dates for has sex simply for its own pleasure are as rare as unicorns but awesome in the sack
I'm not fat. But being fat is an huge class indicator of poverty. Glad you are not fat anymore, but there's an obesity epidemic and it's due to capitalism. Unless you think this generation is just inherently lazier than generations past.
One reason why there are so many fat people is because of divorce, and women entering the wok force. No one has time to cook for kidos
Good thing most of them don't just want sex but seek intimacy. Anybody can just buy sex on backpage.com
I was happy, at first, when more Yugo flags started showing up. But then they started going full retard.
This has some truth, though.
it might be more effective to make dating like jury duty, like a young lady gets a letter from the state that there is a single guy she might be into and to give him a shot if she wants
It'd be more effective to abolish marriage and child support and strengthen the welfare state for children to provide a baseline lifestyle regardless of either parents ability to pay, kind of like we do with public education.
Sexual liberation only only works for women and enslaves everyone else. If women cheat once the sexual free market is regulated they will be punished. Being with a woman who hates you is better than being an incel in any event.
Come on mate, the problem in the graph is litterally why polygamy was abolished and marriage was instituted.
Please start using a name/trip so I can filter your posts. Please. Something like "Sex-Market Socialist" seems appropriate tbh.
We are living in a harem society you idiot 20% of men fuck 80% of the women.
No shut up it's because women only want Chads reeeeee
really nigga? a women who loves you can be hard to be around at times one who hates/resents you will be exausting
What is worse eating a mediocre meal or starving?
Fuck off idiot!
that is not compareble, its more like being hungry and spending all your time with a meal you can't eat.
You're both fucking retarded, there's loads of girls who don't have much sex, you've just got unreasonable standards for how unattractive you are. Either aim lower or increase your perceived value by improving yourself, it's really fucking easy to get laid if you're not being a unrealistic, defeatist cuck.
Citation: go outside. Millennials are the least sexed generation of all time and the CDC considers male virginity a pervasive problem. All because of the chad sexual bourgeoisie.
Literal fucking nonsense. The regulated sexual market will result in assigned partners having sex with each other as they always did.
Please start using a trip so I can filter your posts.
That's what I've been saying. I never suggested polygamy was human nature. It was do to wealth inequality in ancient societies.
More women go to college then men, therefore there are fewer men then women that make more or equal amounts of money as women. even though women still make less for the same job
Women are materially better off persuing higher status men either financially or socially I.e. Height, looks, muscles etc, then they are dating a lower status person until they absolutely have to, which is precisely what they are doing.
I keep advocating for abolishing state enforcement of marriage, and provide a base income to children.
Just don't read threads about sex and relationships and how capitalism is intertwined into them.
Who cares? Whatever partner you end up with will resentful as fuck anyways, except she'll be used up and haggard from riding the chad cock carrousel for 15+ years and having 200+ partners and a floppy roastbeef vagina.
The sexual free market needs regulation.
t. A 12 year old
That would be fine if you kept your autism confined only to threads explicitly about sexuality, but you don't. Please start using a tripcode.
You assume women are willing to accept and "lower" man just because they are lower class themselves. That's not the case, and we shouldn't be advocating for the status quoe anyway. Capitalism has made a lot of men and women ineligible bachelors. For men it's often poor socialization, for women it's often obesity.
We shouldn't force men or women to accept these circumstances. We should be explaining to both how and why they came about.
I don't insert myself into that many threads.
Sure, but every time you do it ends up derailing the entire thread because nobody can resist telling you how retarded you are.
You're fucking worse than pathetic if it you accept your fate instead of criticizing the current zeitgeist, but look at the bright side, if you come out of the conflict alive the Kurds are still very """""reactionary""""" so you may end up being awarded with a Kurdish girl's hand in marriage anyway for your efforts! Good luck!
Please stop, why not try countering some of my arguments instead of trying to shame or play mind games.
having sex sucks
Most women I know of, while they do like to go for attractive partners (you know, exactly like men do), aren't too keen on "sharing" their partners with other women.
Way to focus on the name calling rather than on the content of my post. And anyways, I never claimed there was a consensus, I only claimed that you derailed every thread you post this shit in, which is true. Just look at the sorry state of the Chapo thread for proof you dipshit.
Way to read only one part of my post, you're a complete shit for brains. Women constantly cheat and the haremization of society is real.
retarded isn't a name? If nobody can resist doesn't that imply everyone thinks the same way about me?
