How would Communism go about solving the I-Q(Incel Question)?

Go away Engels, the family is not bad per see

I thought you were a lesbian woman

And broke, something she always complains about

If social relations are no longer mediated thru the relations of commodities, individuals are less alienated from society and less likely to develop social anxieties preventing the development of healthy sexual relationships.

A socialist system would also inherently discourage the kind of shallow opportunism that characterizes sex as it exists now, as something gained through scheming and competition.

lmao cope.

Height Face Frame.

Son if money and status are the only reasons you are getting laid, you are not a Chad. Fuck off to /r9k/ with that shit

literally 2/3 of people here as proven by surveys are either bisexual or have a fetish for transgenders. out of the remaining 1/3 of straight males probably at least half are wizards/incel. Chad my ass
By bringing back and perfecting monogamous marriage
t. James Connolly
"belief in monogamic marriage, and because I said, as I still hold, that the tendency of civilisation is towards its perfection and completion, instead of towards its destruction"

something that will sadly be ignored here, because they people on this site, despite their fringe beliefs, themselves are still normies. they manage to have sex now and then, have a gf, ….

but for us incels, there is no hope. either in capitalism, either in socialism, the sexual market is free, meaning that women will flock to the top ten percent men (chads), of which the uglier ones will settle with the next 80 per cent of men. the lowest ten percent of men however, has no hope and will die without ever having known comfort, affectiob, female attention, or even sexual intercourse.

ofcourse this will be ignored or mocked with virgin jokes, meme answers like just be confident, get a haircut,…but that is sadly to be expected.

average men and women simply cannot imagine what it feels like to be physically repulsive to the average woman. they cannot phantom what i feels like to be a 5'5" male without a strong jaw and acne scars. they cannot ohantom that someone is just meant to suffer socially and sexually his entire life for no fault of his own.

The sexual free market will be regulated. A totalitarian society wide match making program will ensure everyone on every tier has a partner. All markets must be abolished especially the sexual free market.

There is nothing more manly than fucking another guy, if consensual of course.

Frankly people wouldn't give two shits about social status and be extremely less judgmental overall. This is will no doubt allow people to interact with one another with social stigma and provide opportunities for men and women for sex that they would not have had otherwise.

By making abortions super glamorous.
When that doesn't work "it takes a village to raise a child."

that's simple

t. ancient spartans/greeks
proto fash gayness

So the social fascism thesis was right all along.

you know that there was a shit ton of sex going on the the soviet union right? liberal invidualism is a big reason why there are some many virigins, (along with lack of socialization)

thots aint the future user

delet this

This. Y'all need to watch Do Communists Have Better Sex?

How am I being a robot? I'm just pointing out that there are tons of bourgies who'd never get laid if they didn't have money. I'm arguing that in a Communist society the playing feild is leveled, all that'd matter would be looks, personality, and intelligence. Honestly, even if you aren't born with looks, if you can't work out, dress well, fix your hygiene, and work on you personality/intelligence, then I'm just going to go out on a limb and say you don't deserve to reproduce tbqh.

Understand that sex and relatiobships arent a commodity. Leave the house and you'll nost likely find someone.

You guys are retarded. Automation = more free time for self-improvement/dating

I've seen robots meme "Chad eats pizza doing fuckall and gets more girls than you beta gymcels" on 4/fit/. I think it's terminal.

No one is falling for your bait any more. You could step up your game and call for abolition of self-ownership as a form of private property used to oppress the sexual underclass. Just saying.

I take issue with this, I mean, maybe not with user, user is probably doomed, but in general, if the material conditions are more abundant, that will lead to better looking and better adjusted people, because people will have less deficiency of certain nutrients and strange hormone balances because of this, etc etc, so in fact, probably in socialism more people will be better looking AND be more emotionally stable and therefore open to meaningful relationships. Also under socialism there will be more time to socialise and find love as well as working on interesting things to develop yourself and become more fuckable etc etc

...

Also it would be the end of capitalists peddling crap food. And parents will have more time to spend with their children under reduced labor hours.

When we're at it, I'd add planned food production accounting for caloric and nutritional needs, transform physical education in schools into something with a well defined goal of making a young person fit, all within the city-country mixtures that lessen the need for commuting and moving heavy shit around, thus making people less frustrated and the air less polluted. Damn, my dick can only get so erect.

(polite sage for mostly pointless posting)

Nigga, don't even start with this shit, I'm 6'1 and have a stereotypically masculine face. Still can't get any, wanna know why? Because you're supposed to learn how to interact with women like actual fucking human beings when you're in your teens, that gives you the confidence to approach them as equals and not as a supplicant begging for their attention or approval. If you don't, you end up internalizing your sense of inferiority and you're fucked for the rest of your life.
If people sense that there's something off with how you treat them, that you're afraid of them for reasons they don't understand, it puts them off, it makes them unconfortable and most of them, let alone potential female partners that get to pick and choose way more than most, can't be fucking bothered to deal with it.
By all means, keep crying about being short if scapegoating someone else makes you feel any better. But I'll have you know that myself and a friend of mine who's a legitimate chad got rejected for a balding junkie manlet, and you know it happens more often than you're willing to admit to yourself.

Do you ever get tired of posting that?

Dude.. this doesn't have a source on it. Actually think about what is being depicted here. Is this picture suggesting that some study was done, and people were asked to rank different men and women from attractiveness 1-10 at some point, and then the study followed their lives, and it was thusly deduced scientifically that only males above a 7 are fuckable while women right down to a three are fuckable, and that below these numbers people do not reproduce.

Or is this whole think a total fantasy masquerading as an educational tool?

Why is Holla Forums so filled of cultural capitalists?

Everyone here is about righteous popular fury and opportunities for all, but when it comes to relationships you simply go:
"Lol if you don't like it just better yourself"
"Pull yourself by your bootstraps"
"You are not entitled to anything"
"Get fucked, you can't manipulate human nature"
"Wanting to be in a relationship is literally slavery, all hail the sexual free market"
Capitalist Alienation is one of the more relevant issues of our time and all you can respond with is libertarian-style platitudes.

...

What an hyperbole. This is not at all what I said and this is the equivalent of "commies will take yout toothbrushes".

I am just saying that relationships are a very important part of being human, that capitalism makes us alienated and increasingly incapable of interacting with each other, and that dismissing all concerns about it with libertarian-style platitudes like "just better yourself brother" the way they say "just become self employed lol" is not productive, doesn't solve anything and will not endear anyone to communism.
Basically we need to find true solutions instead of being constricted by capitalist ideology that sees people as disposable and deserving of their own bad luck.

fuck off faggot, any non-larping (and in many cases even edgy larpers) communist is by definition not a normie

this. I blame the "sexual market" meme lords for turning this whole issue into a rape joke.

Alright sorry about that. What kind of solution do you suggest then? I've only heard the state appointed girlfriend suggestion and I can't imagine something more cartoonishly fascist than that.

everyone is a chad
/thread

I'm 6'3, handsome and personable. I'm also 28 and can't maintain a relationship because every woman around me is looking for a suitable father to support a family. Whether they say so or not, that insecurity destroys me. So yes, I am looking forward to full communism improving my love life.

It's simple. We legislate that women are private property since they carry future workers. Then we seize their means of reproduction.

Smh @ all of you. So much for sticking up for the proletariat. You guys might as well be fascists.

who the hell is the guy on the left. I've seen him in a few beta uprising type pictures

r/incels uses him in their memes. I think he originated in some picture that put him next to some actor with "Just have more confidence" sarcastically put below the two pictures.

Black ops2cel is his name.

they actually both look hotter in uniform. I think you might be on to something.

We are not fortune tellers. The social revolution entails the complete overturning of all social relations and we can only speculate how it will impact sexual life.

However, with the death of the Spectacle it will probably have less emphasis on looks.

Trying to drunkenly explain to progressives that bootstraps ideology needs to be removed not just from economic issues but social interactions as well is what convinced me that liberalism of all stripes is harmful and forced reeducation of the majority of the world is necessary.

His problem was being an entitled cunt and complete inability to self-reflect. Given how capitalism promotes being an entitled cunt, he might've turned less of an asshat and wouldn't have such troubles to get laid.

Time is rarely a problem for the self-improvement needed. If you don't realize that you are the problem, it's all pointless.

It takes massive knowhow and capital to be viable. "just become fuckable" requires a bit self reflection and some self-improvement, other people can't really help you to grow up, even if they want to. At best they can nudge you in the right direction.

...

To put it simply, your view of the world is wrong. Communism will despook everyone, you included, so that we get rid of these stupid social power games you've bought into so hard that you literally can't see past them.