The threads get derailed because you try to shout down opposition because it works on the vulnerable men that brings these issues up.
betaboys should be bullied into suicide
Well a lot of Christians ignore christs teachings so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this sentiment.
maybe i don't want to cooerce people into being with me. ever think of that one?
How confused and spineless do you have to be to be a Christian who defends the sexual free market? I shit on you.
The threads get derailed because you make inflammatory posts in threads unrelated to the topic that you seem determined to shill on this board. Even if there's not a consensus on your opinions (which I think there is, but w/e) there's still enough people who vehemently disagree with you to cause the threads you post in to get derailed. All I'm asking is that you start using a tripcode so that this problem can go away. Please.
i don't really care about it at all i just think socially awkward people are annoying online
Maybe you're being coerced into believing "sexual liberation" where 80% of the women fuck 20% of the men is a good thing, every think of that? Pure ideology.
If you belive only the economic aspect of capitalism should be criticized and not the sociological as well you don't belong on this board. Our goal is to build a more egalitarian society and yes that NECESSARILY include a more egalitarian distribution of relationships.
You keep bringing up this 80% 20% thing. How bout some proof motherfucker.
No. I haven't gone into the Chapo thread in awhile. I won't go into there if it's only for fans and not critics.
Maybe you should get a thread about Chapo that states it's for fans instead of one that has an OP that criticizes it.
Well there no proof of that but there are declining birth rates and marriage rates in all first world countries.
Men also constantly cheat, shit for brains.
Nice persecution complex, faggot
Getting rid of capitalism entails abolishing the law of value, so even if you ignore the ethical implications of forcing girls to sleep with people, it would be completely unjustifiable and unnecessary.
so how does that prove anything? seems more possible that having kids is expensive and not economically viable
Criticism is fine, but not if your using criticism as a vehicle for the opinions that you shill constantly, especially when your criticism barely applies to the show.
And what's inflammatory is Chapo fans trying to make no gfs into their whipping boys for Pateron $$$ and empty catharsis for their petite bourgeois fans.
I spoke out against it and that's the real reason you all hate me.
This is dumb also because a lot of leftists suffer from that form of alienation, plus it gives the right folder to paint leftist as elistist.
The person with the most social or economic capital cheats usually.
When we make Heaven then everyone gets the love of their lives forever.
Until then…expect to time your marriages to, "all saves"…all humans, at the same time, are included in an eternal life program.
I get it. You feel persecuted because you believe that you suffer from sexual alienation. Lots of people disagree with the way that you characterize this issue, and that's completely fine. All I'm asking is that you use a tripcode so that people can filter out your constant shilling.
Just so that you don't ignore the point I'm making yet again: Your constant shilling is bad and it ruins many threads. Using a tripcode would fix this problem.
See for the actual reasons why people hate you so much.
The show ridicules no gfs and paints them all as coming from the alt right. I take issue with that, that's completely about the show. I've listened to 10 episodes of Chapo and no gfs were brought up in over half of them, sometimes they would go on about them for 10 mins.
Its crypto liberals trying to create an identity they can safely mock. It's immature and counterproductive.
Quit bugging me about using a name. Chan culture discourages it, and i don't want to.
You use your criticism of the show as a vehicle to shill for the opinions you shill all the time. It's absurd that you think this isn't something that would bug people, especially when you don't really address the arguments of the people who respond to your criticism. Then quit shilling all the time, that's also something that chan culture discourages.
Myself and maybe 2 other anons will pipe up about how Chapo denigrates people who can't find partners. Chapo pulls down 10s of thousands in donates a month and there must be dozens of fans of the show on this board. Viciously disagreeing with Chapo fans over the characterization of no gfs when they tireless parrots the views of Chapo is not "shilling". I'm doing it now, throughout this thread and the Chapo thread.
The Far-Right = Islam
Is that a recent drawing? Christ Chans art is really improving.
They don't. They denigrate people who blame their inability to find partners on feminism, cultural fun or any other of a variety of pathetic excuses. There's much more nuance than you're claiming there is. A show you don't like is successful, get the fuck over it. Even if they do "denigrates people who can't find partners" (they don't), they're still a great entryist force for the left. Purity politics is dumb. Sure, by itself criticizing Chapo isn't shilling, but since you use every opportunity you can to talk about this one specific issue I think we can safely call what you do "shilling". Except you never argue against the central points people make, you always argue around the person. It's insufferable.