Why are people like op so obsessed with sex? Fucker is complaining that lack of sex is literally life threatening. Jesus Christ, how psychotic do you have to be to believe this shit

Too many sitcoms and advertisements

That's exactly right tbh. Communism will deal with the "incel question" by simply taking away the frame of reference that sex is some sort of magical thing that makes you into a real alpha man or whatever

Of course, these poor saps won't accept an answer like that

nice meme.

how are you gonna do that? cut of my nuts?

face it, men have a penis and a ballsack for a reason. there are needs to be fulfilled.

humans need affection and intimacy just as much as they need food or sleep.

thanks again for demonstrating thenintense revulsion you feel towards us. I know that I can expect no pity or compassion here either.

that's blackops2cel, he posted to r/amiugly

Out of curiousity but have any of you incels considered banging a chubby girl? I don't mean this to put them down either, but just sayin
I'm I guess what you'd call Petty Chadgeois, but like any guy have gone through dry spells and dated a couple of not so desirable girls. Nothing wrong with them, just not what modern society salivates over. Myabe a girl whos cute but a bit chubby.
TBH I dated this somewhat chubbier girl, not somebody I was itching to take out, fuck or whatever. Sex was on point though for sure, she had a cute personality, super sweet, couple years older than me. All around great time. Reason I am saying this was this was shortly after a bad break up, head filled with tons of doubt, self-hate. Was striking out with pretty girls left and right, making it worse. This chubby girl helped me bounce back. Was awesome.

So forgive me if I am ignorant. IDK what the cause of incel is, but is it possible your standards are too high? If so its a huge mistake because there are plenty of women out there who aren't the female versions of chads who are great. And I appologize if this comes off as sexist, just trying to be honest.

You have, a few options
1. Advocate for a society to help people find friends and mates sort of like a commune would by increasing trust and empathy in the society
2. State-subsidized escorts (US feminists freak out about this, but German feminists and the German Green Party advocate for it, it's also in place in a few EU states), which doesn't FORCE any prostitutes to have sex with certain men just offer incentives, and let them choose men voluntarily
3. Have a state-communist society or gift economy and make it so no one gets x until everyone gets sex.
4. Force the left to talk about this without just dismissing any attempt to solve the problem as violating female agency (which is a ridiculous dismissal some people on the left make, takes about 3 seconds to show why it doesn't have to violate female agency)

George Sodini was an incel that mass murdered for being incel and he was arguably a "chad". He couldn't find a mate since AIDS started and shot up a local gym. He was ripped, looked fine, and had his personality seemed fine on the surface. He has youtube videos up still. But killing people or yourself is not a way to go with this.

Elliot Rodger destroyed any chance male and female incels had in getting social recognition any time soon unfortunately. He was like a cartoon character of everything people hate about incels.
His fucking disgusting personality reeked of entitlement and "temporarily embarrassed alpha" shit.

You have to be if you want to be intellectually honest on this topic. Women are selectors so even a 3-4/10 will still gravitate to a 6/10 bloke.

Forms of sexua reproduction will be transformed with the abolition of capitalism.

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/the-articulation-of-forms-of-economy-causes-of-the-gender-wage-gap/

The development of first horticulture, and then plough agriculture then leads via forms of matriarchal marriage to patriarchal polygamous or monogamous marriage. The programmatic interest of Engels in what would otherwise seem arcane works of ethnology comes down I think, to his and Marx commitment way back in 1848 to the abolition of the family as it then exists. This is why he is so enthusiastic about Morgan’s discovery that group marriage was a general predecessor to modern marriage forms. Not only did this prove that contemporary marriage was just one of multiple possible forms; it suggested that just as society was, as the communists maintained, destined to move from primitive communism via class society to a future communism, so would marriage move from group or matriarchal family forms, via monogamy and private property, back to a future system of group sexual relations.

So you will force ppl to be with each other and you wont select out the genetics that should fail as they are flawed and only produce more failed genetics?

YOU WANT TO PUT PPL IN BOXES AND DEGRADE THEM BY JUDGING THEM?
MEANWHILE YOU WANT TO HAVE EVERY ONE BREED SO ANY DISEASE SPREADS TRUE THE WHOLE TIER OF YOUR GRADIENT OF PPL THE PPL THAT YOU SEGREGATED AND PUT IN A BOX?

30-year-old virgin here, that's certainly the case for me. Although most of my standards have to do with personality.

Wizardry is a blessing.

Abortions are really bad for the health of a women, birth control even leads to a really high increase on cancer risk, i believe it was 1 in 3 gets cancer form it (not all life threating)

Try abstinence , masturbation is really bad for the mind and health.

This is the case with porn to, women are affected just as much by this addiction

Women are not like men, stop thinking you can find some one that is like you and think likes you, you simply wont unless you change teams

jesus christ, equality of outcome triggers the fuck out of some people

That guys post was kind of weird given it hints that any process of getting everyone laid necessarily has to violate male or female agency, which it doesn't. Calm down libertarians.

You know the person who invented the term incel and used it for her community was a woman right. You know the first community of incels complaining online were women right?

The only difference btw the sexes in suicideality and displays of aggression is that women tend to place all the blame on themselves, and men towards the world, it's been like that for a while. But we should recognize society has to be much more trusting and empathetic for any of the solutions in the thread to work without violating female agency.

I'd like to… but it just doesn't seem like it's worth the effort in that case. I'd rather put my time and energy into other things.

**THIS*

Yea George's personality seemed fine compared to Elliot Rodger's… or most people I know. He ruined any respect I would have for him by killing people. But, George might have been a proud brother in our fight for universal love.

What about of public brothels, where the sexually frustrated man and woman can go to have sex from time to time? Of course, the people who provides the sex should be the there absolutely voluntarily. This is already being implemented.

youpak.com/watch?v=TVfIr_uM5zk
youtube.com/watch?v=TVfIr_uM5zk
youpak.com/watch?v=HErf4OELzYk
youtube.com/watch?v=HErf4OELzYk

oh yea, women have it oh so hard.

you are a faggot who denies reality. 99% of women can get laid at will.

Keep dreaming sister, you are nothing like a nice bear.
i like to see you hang a shelf.

Are you saying that aggression rates are genetic?

Just like unrestrained economic liberty, and for similar reasons, sexual liberty produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never.

Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally free economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery.

In a totally free sexual system some have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude.

the blonde one is qt as fuck

people attitudes toward this problem by group

About a tenth of the population, apolitical: aww that's sad, why don't I act as your wingman at a bar :) Let me introduce you to my friend, she's shy too and she might like you :)

Socialists and some radfems: Entitlement is a problem but for people with mental and physical disabilities we as a society need to help people find intimacy who can't by themselves

Social Democrats and the Green Party: State subsidized voluntary prostitutes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ancoms, liberals, and self-described SJWs, muh NAP, muh NAAAPPP, muh NAAAPPPPPP, frequency of sexual partner is not an axis of oppression, all attempts to solve this must necessarily violate female agency 'cuz I said so!!! Fuck off!!! Go away!! I hate you!!!

Please explain how social capital is exactly the same as economic capital.

jordan barrett. a bit too androgynous, but indeed a massive stud.

This is one of those topics that we shouldn't even give legitimacy by discussing it at all. Sage, or better yet don't reply at all

youtube.com/watch?v=4r8uzznb7U0

Yea because the left spergs out discussing this because it's never resolved internal debate about it.

Incels may start off as normos who have excessively high standards, but my anecdotal experience on /r9k/ and r/incel has convinced me that even if they lowered their standards, they'd still be incels.

The Green Party advocates state subsidized prostitution?

jesus christ

Sorry this topic is worth discussing. It is a real problem, that I think is a symptom of capitalism. Young men generally have almost no opprtunity to obtain gainful employment and their economic future is dim. This leads to them not being able to find mates and leads to /r9k/ and Holla Forums. Women face similar problem economically, but they have the option of leveraging their uteruses to elevating their socioeconomic standing.

In some countries.

t. roastie.

I have no standards. problem is, I am short, ugly, balding, small penis, poor.

chance of me getting any female attention is zero.

can confirm. I am seething with resentment,

I never said that. I've just never known an incel irl who was the kind of person who'd go on /r9k/ besides myself at one point. The incels I've known in real life have just been guys with bad social skills or the "wrong" interests. Perfectly decent people.

That's unfair. She can't offer a solution and neither can any of us (that the incels will be happy with). Let's discuss the legitimacy of rape while we're at it. We can discuss it all we like but the conclusion will always be the same.

We could discuss it property but all these threads achieve is autistic screeching by illiterates who still believe social skills are accumulated into capital.

the most incel person I know besides myself IRL has schizophrenia and is the most awesome person I know. He's totally frustrated about it, but doesn't show his frustration online or offline and only sometimes to me. And if the right wing got to him, could possibly fall for their reactionary explantions for things. The left can address this in a better way than it has bee.

...

1: Communism requires the abolition of private property
2: Humans are private property as they are engaged in producing profit and can be shuffled around and organized in the labor process to maximize profit
3: The means of production must be seized, and therefore human autonomy must be seized
4: The means of reproduction are then subsequently seized and distributed to those who require it with the greatest need
5: Full Communism is achieved.

The response is obvious. Are there really enough women who would voluntarily have sex with these people?

sounds a great step forward. probably to commodified/wagie for most socialists.

there is the problem of intimacy as wel. you can go and be escortcel, but after an hour of dull sex, you are still left with a gnawing hole in your chest knowing likes you

If you take the EU states that have implemented public subsidized prostutition: yes

But I'd go further in saying there's someone out there for everyone IRL for free, including the most abhorrent women as well.

You need to understand that women want to be treated like objets. They want men to own them. They want to be submisive to an alpha.

Left ideology wants to keep you as a beta. You are cucking yourself. Take the red pill, user.

You have proofs of what I am telling you everywhere. Look at their behaviour, look what they seek in a man. They don't want you to be her friend, they want you to be able to fuck them, spank their ass and be a leader. When did you see a woman chosing a follower instead of a leader? Stop the cuck.

But that's with an economic incentive. In socialism there's isn't an economic incentive

Alright, here's my suggestion for dealing with this under gommunism:

1. Reorganize society to allow more daily social interaction. One problem is certainly people who just simply stay inside all day and obviously won't be able to date anyone that way. This fixes that.

2. Free self-improvement training. This includes everything from surgery to make people less ugly to classes training people on how to socially interact with the other gender properly. Participation is voluntary and who participates is kept confidential.

3. Mate selection by algorithm. Interested people could register in a service that works like this: an algorithm matches you with the person you're most likely to be happy with, and arranges a meeting. If that fails you can walk away and roll the dice again, or try the next thing.

4. Free customizable robot/AI gfs/bfs. For people who simply can't get any, you get a free one of these. It'd use an advanced chatbot program customized to the user's needs/wants and you could also get a fuckbot to host the program if you want that. Imagine the movie Her but the communist version. The ultimate goal is to make one that surpasses humans. You could also use it as a training tool in self-improvement classes.

I think these suggestions, especially combined, should pretty much solve the problem.

This tbh. Why are you staying with an ideology that clearly hates you? Are you some kind of masochist. Come home virgin man.

Just world fallacy.

psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

What a surprise, commies want the state to be the pimp.

ten percent of men would match with 90 percent of women

Not if you program it not to

Nah, lost my virginity to a 29 year old pretty hot woman at 24, totally not the homely type. I dumped her because she thought I was made of money and could buy her things I knew I couldn't afford and stopped that shit. I actually like thicc women but they too are hard to get, they know when guys like their curves and they play hard to get and I'm at the point in my life where I don't want to deal with "the game" anymore. I didn't even want to deal with it when I was younger but I tolerated it.

Rightists can't get anyone to fuck them because they're retarded.

The algorithm doesn't work like that. It's monogamous. Basically a voluntary version of state sponsored gf that doesn't force you into anything.

I dunno. Let's hope. I mean, there are woman who really really like sex

I think that with this method, people will be satisfied in sex terms, and in love aspects i don't have solutions.

Most people would just believe the experts and live a happy life. Relationships are not independent of humans, they are made by them.

...

Maybe people wouldn't have this perception if every incel thread weren't bogged down with
And the endless litany of dumb bullshit about Chads, Stacies, and all this other essentialist, determinists nonsense. I don't know why incels see these perceived behaviors as a problem, because half the time their posts are overflowing with so much bitter resentment towards the female population that I wonder what they want with one of their own to begin with.

Undesirable people are counter-revolutionary and will be gulaged.

where I'm from anti-fa are mostly 25-40 year old guys who are into fighting at the football, boxing/mma, socialism and have extensive criminal histories. The alt right are universally fat bald guys and recently a bunch of them got busted for being pedos

Because there was nothing else to do. Don't even try to imply that communism is some magically liberating ideology that makes people horny and love each other.

Fully auto-suicidal, anti-natalist, anhedonic authoritarianism

No one said it was, but it will break up under communism.

...

By this you mean drop out of society and fuck their onaholes right? Incels won't be a combined force of anything but diehard consumers a la the otaku in Japan. Hikkis would be the worst thing to come out of incel-dom.

We would honestly need to provide and encourage the use of more public spaces where people can meet up and socialize, things like parks or people's houses for example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Houses This way lonely people such as incels would have somewhere to go instead of staying alone and indoors wallowing in their misery before eventually snapping and either offing themselves or deciding to take their frustrations out on others. These public spaces should also be a neutral spot where anyone can come and go regardless of who or what they are, which would make finding people with similar interests, friends and possibly even partners easier as long as the individuals going there are willing and able to engage with other people.

ISIS is militarized inceldom.

because

Which is part of the reason why we are socialists and communists. The idea that incel is a right wing thing considering what you linked is flat out ridiculous. Material hierarchy breeds sexual hierarchy.

And this is why the solution to incel doesn't require violation of female agency

Yet another problem solved by illegal raves!

rolls eyes

Even if there weren't (which there is), it'd be a social incentive. Then move along to communism and you get equality of outcome, boom, done everyone happy.

For left-MGTOW to work as a protest you'd need to get like ALL the betas on board. You'd need to actually slow down society and the economy through a strike. Men are valued for their practical functions still, and even though some women would be like "fuck yea, we can do their jobs for them and show them" there wouldn't be enough women like that.

The thing that DOESN'T work is mass killings.

That wasn't the question at all.

linked the wrong person

This tbh. The problem is these incel dudes are so disturbed by a lifelong lack of intimacy and literally cannot imagine anyone desiring them and so they won't accept any solution other than socialized gfs

Sad state of affairs

Execute them. Sex isn't a resource nor is there a libidinal market. The abolition of sexuality as a distinct social domain is necessary, however.

YOu'd have to execute a lot of women then XD

you really need to self-crit
nerve.com/love-sex/the-misunderstood-history-of-incel

Not exactly. Chads, and basically non-r9k people, win women with looks and/or personality. The only other option is to essentially buy a woman with capital, that is available for everyone. Under Socialism, it will translate in Social Capital of course, that, however, also comes from personality, but isn't alienated, transferable or inheritable.

wasting your time thinking about how to solve the problem under an economic system that doesn't exist anywhere and won't during your lifetime, and not acknowledging the incel problem has basically been solved in many European social democratic countries.

Leftypol isn't communism, and like any imageboard, consists of autists and NEETs. Still, if you compare Holla Forums with any other board, you will find that significantly more people here have some sort of sex regularly, which only proves my point.

THe US is on a slow course toward Japan. Japan's inceldom is caused by women being more careerist then men in a society that still expect men as breadwinner, people not making enough money to afford big enough real estate, and hyper-competitive education making education costs skyrocket

In the USA celibacy among millenials is double that of Gen X, so it's increasing.

Leftypol is a good sample of inceldom among millenial rad leftists (most rad leftist men are economically fucked and therefore don't like… fuck very much)

Because cultural Capital is, as a matter of fact, a lifeblood of socialist and communist society.

When people ask, "LOL, if everything will be for free and everything will be voluntary - nothing will do anything productive at all!" They will - precisely to earn cultural capital. Cultural capital is natural, it existed before human race itself. We strive to return to nature and free ourselves from grimace of progress that is financial capital.

I don't see what relation the current incel communities have to do with the origin of the term. In fact everything I have read seems.to suggest the opposite. Additionally, I don't think many women are a part of these communities and understand themselves in these terms. Incel communities are at present best understood as a part of the larger trend of postmodern reactionary online identities and communities.

people want social capital for reasons other than sex you know. Separate sex from human social capital accumulation and you can still have those incentives you think are necessary

A woman literally invented the term.
The first incel board was literally started by a woman.
The first users of the forum were literally women.
Women were only chased away once men came and started harassing them.

I don't know I've seen a lot of Northern Euros who report incel type problems but as a whole they're way more at peace with it. Americans in particular tend to have the really violent and bitter ideas about women.

elle.com/culture/news/a34512/woman-who-started-incel-movement/

""I was trying to create a movement that was open to anybody and everybody," says Alana, now a 43-year-old management consultant and artist from Toronto. In 1993, she was finishing an undergraduate degree in statistics at Carleton University in Ottawa, and she'd never had sex or anything close to a boyfriend. Sometimes she blamed her appearance: short, slightly overweight, eczema splotches. Often she felt like she'd passed through adolescence without learning the unspoken rules of a complex game that everyone else understood intuitively."

"Alana built a simple, all-text website— Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project—and while it's long gone, she and a few others shared their memories with me, and Alana sent me a packet of old posts. The site was populated by men and women, but certainly more men, which Alana had mixed feelings about. While the men were prone to antagonistic, repetitive complaining, she truly wanted her project to be a home for all incels; rigid gender norms, she thought, burdened every- one. There were so many ways for people to end up lonely—from awkwardness to mental illness to an overinvestment in the "normal.""

"That night, she wrote about her discovery on a weblog accessible only to her friends: "Like a scientist who invented something that ended up being a weapon of war, I can't uninvent this word, nor restrict it to the nicer people who need it."

LMFAO, a woman invented the term incel?

women have trouble finding mates too you know
-an incel woman

she invented the movement along with other women

I know, but sex also heavily depends on it.

In fact, the only way to detach the link between sex and either appearance and personality or status, would be to eliminate sexes in humankind.

Ironically I have the same blops2 shirt that he does
Fortunately I'm not doomed to be an incel

Indeed, but as she herself points out, there is no continuity between the community she founded and the present incel communities, nor do the origins of the term somehow absolve them. I'm not even sure what you're arguing.

you mean like gender neutrality, "hen" etc??
Not a bad idea

incel mean involuntarily celibate. You want the thread to be a referundum on the reactionary politics associated with the loudest incels, when that's not what the thread is about, it's how to help men and.. theoretically women who can't find a mate.

No, I mean like genetic modification to exclude sexual reproduction, act and attraction from human nature.

Incel women just figured shit out on their own since Alanas board went away and packed their bags and all incel men are alt-right. All incels are represented by their loudest online counterparts.

Except not.