That will be counter productive, dumbass
The one's I'm referring don't but you're point is well taken. Yes many no gfs do blame feminism or have spooks like racism that keep them from finding partners.
One thing, feminism is closely linked to porky propaganda. All you have to do is compare how much ink has been spilled reporting on sexism in video games vs the 100k untested rape kits in the US.
Chapo with their railing on no gfs are just parroting an abstraction of an old feminist "all men are rapist" plank.
They are reenforcing the already strong culture belief that male sexuality is dangerous, and therefore sexual frustrated men are someone how rapists in the making and should be shamed for going down that line of thinking.
Feminists pull this same baloney with the advent of pornography saying it would lead to increases in sexual assault. Having men complain about their inability to not find partners and yes even sharing their sometimes reactionary beliefs as to why is good, they are not analogous to Nazis as you and Chapo love to imply.
I don't see Chapo or their petite bourgeoisie fans as revolutionary. I don't get any more mad at Chapos success than I do say Fox News'.
Felix was an assistant editor for cafe.com, a silicon valley venture capital funded propaganda news outlet.
On top of that Felix was rabid Eminem fan. The whole show is low key reactionary as all get out.
I get dog piled by Chapo fans when I speak out about no gfs. There's way more of you than me, therefore I wind up having to respond alone to alot of posts, like I am now.
Chapo and their fans are the ones that argue in bad faith and poison the well with their "ironic" smugness. And "ironic" promotion of fascism.
This is why you precieve me as arguing around you. I'm trying to bring back the converstation to same basic assumptions your are constantly implying. Like:
The last one makes me laugh the most.
I want a future where there is neither love nor sex.
the bad guys from 1984 are my unironic political beliefs tbh
I'll wear a wig if you'll accept that I'm going to cut your head off the first night we share a bed, how about that?
The Perfect Woman LOL
smash that like button if you hate your wife
LMAOOOOOO, the implication that Chapo is anti-male because they make fun of socially awkward reactionaries is laughable at best, and claiming that Felix is reactionary because he supposedly liked Eminem is even more absurd. Also "male sexuality" is a massive spook, and the idea that a person's gender has any effect on their sexuality is shitty as fuck. You should be shamed for going down that line of thinking When the fuck have Chapo promoted "ironic" fascism? And what makes you think they're arguing in bad faith? Lmao, so you're literally changing the subject with a bunch of non-sequiturs instead of addressing the arguments being made. Cool. At least you're admitting it.
Plenty are, and the reason for that is the right-wing presence in various PUA groups. You're delusional if you don't think that Hillary pathologically mismanaged her campaign in a way that gave Trump a huge advantage. Literally nobody's claiming that voter suppression doesn't happen. Not all critics of Chapo are reactionaries who don't get it. You just happen to be a reactionary who doesn't get it. Literally nobody has ever made this claim.
These two sentences are the best two sentences
tbf to him and his shitty post i barely read because i'm only here to abuse the other socdem, "male sexuality" is recognized to exist by the dominant culture today. it may be a stupid, reactionary spook - but society is stupid, reactionary and spooked.
Even as a actual ktv wizard I find these people pathetic.
Not mine. I want the whole world to end, not an endless warring society.
You're literally retarded, the heat death of the universe is inevitable, your ideal world already exists.
Time scales, retard
They didn't watch Koi to Uso.
Time scales only matter to conscious beings, and consciousness will likely end well before the universe ends. Why destroy the world when everything is going to die eventually anyways?
Well watching other anime is maybe a reason why this idea appeals to them so much. I mean think about how in almost every one of the sort of anime that is marketed towards them, the woman just appears by a strange twist of fate, or Magic or whatever
The anime starts of as there being a skinny nerd and then a woman (sometimes literally) falls out of the sky and proclaims her love. Never is there a story of the skinny dweeb mc growing some balls and asking some bitch out. Makes u think huh
Its as if they consider their ineligibility as a potential partner a foregone conclusion, and the only way to cure thier loneliness is having a woman literally thrust upon them
So you're suggesting being exposed to the concept of assertive women pursuing relatively generic men turns them into people who think they can only get women if the government gives them one?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me desu; from Keiichi to Araragi the guys with women falling out of the sky never had trouble getting other women.