-an incel woman who has briefly considered paying for a boyfriend like in Japan

I was agreeing with you

You said theoretically

ok then literally

I just said theoretically cuz the female incel discussions happen on Jezebel and Tumblr and I didn't expect any women to chime in on leftypol given chan association with men

They are the same discussion, they aren't separate discussions.

I blame our shitty racial politics tbh. The idea that the media/Jews are making MY women want to fuck Chad/Tyrone instead of me is pretty common across races. Some races grievances are more legitimate than other, but they seem like the sort of thing that leftist politics could solve without loli sexbot AI

The Rodge's only mistake was killing himself before the trial. He would've been rolling in Boston Bomber pussy.

love how the only accurate analysis on here was flat out ignored
it's crazy how capitalist social relations are reified to the point where even communists think they're set in stone

But there are many men and women who can't find sexual partners that do not refer to themselves through that term nor are they members of any such communities, and this has been the case historically. I don't see how the term incel, with the particular implications, of such a term can be anything other than a term specific to those communities and postmodernity.

that's actually hilarious, but no he would have been protested. He should've not killed anyone.

I'm just using it as a shorthand for people that can't find mates. I understand it's a dumb term for many reasons, not including the fact that people can just buy sex. It's about more than just sex.

Anyway yea there could be a better term without the baggage of the reddit communities (which I honestly haven't red, except the TRP subreddit which isn't really incel)

desu, every Western nation is on course towards a Japan-like future. I personally believe Japan's incel problem is a result of perhaps a growing individualism within men. They're probably feeling the effects of a society which demands subservience to the communal. Men, who've been worked like dogs for the last 60 years, are beginning to drop out of society as they realize it's depressing and difficult as fuck. Women are now being forced to take over the reins.

I, for one, embrace our new Amazonian overlords.

Hi I'm the ghost of Angela Nagle, author of Kill all Normies

I'd just like to say, keep it boys and girls. Some great class analysis in here amongst the junk. I understand your problems.

Good post

Health, fashion, and confidence makes a difference, it's not pointless you retard. The vast majority of people's time is put into working for porky. No one has the time or can afford to improve their appearance or social skills. Not to mention relationships or raising children that goes to shit when you're low income.

Yes, nice meme kiddo.

Can all the libertarian free-will people just leave this thread? No one has free will. Tell people to improve themselves individually and at best you at best just shifting who gets to be where in the male sexual hierarchy, not shutting it down.

FULLY AUTOMATED

why did you die

What about shitty sexual politics? The only group on the political spectrum that acknowledges testosterone is the right. There's only like 2-3 figures on the socialist left that even try to understand male sexuality honestly.

personal with mental disorder: I haven't ever had a girlfriend, or maybe I had one once. I am extremely lonely and I can't get myself to go out because of these drugs you put me on. I tried to kill myself a week ago because my life feels meaningless without human companionship. Why can't I find a girlfriend?

person with mental disorder: :) oh really?

person with mental disorder: wtf ???

Enough AnCap tier arguments, I like this post.

Lost 30kg in a year and fixed 90% of my mental problems too. Ask me anything if anyone cares.

90% is not 100%, and WHICH mental issues you fix matters.
I went from 120 to 75kg and fixed my mental issues, but that 10% that I can never fix is my inability to interact with women.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the problem with most incels is one of stunted development, not confidence, attractiveness or anything else. These are simply people that were not properly socialized at key points during their formative years, and those life skills they lack can't be learned in later life, you just don't have the necessary neuroplasticity. Like those kids that they find from time to time that have been raised by animals, none of them goes on to live a normal life.
I say we open assisted suicide to everyone and be done with it.

I actually can't believe this thread went on for so long considering the answer is right there. Stop putting sex on a pedestal of things you have to "get" out of women or comparing relations between 2 people as some form of commodity. If you're unhappy now, getting laid won't make you feel better. If you're happy, where's the problem?

Or, y'know, you could try using the wonders of modern science and medicine to artificially recreate a period of neuroplasticity to relearn those skills.

This is true in some circumstances, not true in others. But what is true almost all the time is that getting laid increases your confidence among women IRL. For at least a few weeks.

Yea people that don't get laid sort of have a downward spiral of not being confident around women, as well as a general feistiness that I don't like to be around.

Same thing kinda goes for women that don't get laid.

They don't have to, the brain never loses it.

You're making a false equivalence. Not learning how to talk to girls in middle school is nothing similar to not learning a language in your developing years, which restructures how you think. It's very simply just a matter of socialization.

Women are just people and if you have any social ability with men then it really isn't too drastic of a change.

There's no magical period, if you actually missed some social skill you can still learn it. You probably have some other issue that blocks it and you should work on finding out what it is instead of making up "brain-facts" to justify your defeatist attitude.

...

I think a simple recognition that sexual realationships are commoditized under capitalism just like everything else, would go a long way toward helping the problem.
Also supporting abolishing marriage and child support. People rightfully ridicule no gfs for wanting state issued girlfriends, but are completely okay with the terms of a marriage, a sexual realationship, being enforced with state violence.
In regards to child support, if women fail to support their children, they are extended welfare, but the same consideration is not extended to men due to this spooky maternity mentality.
These laws were all written assuming women couldn't sell their labor, and give women a tremendously unfair advantage in dating a marriage.
If men could as easily dissolve marriage, parental, and sexual relationships as easily as women it would force women to choose men based more on qualities that facilitate LTR and not simple chase men that have the most capital and social standing.

W*men are a plague comrades. One day she loves you the next day she leaves and takes a chunk of your paycheck every month. Just wait for sexbots, humans can never be trusted

I don't really believe this, I'm just extremely bitter. Maybe human relationships would work in socialism. Possibly

BUH BYEEE

I didn't die, I'm just her spirit.

This, for me at least. Going on 30 and I'm still only at a functional level of humanity, but it's just like doing anything. You do it often enough, you'll get good at it.

It seems like a lot of people that blow through here are hyper-sensitive to social criticism, though, and don't want to face rejection. Not that I blame them.

I can see why nobody wants to fuck you lmao

He's not real, his rejection by women has led him to hatred of women and it seems like he killed himself.

Rejection? It seems like a divorce proceeding made him suicidal.

I've fucked plenty

might as well cycle it then

but that's not profitable

…heh

please elaborate

Yea, ever notice how Tinder's business model is literally just making 1-7 men pay for tinder plus and boosts? Like they couldn't just give those guys a boost from the beginning?

Or the entire pornography industry filling their websites with ads about camgirls and virtual girlfriends?

Or what the pharma industry gets from medicinilizing isolation without actually helping it beyond placebo?

Which can be used to improve confidence and social skills. Some co workers and/or their friends might even be female! The social aspect is probably the best excuse to bother with low paid jobs in the first world in the first place. Like any other type of skills, you improve these by being in situations where you use them automatically.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you're trying to pull of something weird. Just look how people around you who are considered attractive dress and consider why they made the choices they did.

The biggest negative impact comes from stress and the inability to deal with it, something one can learn with exposure to stress. (Or therapy) Staying reasonably fit takes 1-2h hours every 2-3 days (unless you're starting off as a lardball) Not exactly much.

Similar as above, unless you have some major issues (and most people simply don't, no matter how ugly you think you are) it's just about the fucking basics, which you pick up by observing others. Or asking.

Your income is irrelevant for relationships assuming the rest is sorted out, the only negative factor is time and no matter how bad your employer is fucking you, there is enough free time for dating.

Now raising children, that's a lot more excellent with low income, just way beyond the "issue" raised in the thread.

Some interesting thoughts but without basic income, abolishing child support would be pretty insane.

I always thought I missed one (or several) imprinting windows, and the only way to reopen them would be through some crazy fringe therapy involving drugs and shit.

Why, we have a welfare state. People are perfectly comfortable letting the children of women be supported by it. Seems like your just spooked by masculine ideas that men should be providers.

A pretty shitty one that lowers the chances of success for the kid. Though obviously depending on the country.

Not at all. Whoever has the means should be the provider. If the dad gets custody for the kids (another problem) the mom is supposed to pay child support obviously.

Never said otherwise. My point is that women who fail to support their children can use it, but men who can't support their children incur debt, debt that can't be discharged and they can go to jail over.
By the way women being able to access welfare for themselves and children and have it be culturally accepted and endorsed by the state is something 3rd wave feminists changed. Single mothers on welfare we extremely shamed as little as 30 years ago.

The famine/violence that would occur under state socialism would probably be so fucking rough that it would weed out all the r9k, and Randy Stair types tbh. Can't live in a perpetual state of pure autism if you have to spend the majority of your waking hours either doing hard physical labor, or trying to figure out how you're going to make it to see tomorrow. Notice how these incels all come from western nations? It's not fucking rocket science, folks…

GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD NORMALFAGS

genetically engineered cat girls or sex bots.

Fixed.
Now fuck off, Mr "It isn't rape if it's legal".

this is the post that convinced me anarchocoms are indeed just liberals

Anyone who doesn't understand incels and has to guess or offer theories obviously has never talked to incels or been in their shoes.

Some have been in their shoes for a few years, and got lucky or charmed someone, but few who don't understand incels whining have been incel for over a decade.

Not working doesn't sound too shabby tbqh. But if what you are saying is true asexual people wouldn't have any reason to live.

The 'ol people have to act according to past human evolution argument. People in large groups can act contrary to past human evolution you know. Essentially you are arguing that meritocracy is impossible to work around, when that's demonstrably false all through history.

You can't be this delusional right?

Either you have confidence and social skills or you don't. There is no magic skill talking to women which you have to unlock first. They are people just like you and your co workers.

Of course it does just not to a point that would change something. You could give everyone on r9k a professional stylist and 100k to spend on clothes and accessories, they'd be still just as unfuckable. As long your style isn't comically bad (which you can avoid by observing your environment), it won't make a difference.

That wasn't what was said. Grooming takes minimal amount of time (at least as a guy), know how and effort, hence there is no excuse to neglect it.

Go any study showing that people on low income? At least from what I can tell, most redpill idiots and r9k guys are comfortable middle class.

Sexbots and virtual waifus will solve this problem by providing an abundance of pussy.

Your pic disproves your point. This woman litterally had to have world class talent demonstrated to the world before she was able to pull herself out of poverty and dress and groom herself to societial standards. Both pics are of the same woman, just before and after poverty.

They won't. Masturbation already exist and not all incels are poor, so prostitutes can be an option too but neither will give them real affection, and no person could given their lack of positive attributes and lack of desire to change it.

I'm not sure why I'm even surprised as real dolls are a thing for some time already, but holy fuck isn't the concept of fucking a robot creepy on a couple of levels at once.

Unless we're talking about some general AI and robots that aren't distinguishable from humans, but then keeping them as slaves could raise some ethical problems.

Would voluntary assisted suicide really be such an ethical issue? One can even offer couple hurdles on the way to make sure that the person absolutely doesn't want to live.

What's the point of that. You can make it available, sure. But even nowadays if you really want to die you'll make it happen.

Plus, these people don't want to die most of the time. If they do, they'll definitely want to take a couple "Normies" out with them

I think you misunderstood me, I don't have anything against people who want to fuck machines, it's just that I personally find it creepy. AI that could be considered people by any stretch of imagination is pure speculation right now, so it's not like we're going to run into real ethical issues any time soon.

Yeah but anti-natalism hasn't really taken off yet.

When people realize their inferiority in the face of our superiors (general AI), they'll understand that voluntary suicide is actually a preferable option.

Potentially creating a race of robot sex slaves wouldn't just be "stupid ethical question". If we assume a level of conciousness it would be pretty goddamn deplorable. The potential harm towards sapient beings would not be worth the trade off, letting you get your rocks off.

If we're gonna do sexbots they'd have to be unthinking ones. But fucking a mindless robot isn't going to quite replicate the real thing. Nothing will ever replace another willing human.

Propose a better idea then nigger

Try to get someone to sleep with you.

When incels propose these morally questionable solutions I lose a lot of sympathy. Your problem is not that severe.

forced administration of MDMA and loud music.

Huh, the guy in the 1st pic looks like Damore.

Liberals are already worried about the moral implications of fucking robots, in between writing articles praising sweatshops.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/robot-sex_us_55f979f2e4b0b48f670164e9
us.tomonews.com/sexbots-hitting-the-market-are-raising-moral-and-ethical-concerns-3387613
mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/growing-sophistication-sex-robots-leading-10779308

What of a non-sentient robot that's undistinguishable from a sentient one?

...

Wow, liberals are so disgusting.

Dehumanization is a serious risk. Hence robo-waifus shouldn't be too human. Animefags and furries will have a field day though.

I have to admit that when I watched "Armitage IIII" I thought it was a bit heavyhanded, as there's no way people would be this triggered about the rise of sexbots.

Somehow the dehumanizations of being so lonely you give up on finding a partner is okay. But finding a way that peceafully alleviates your isolation isn't because it removes you from the pool of men women can reject.
t. Liberal

Getting some social skills and attractive traits is perfectly in your own hands, if you choose not to do that, you chose loneliness over self-improvement yourself.

That's the problem. It's questionable whether it's really peaceful if there is a risk that your fun time with the robot can have an effect on how you perceive and act towards people.

taking prescription drugs that block reuptake of serotonin is okay, but God forbid you want to get something that also causes a release of both serotonin and dopamine, and makes you feel alive for the first time in your life.

doesn't that cause synapse activity.

Whatever arbitrary social hurdle you think they've failed to reach, even if they all did that it would simply be the new baseline of what's expected. These men are being rejected primarily on class, so improving themselves would only go so far.
Haha, I think minding your own business and not hiring anyone is peaceful. Haha your more worried that with these robots furfilling the role of intimacy with a partner, these men won't continue to throw money and time and women, thus no longer becoming consumers of women commodified sexuality.

there's a reason it's called social skills and not social talent.

It's funny how feminists have so throughly internalized capitalist logic, commodified their sexuality, and are so alienated from their own vagina they feel threaten at competition from a steel sleeve.

Theses guys are getting rejected primarily because their poor. Can't wait for these sex doll companies to start buying ads in these liberals rags and then seeing articles in how sex dolls are safer then sex with a woman,
I definitely expect to see a no boyfriend movement pop up as women realize scores of men are de facto leaving the dating pool

shits gonna be hilarious, can't wait for the future

We first have to thoroughly despook sex. Get rid of the mystification, both of the prudish and libertine kind, so we can unleash our inner bonobo-nature, reach sexual post-scarcity, and just have fun and shit.

bonobos being peaceful fuckmonkeys is a made up meme. stirnerposters in charge of doing their research, episode n+1.

Just there is nothing arbitrary about it. If you want to read a book, you need to learn how to read. If you want to communicate with people and delivering the idea that fucking you is a fun time, you need to learn how to talk.

Based on what do you make the claim? I was poor myself most of my life sans a little phase where I had ridiculous amount of money for a short time. Dating was always simple, whether as poorfag with training paints I am wearing for three years or temporary bourgeoisie with Ray Ban glasses for half a grand. And I am just some awkward, skinny dude, you'd forget after few minutes. All of my working class friends are getting laid left and right without issues too. Class is a shitty excuse.

Assuming there are no side effects from human-like sexbots. Something we don't know yet, and obviously can't know without long term studies, hence it's only reasonable to investigate it.

How does that have any negative relevance for other people? It's less competition for the men and less distractions for the women. If there are no negative effects with sexbot, you're going to be temporary happy too. It's a triple win.

It already exists for college educated women, and it's a problem that's not really in their hand unlike social skills. Just they do less whining about it and more focusing on their lives.

Did that.
And I also did manage to lose my virginity, but after that there's always, fucking ALWAYS been a stop sign in my head that prevents me to talk to women and makes me assume they find me repulsive. Drugs, therapy, talking to people, even women, about it doesn't make it go away, my sick brain won't allow me to believe otherwise, even if they tell me I'm handsome and are acting perfectly friendly, women find me repulsive and always will.
So do you want me to go through pointless therapy and pump me full of drugs until I off myself or can I just get a sexbot and be done with it?

Yeah, I was referring to the meme more than anything.

You win this round.

I'm pretty sure there would be loads of whining if they knew how to use the internet.

You already decided that by yourself based on past experiences?

How many women do you know that DON'T have a FB account?

bbc.com/news/business-40894089
Also the falling marriage rate
The falling child birth rate.
There's tons of stories of only an elite set of men getting all the interest from women on dating apps like tinder.
What do you base your claim its simply bad socialization, your single personal anecdote? Also everything is commodified under capitalism.

Who the fuck cares about dating, i just want to live in the same timeline where we will be able to sustain our own nations without fucking up the other half of the world

4 years.
Granted it wasn't completely useless, it's just that this particular hurdle, that's always been there and is a huge detriment on the rest of my mental well-being, just won't go away.

Haha yet you don't want to investigate how they got that alienated in the first place. This is liberal concern trolling, liberal feminists have commodified intimacy and sexuality, I.e. You have to pay a price to get it, either meeting arbitrary social standards as you assert, shame people into believing it's it's their own personal failing if they can't pay the price.
And try to make any alternative seem dangerous. You rad Dems did this exact same thing with pornography in the 70s.

Haha, the solution is in their hands, they could date poor men who are not attending college. You just helped me prove my point that women are rejecting poor men.

well I know 0 women, and none of them have FB accounts. So there you go.

checked and looked solemnly outside a window.

Why not? We don't even know if such a phenomenon will happen. Moralist busybodies have been using the exact same arguments about every single media out there, with videogames being the most current one.

Sounds a bit bootstrappy to me.

You're assuming the person's body is capable of properly firing serotonin and dopamine to begin with.

>bbc.com/news/business-40894089
Fair enough. Although according to it 2/3 still find a partner, while class is obviously a negative factor, it's clearly not going to stop you from finding someone, on the average.

Because both are memes. The more people realize it the better.

Damn, that's quite a while. Did you try another therapist?
I can kinda empathize, it's not as extreme but just "why is she wasting her time with me" type of thing but can rationalize it away with "well, I am being honest that I suck, it's her fucking choice", though obviously your problem seems a lot harder to deal with.

Mental issues and/or lack of effort. Hell, you could just ask a woman and get the answer. Even anonymously!

Are you implying that humans can't be desensitized to stuff through exposure?

Desentized to what? It's fantasizing about an intimate relationship. Should we ban romantic comedies too.