This is what I'm fighting back against. The non-stop implication that Chapo fans push that sexually frustrated single men are inherently reactionary. You just revealed your bias just now. Yes, all of his albums were wildly homophobic and women hating. Anything that keeps the proletariat is a degree of fascism. Few things work better than fanning the flames of homophobia and women hatred. This is a reference to the weird twitter cultural tradition of using twitter names that are "ironic" callouts to fascism. With names like NKVDeez Nutz etc. Chapos own symbol is that of a Drug Enforcement Agency cocaine division. Not exactly a symbol of liberation. Plenty aren't, and plenty of sexually frustrated men have no internet presence at all. Again you and Chapo fans just want an out group to make fun of guilt free to reinforce comradery among your social clique. They never ask why the march of fascism hings on a single party. Also it not just important what you talk about but what you don't talk about. They don't talk about voter suppression, or the southern strategy anywhere near the degree they do about Hiliary's failures. IIRC they dedicated an entire show to Hiliary. Again they aren't trying to agitate any revolutionary sentiment, just creating empty catharsis for their petite bourgeoisie fans. My criticism is way more pointed than most, and therefore has the possibility of changing popular sentiment, which is why you and other Chapo fans fight me so often. They have, or at least implied it.
*Anything that keeps the proletariat from crystallizing is a degree of fascism
I honestly hate you lol
No they don't you fucking idiot, they make fun of socially awkward reactionaries because social awkwardness and anti-social behavior are both bad and stigmatized, both traits that lend themselves to jokes. They're not implying all sexually frustrated, awkward men are reactionary you fucking idiot. Lmao, you can appreciate art and be critical of it at the same time. Liking music by an artist who is sometimes homophobic doesn't make someone a reactionary. Idiot. This isn't true, but even if it were it wouldn't be a big deal. Making jokes at the expense of some socially awkward reactionaries has little to no impact on the real world fam. inb4 "muh optics" Fuck off dude, you really can't get mad at them for not addressing an issue unless they've lied by omission. And anyways they've talked about voter suppression so your point here is moot anyways. People fight you so often because you're absurdly wrong about so many thing and that makes people hate you. You espouse this bizarre kind of identity politics that rubs a lot of people here the wrong way and you argue in really bad faith tbh. Lol, no they haven't.
Also, inb4 you cry "muh ableism" instead of responding.
Yes precisely, they make fun of the SOCIAL AWKWARDNESS of REACTIONARIES. Because SOCIAL AWKWARDNESS makes for "good" jokes. Instead of making fun of just their reactionary beliefs because that'd take talent.
Also not all reactionaries are social awkward. Plenty of Nazis are perfectly well adjusted socially. These Nazis are getting funded by bourgeoisie, it was just revealed Richard Spencer was, and I have not doubt others are too. Again it's more important to provide false catharsis then any really tools and information. This is a mirror image of the tactic pol employs , painting all leftists and effeminate, weak, sheltered and liberal crybabies, then they bungle into here and get BTFO'd because they were feed complete misinfo on the nature of leftists. HAHAHAHAHA right, like Eminem's entire career wasn't built off of straight white male biogtry against women and homosexuals, it was only SOMETIMES he rapped about that. HAHAHAHAHA. Not mad, completely predictable behavior from cyprto liberals. Have they talked about voter suppression as much as Hiliary? What about all the nobody liberals they spend endless time on "BTFOing" even though their columns aren't even read by anyone outside of their tiny towns. Uh yeah, there's been MAJOR serious problems with the electorial system. And there's been plenty of people and ideas to fix it. Did you know that the states aren't obligated to cast all their electorial votes for the winner, they can rewrite the law themselves without changing the constitution and cast the votes proportionally. That's the kind of stuff Chapo is never going to teach it's audience. That's like your opinion man…
The main reason people are fat is they dump sugar fucking everywhere and tell people to not eat fat and meat but instead shove grain in their face. Carbs are a poison.
The ideology is strong in this one
But this clearly reinforces the stigma tho. This doesn't say socially awkward men are reactionary, but does say that socially awkward men are inferior and worthy of derision.
tbh whatever else I have to say about yugoflag, and even though i don't 100% agree with everything they post on the subject, they are one of the few posters who wades into these threads that has a reasonably well considered, materialist and balanced approach to the politics of gender complaint
but they are
Why don't we just make marriage illegal?
I think if people want to freely remaining in a monogamous relationship for their entire lives that their business. There shouldn't be any violent state coercion to keep them together like there is now.