Why would I ask someone with a vested intrest in the status quo. If it's lack of effort than why did men in the past have no issues. It was because women couldn't seek their labor at parity to men and men could provide a middle class lifestyle with little education. I keep citing socioeconomic trends and you just keep dismissing them out of hand a source lol, they didn't try hard enough. B-b-b sex dolls are dangerous. You're one of those foolish liberals that started the drug war with this same logic. If some one becomes addicted to something it's because they were alienated to start with.

*Its because women couldn't sell their labor at parity to men.

People aren't settling down because they basically can't afford to, a woman may be down with being Chad's side piece but once Chad and Stacy get married and SHE'S starting to want a serious relationship she's not gonna be particularly happy about being the Other Woman. Put people on a stable footing, the whole "few men getting most of the women" deal goes away.

You accidently proved my point with your argument that college women couldn't find men. But that the solution was out of their hands. Are colleges not in cities? Do cities not have equal amounts of young men and women? Why don't they just date outside of college? It couldn't be because they know a man that isn't attending college has no hope of ever out earning them?

Things that blowup my argument are memes.

Uh that still a 1/3 that never find a partner. Also why is it okay in your mind for young men to struggle and be alone so long as they eventually find a partner? Also generally the older you marry the more you compromise on what you expect in a partner.
See this is at the core of why you are uncomfortable with sex robots. It's okay for young men to suffer so long as they are participating in the sexual marketplace, but it's dangerous if they checkout, which is what these robots represent.

No, and I don't think I will, next session I'll quit with this one and I'm done with. The problem is not that I don't get good enough advice, it's that I can't act on it no matter what. But it's kind of ok, I'm functional, about to get my degree, know how to manage a social circle…I'm just not satisfied without sex and intimacy and in all honesty who the fuck would be?
Thanks for avoiding the "just ask them out more lol" meme answer, btw, getting tired of those.

explain

Not assuming, just relaying my experience with a (back then, in my country) legal knockoff of MDMA, namely 6-APB. If literally nothing works on you, then godspeed, I'll think about you when I finally do off myself.

Maybe for you. Another dude might use it as an object to release his frustration on, would beating up a human-like bot for years and decades not have an effect on his psyche?

Well, here you go, one obvious reason. Why would someone be attracted to you, if you see them as a part of a hive-mind conspiracy?

Most men today have no issues either according to the study. Socioeconomic effects don't explain it fully either. They are a factor obviously but let's not forget Interwebz. Now you can hide from reality and avoid learning any social skills for decades. That lifestyle was a lot harder to accomplish back in the day unless you had enough capital.

Just the opposite. I am all for legalizing them all sans the crazy shit (which people generally use out of desperation and inability to buy something less harmful), as long the access it somewhat regulated and education is ensured. Majority of drugs won't do shit to the environment of the abuser, unless the person actively does something stupid like driving high. If you want to shot H in your basement or preferably under surveillance of a professional, all the power to you. No harm done for anyone else. Funny enough, the most accepted drug is the most harmful one for the environment. (And no, I am not for banning alcohol either)

Instead of thinking all about evil wimin, you could've considered that education is a major barrier. Yes, obviously someone without college education could be self educated and probably even smarter but on average, we're talking about quite a gap that makes friendships tricky. Factors like status would play a role too. A women dating someone with lower education is likely to get shamed by her environment. And of course class plays a role here. Just how does it affect your point? It's not like there aren't any working class women for working class men. This issue only exists for college educated women.

Neither are really relevant for either of our points. It's given that people in a more progressive society look for better solution and marriage is a left over from a horrible past. Fucking Engels compared it with slavery for a reason. Fewer marriages simply means people actively choose how to live their lives instead of doing what the establishment tells them because it's tradition. Fewer kids are generally given with better economic conditions and education.

Sure, but so far we only know that class plays A PART IN IT. If the reason isn't class, surely it's up to the men in question? Like, do you even consider it or it's all about blaming anyone else?

Where does it say that they were alone all the time?

Goes for both.

I don't get how you get this idea. I pointed out how it'd be great for all three parties. I don't get why you put me in the "anti robot" corner either, as I mentioned in the very first post about the shit, whatever makes people feel better without harming others is fucking great. I am simply considering the potential risk of human-like ones. It might not even exist, we don't know, again something I acknowledged.

Which might be partly due a suboptimal approach from the therapist. Advice is nice and well but sometimes people need more, and sometimes from a different person. It definitely sucks but congratz on doing well with everything else, comrade.

Me, me, me. Pretty much avoiding it for two years. Keeping up intimate relationshits is too fucking much effort.
Hey, the meme answer got its uses and place, but yeah, here it'd be retarded.

A good looking human being gets partner through first impression (looks), late impressions (personality, intellect, work, etc).
That will always be the case regardless of system, in a communist order Status is out of the question through, it's more on looks and personality. It has more merit.

This is a Chad board. fuck off then.

How comes? Will there be no doctors or artists, no guys to clean the toilets?

How is that economical "status" if everyone is serving mutually to each other? The house builder is not of that much lesser importance than the medic. In fact refugee is more important than medicine first. The farmers co-op feeds all.

Since you're a fucking nerd did you play New Vegas? It's the same relationship The Kings have with The Followers of The Apocalypse. One provides protection and the other medical treatment. They're a commune.
If anything what makes The Kings more attractive is their style and looks. But both are useful.

The thing is the whole incel question is something that DOES NOT even matter. It's bullshit idpol and it's pretty retarded that something has to be enforced in their favor, nah. Fuck off.

You're casting some serious aspersions buddy, burden of proof is on you.
Capitalism offers an cornucopia escapism venues, what's so special about a sex robot. Why do you instantly equate violence with male sexuality? woman hater much?
More ad-hominum attacks. Never did I say women are conspiring, their material conditions are the same, so they are acting in the same manner.
>Most men today have no issues either according to the study. Socioeconomic effects don't explain it fully either.
Never said they did, but it's the dominate explanation. The amount of violent crimes women have suffered has dramatically declined since the 1950's, that's one OBJECTIVE mesure that men are far more socially well adjusted then men in the past. Yet men of the 1950s didn't struggle finding partners. It's almost like the thing that changed is that women could sell their labor at parity to men, and not your silly "Men just decided to be boors collectively".
You are now, after decades of tireless activism has finally turned the popular sentiment against its prohibition. Originally the War on Drugs was an ciphered moralist argument to oppress black people.
This same moralist hand wringing over sex robots is intended to young men in an exploitative relationship with women and dating, that more and more men are clearly seeking alternatives to and voting with their feet when they find them. Sex robots are literally inanimate objects. If they are not hurting anyone, they should be allowed to do it.
More dumb shaming tactics. Just so you leave these tiresome attacks in the future, I'll let you know that I'm in a loving and intimate relationship with a parnter.
Women aren't evil, but they are in an exploitative relationship with regards to men and courtship.
Oh no, not the Internets!
Less relationships = less sex = less babies.
It was slavery back then.
But it's the largest more relevant, part. Typical liberal, they want to blame everything else but class.
It's implied in your "Whelp, 2/3rds of these men find partners eventually". Intimate relationships take time, wasted time you handwave away because eventually it sorts itself out by one single measure, they eventually get married. You don't think think higher quality marriages could be achieved if this time weren't lost
DUH
This shark tank courtship process we have is bad for women too. If 1/3 of poor men can't find partners, and 2/3 of poor men stay single for large chunks of their lives. It means you have a ton of women either going for the same men or being alone too. This feeds into rape culture, since those muh privileged men have leverage over those women.
Oh brother, they all want human robots. The robots are replacements for intimate relationships. Wow you'll let young men have sex with tubes! Are you not merciful.

Desensitization should be common knowledge but here you go: psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-01685-001
Just an example, using the keywords you'll find a lot more if you want.

The "looks like a human" part. Alternatives seem cool, although again, just an assumption.

Where? How? Given the topic at hand, it seems like a sensible question.

Seems a bit reaching. I mean, sure it's not wrong but "not being a violent dickhead" is a small part of being socially adjusted. Besides, it's simply not as easy now. Back in the day you could beat up your wife and rape her and that stuff was perfectly legal and socially acceptable.

Why not both? Women aren't forced into marriages as much anymore but Internet is unlikely to do much good for the social skills of people either. Specially the already "endangered" group of people with shitty social skills.

We don't know how they affect the mental state of the "user". If they are as harmless, sure. Let the robo-waifu revolution begin.

Because they aren't forced into marriages anymore and have choice? How the fuck is their situation any different than for men?

But as already mentioned, there are multiple factors for that.

user, we noted class as a factor. It doesn't affect the majority of men, so they are clearly other things to consider. Also please, libertarian it is.

That's not what the study says. And to be extra anal, it doesn't say that 1/3 can't find partners, only that they don't have long term partners, which is actually a better support for the factor of class. If they never had a partner at all, it's clearly something else.

Not something you can fix. Maybe the 1/3 aren't attracted to these women and these women aren't attracted to these men. No partner is better than a shitty one.

Rape culture happens before that. Men being taught they if they do X, Y, Z they will be entitled to female attention. It's a bit how classcucks think that hard work will make millionaires out of them.

We're arguing over an interpretation of an implication here … and besides, time doesn't have to be purely negative. At least they are adults who know what they want at this point. Better that than some rushed teenager marriage, kids and divorce and all the shit that entails.

Economical status isn't everything even now. Don't you think that some boyband singer or an actor will be considered more attractive than a stockbroker who made as much money in an afternoon? I don't recall too many girls masturbating to the though of Warren Buffet between their legs.
The importance exists right now too, and is acknowledged by most people who aren't braindead, some important jobs simply don't pay well, but even if you take that away. You still got a guy doing a cool job that requires tons of different skills that makes him more attractive, and a guy doing a more monotonous job, that doesn't scream "pussy magnet."

doesnt it embarrass you getting all hung over a problem that isnt a problem

good post

Why is dehumanization a problem? Not memeing you.

It talks about violent films. Again your latent liberal misandry is showing. You instantly assume that people buying sex robots do so because they cannot sexually assault women.
I've read other studies regarding this, and they all indicate upbringing and violent and psychological trauma play WAY WAY LARGER roles then media does.
Do you want to ban male strip clubs, romantic movies, and yaoi vidoegames and media too. ha good look getting your feminist brethern to agree to that.
You went from talking about men using sex robots to men beating up sex robots. Should we ban pinatas too.
Is a rapist and wife beater more or less than a man who complains about not having a partner? Yes or No? And I only site that statistic because it's an objective measure, yet that's reaching but your whole "Men can't find women because they boors" with not evidence to back it up expect anecdotes.
Sexual assault fell through out the 60's 70's and into today. Also we have 100k untested rape kits in the US, so we still have a huge problem with sexual assault enforcement. This is another old misanderist feminist canard. Men are natrually rapists. The sexual assault numbers went down because women entered the workplace, and their relationship to men was more equal not the the laws changing.
You're casting aspersions again. Your loaded question implies that there could be something dangerous. They're dolls, dolls are harmless, masturbation is harmless. Addiction is caused by alienation, not evil spirits inside of sex dolls and other drugs. Pic related, it the "Rat Park" experiment that proved addition was caused by alienation.
stuartmcmillen.com/comic/rat-park/
But the terms of marriage are enforced by state violence. And collectively women demand marriage in long term relationships. You aren't forced, you just don't have an alternative. And when a viable alternative appears people like you concern troll to cause it to be prohibited.
Fine, the larger point is that it is their POVERTY that is creating issues, not clothes, hygiene, and the litany of blame shifting excuses everyone comes up with.
Class is not just a factor, it's THEE factor. Also libertarian is worse since you think capitalism is a meritocracy
Again, Class and poverty are the overall determining factor. everything else like attraction is peripheral. I guess you think this is some special human epoc where women aren't attracted to men and visa versa.
Rape culture is primarily fed by imbalanced power realtionships. Same reason why sexual assault has been going down, women could work and earn money. Colleges are hotbeds of sexual assault for the same reason, lots of women going after a small pool of monied guys.
Who said anything about rushing to marriage. I'm saying that women need to stop using poverty as a filter to what they deem as eligible men. This will create more time and opportunity to build intimate relationships. Instead of the shark tank we have now where the majority of women complete for the same men until they are forced by advancing age to settle for men they rejected for decades before.

The biggest problem is finding people whose desire matches yours. Do you like this person? Then you will have to make compromises, and so will the other person, if they are mature enough. The real big problem is finding such women or men.

Because if you don't take into account the other's desire and pleasure, your interactions will not work towards your mutual benefit, oddly enough. No one will want to be with anyone who is lazy and selfish, and conversely, if I take effort to make myself more enjoyable for my partner, that person will want to stay and even reciprocate.

The real issue is, does the other person want to reciprocate; that's where you need to find out. If they don't, tell them what you want and work through it together like adults. If that is too hard for either of you, then split before it gets worse. Ask for help from friends or family if necessary, don't get stuck by yourselves.

The real question is if you will be able to support each other materially and spiritually, making sure you mutually benefit. To me, a good wife will help me, she will be responsible, which means she will take care of the kids (I will help, don't worry), not cheat on me, nor will she simply have me as the chump to have her at the end of a long line of broken relationships. You can't expect me to keep thrilling you all the time, while you've sampled all the fancy dudes before me. I can't compete with millionaires and billionaires in this system, and I won't.

Young guys not being able to find partners almost solely due to poverty is a real problem.

Your study linking violent media to dehumanization makes no sense in a macro sociological context. People watch more violent media, at younger ages then ever before, yet violence has been falling. You can't reconcile this.

not the same dude but w/e. Dehumanization occurs whenever a worker is alienated from the fruits of his work; not only that but this work that he does may not even be the kind that he wants to do. The point of our communism is to enable and empower people who immediately can't work towards their own enjoyment of life, and thus bring them into a closer contact with their environment and thus make them realize their enjoyment.

The idea is to be able to enjoy our everyday life and work. This extends to sex and relationships. If you are constantly being prodded to do shit you don't care for, life is gonna suck.

The idea that violence is falling comes from the fact that people are stimulating their sense of the Real through mediated images, thus desublimating their potential for IRL violence as a source of stimulation not unlike losing appetite for sex once you have satisfied it either with a woman or fapping. The real problem lies in the situation when you discover that you can't engage in real life any more because the virtual fantasy brought to life on your screen is more enjoyable.

I know the root of alienation is wage labor. The user I was responding to was asserting that young me using sex dolls was dehumanizing because men would view women as objects.
This the EXACT SAME argument feminists used against pornography in the 1970s. That men watching incest porn (a genre popular at the time) and other fethish porn would lead men to view women as objects and would lead to a climbing rates of sexual assault.
THE EXACT OPPOSITE HAPPENED
Young poor men are in a compromised and exploitative position in regards to courtship, marriage and sexual relationships. The fact that sex dolls became an attractive alternative proves this.
Now people are concern trolling because they do not want young men to escape this exploitation. Men with families is a HUGE vulnerability porky exploits to discipline proles. People hand wringing over sex robots are acting in the interests of porky, young men with robot sex girlfriends cannot be disciplined like young men in regular relationships can. That's what's really at the core of all this.
It does not surprise me in the least a libertarian (I'm talking about the user, not you) would find sex robots so distasteful.

You could've just read the study posted.

Yes, a passive medium. Hence an object resembling a human you interact with is potentially way more dangerous.
I consider the possibility. Besides, it's the most simple example given how complicated the topic actually is. The entire point is about considering the possibility "hey, maybe there is a risk to robo-waifus, we should get sum data", not "BAN THEM".
All true. Some mental issues here, some violence there, a bit of trauma … and then media or robo waifu might be the last drop. Focus on MIND. My point isn't that robo waifus will turn the users into woman haters or rapists. We simply don't know their potential side effects.
Unlikely to have much effects due not being remotely human, even if you "shape" them like one. Come on, are you being intentionally abstruse?
Less of course, but when it comes to attraction that's way too simplistic. A guy who complains about it, tends to be unattractive from the start. Some rapists and wife beaters can pretend to be somewhat decent and would have a better chance. Dating isn't about the person you are but the person the other person thinks you are.
Yes, just not a very precise one. Although better than my guess of course.
People are usually products of their environment. If an action is normalized (hey, we're back at desensitization) it happens more often. Getting into workplace definitely helped, but so did the laws. How many people would care if you'd playfully slapped a chick's ass back in the 70s? Do it today and your career is finished … or you'll become the next president.
Yes, that's the fucking point. There MIGHT be a risk. There is potential for desensitization and dehumanization, which is indeed dangerous.
Are they though when they resemble a human too closely? We're not exactly talking about blow up dolls but something attempting to mimic a human. If passively watching movies can have such extreme effects, what do we get with a human-like doll?
Sure but I don't recall mentioning the risk of addiction. That's be the personal risk of the "user".
Can always find a non conservative woman.
How? I think it'd be better to have some studies before introducing them to the market. If there is no negative effect, there is no reason to prohibit anything.
All the shit plays a role, with clothes being a minimal one of course. And other things too, hence again, 2/3 weren't affected by poverty.
But that's not what the study says if 2/3 aren't affected by class.
Not at all, the biggest factor to success is chance. Like being born into the right class. Though sure, capitalism has a better reward system for people with discerning abilities, given some adjustments here and there.
How did you get here? Only a minority of men and women aren't considered attractive enough to date based on the study you linked. Now that people aren't forced into marriages, the number is lower than before but that's only expected.
How does that have any connection to sexual assault? Especially given how sexual assault is less common now.
If you're such a big fan of marriage, it's only reasonable for a woman who wants to marry to include it. As it would be for you. That shit is expensive and if you want kids it's even more cost, so a woman from a higher class should be the preferred choice.

user, did you even read the small ass paragraph? The study is not about violence.
Too much exposure to violent media doesn't necessary make us act violent (due tons of other factors, penalties for it for example) but it fucks with our empathy, making us more accepting to it. And oh surprise…

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868310377395
Hey, maybe it has some connection with the rise of alt-right cucks, lack of serious activism and idpol, which is basically ME ME MEEEe?

Something from 1 sec of google:
psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/201111/does-pornography-treat-women-objects

So far you was correct.

Now that sounds familiar!

As already mentioned, one thing alone is unlikely to have much of an affect depending on the lifestyle of a person either way but ignoring that the stuff can have negative effects is simply incorrect.

...

but it would literally solve itself on the abolishment of capital. The people im reading are auggesting state sponsored girlfriends

How can something so widely consumed by so many for decades that had loe key negative effects not manifest itself at all as a societal problem. Your like one of those perel clutching conservatives that wanted to ban dungeons and dragons for the same thing.
Also wage labor alienates far more than any simulacra like a sex doll, movies, videogames ever could. You capitalist apologist are constantly seeking out prephial problems and scapegoats to distract from the enormous level of alienation capitalism itself is causing.

We do, none dolls and masturbation aren't dangerous.

How would your communism stop this? Dehumanization from wage labor makes sense but I don't see how you're going to stop the technological progress which will always be better than the Real.

Psychology today is a joke.
Whatever psychological effect poem has is noise compared to precarious employment, housing, food and sexual trauma.
Now there is a link between obesity and sexual assault. If your so concerned about mental well being why don't you address these, there is no contention about the impacts these have.

All this same baloney was being said in the 70s. Correlation does not imply causation

Haha you kidding me?! How come only young white men bought into Neo Nazism, when pretty much all young men have been watching porn. And open has been available widely since the 70s. You saying porn has been low key fuelin a neo Nazi movement since then haha

*and porn has been widely available

Do you really believe this rise of NEET/virgins isn't caused by capitalism? Did your average male get uglier or something? What about Japan's birthrates? Are they all fucked too because they don't have time to raise children? lol

Her talent irrelevant here. If you agree the left picture is more appealing than the right picture then you agree with my point. If you think her sexual appeal did not change then you're a retard like the person I'm replying to.

Her talent is relevant. It's what got her a bunch of money and the opportunity to improve her appearance.
I DO think sexual appeal increase from the left pic to right. What I'm saying is that she was ugly by societal standards due to poverty, not cause she was unwilling to improve herself.
Escaping poverty is not something a lot of young men have. And it's not just having enough money for yourself, but your family and others you have relationships with. It's hard to be socially well adjusted when your parents, siblings and entire community is wallowing in poverty.

What the fuck

...

Psychology Today is notorious for publishing bad studies. The link between media exposure and dehumanization/violence is extremely contentious.
Along with being disproven by macro sociological trends. We have more people consuming more violent media, and by every objective measure people are less violent and more socially well adjusted than generations past. Things that we find untenable like domestic violence were common place 50 years ago.

I fight this so much because these bogus correlations have been used to justify a ton of violent state repression. From prohibition, to weed. We found s correlation between drug use and crime, time to throw drug users in jail.

I think it's very important that in a socialist system, the liberal dating market must be abolished, men who have traits that are beneficial to society (high intelligence, low dark triad traits, genetic health) ought to be able to freely choose their partners, while the criminal types who are generally the most sexually successful will be used as prison labor and/or chemically castrated

it used to be even worse, humans have way more female ancestors than male ancestors

the problem with socialism is that it will make the problem of inceldom even worse, under socialism incels can't buy a prostitute, they can't acquire material wealth to win over mates, there will be no reason for women not to flock to the 20% most attractive males since their material needs are already met

You just skipped the reading comprehension part. The main affect is EMPATHY not violence.

As for the anti drug stuff, AFAIK it was almost not researched at all. People only recently started to do it seriously, before it was less science based and more because of moralism and industry input.

No, I read it. How does it magically reduce empathy but not to a point where it manifests itself in antisocial behavior. Like I said, all violent and minor crimes are down. There's like a million fold stronger link to lead exposure, pollution, precarious employment, sexual abuse and emotional abuse, but moralist like you want to concern troll sex dolls. Like how about looking into what brought a guy to seek that out as an alternative.

*where it doesn't manifest itself in antisocial behavior

Mentioned it before. The penalties make it bad idea. Hence most violent/sexual crime is committed by idiots who can't think far enough or impaired people. Or complete crazies.

Yes definitely, never denied it either. Sex dolls won't turn us all into crazy violent rapists even if there are negative effects. Just if there are, it should be considered whether it's worth to add another contributing factor.

A legitimate question but goes way, way beyond it. With the data available now, we know that class and people not being forced into marriage are some of the factors, as for the others, we're back at speculation.

Hell, we don't even know how many people are really affected by it. 1/3 not having a partner doesn't mean that 100% of them want one.

we shouldn't ban sex dolls or whatever because some people, like myself, are only not committing suicide because we're waiting for realistic "sexbots"

if we do away with them then I and people like me will probably kill people in retaliation since we no longer have anything to live for

It isn't at all what I am saying. A->B isn't equivalent to B->A. Social status is one of the most important factors in sexual relations. Social standing will be the reason why people would still work in Communist society. It doesn't mean that people will work for sex explicitly. Social capital is its' own reward.

See
Also, do you even know Primitive Communism, nigga? Communism is, to the greatest extent, an attempt to emulate ideal natural habitat for humans, that came into contradiction with technological progress.

Why doesnt shit like this get deleted on the spot? What are the mods doing?

No one thinks that. Leftypol has very few marxists, most ppl here are petit-bourg anarkiddies

Pick one you enormous faggot. Post-modernist psychology is as much of a science as neoliberal economics or telling the horoscope

That's a great argument against them.
Besides, appeasing potential criminals never turned out well.

how is that a good argument against them? do you think people having nothing to live for is good?

wont this cause the undesirables to breed and ultimately degrade the DNA of man?

Things like sex dolls will undoubtedly dehumanize us. But doesn't all tech do that anyways?

If you have people who want commit crimes, the goal should be to gulag the fuck out of them, since they are a danger to society.

Is quite different from "I am going to hurt you if you don't give me my toy." That crap just doesn't end well. If they got one thing with lubricious demand, why not another?

"I got bored of my doll and now nothing to live for again, I am going to hurt others if I don't get a harem of real women to suck me off." What do we do now?

To a point and the effect depends on the overall society and lifestyle (+ the person in question)

Guy A with a healthy social life, who wants to live out some fetish is unlikely to be affected as badly as Guy B who didn't leave his basement for years.

it's not about giving people anything, it's about taking something away because you're some sort of moral busybody, if you're going to do that, resulting in me having nothing to live for, then why shouldn't I kill you?

How can you take something away that you don't have? The question is whether it's a good idea to introduce something new to the market without investigating the potential consequences first.

If the premise is "Give us our toys, or we'll kill you" it's clear that the people who want the toys need to be dealt with in a non appeasing way.

the consequences of artificially stopping them from being made is you will take away the only reason many people have to continue living because you're a moral busybody who wants people to stop liking what you don't like, I don't see any reason for the people affected by the nonsense of you and people like you to not kill you

Not trying to defend the user's idiocy, but having a more diverse DNA pool is better for the survival of the species, so no, undesiderables breeding is not a bad thing as far as the human race is concerned.

Now use this argument for guns if you still don't get how insane it sounds.

I lol'ed

guns are completely different because they are very lethal, you can't commit a mass killing with a sexbot, and in any case the proletariat should resist any attempts made to disarm them

So how lethal does something need to be before it's a bad idea to introduce it to the market? How about guns with rubber bullets?

more lethal than a robot that you stick your dick in

...

If you deny basic psychology, a more hands on example could've worked. My bad for being optimistic.

And you call yourself a channer

To be fair in both Blade Runner and Ghost in The Shell, AI technology was light years ahead of ours.

But it's exactly because psychology is not hard science that you cannt determine if something is safe to be introduced in the market.

Porn exists since not even a century and is mostly safe, its introduction did not cause major psychological issues despite the huge moralist movements against its introduction.

Is porn dangerous? Of course it can be on highly susceptible minds, but then again everything can. Should we prevent porn to be accessible for everyone because it may devolve in obsession? In such calculations should we ignore the positive effects altogether and evaluate only the risks?

If we look at porn again I can think of many beneficial effects, not only the obvious ones like release for lonely people, but also an help for people that found themselves sexually deviant and were able to not only find sexual satisfaction but also communities of people like them.

Sure that is true, but that means little: people are gonna experiment and put motors and SBCs into their dolls, to make them more realistic, and once you get a walking talking woman with a skeleton made out of steel and a body made out of ballistic gel that is capable of being either autonomous or remotely controlled, we are fucked, because it will have the shit marketed out of it, and once it's widespread, they will totally will start demanding more and more care and attention; not unlike children, with us barely having any time for ourselves or our own advancement; if it is stronger and faster, it might occur to the AI to hold us hostage for its own reproduction, not unlike how Capital does so today.

An AI will never truly wipe out humans, because it needs them to help maintain itself, particularly in the event of a catastrophic breakdown. Thus, it will need others, and it will have to rely on people, since it needs them. A truly sentient AI will ironically be more humane than real humans, but that is a serious long shot to expect.

If you are remotely tech savy, you know people don't need to hack your password or phone or anything to for eg. track your every movement, they just need to know your SIM and IMSI

Do crackers and malware developers need sentient sex bots to kill you?

Wrong. We just need barely enough IOT in your house to kill you.

A "smart" car can be configured to crash, your NEST smoke/carbon monoxide detector just needs to malfunction, your fit bit just needs to say you are healthy, a phone needs to ring at a very unfortunate time when focus is needed.

This is why we need to be serious about internet/IOT security and also not become reliant on technology that makes our lives easier without out at least having a failsafe.>>1989943

I like the idea of womens brigade who freely have sex with beta men. Im sure many not so attractive women would sign up to meet unattractive men.

It's less about absolutes like that and more about "yeah, that shit seems harmful and we need to decide whether it's worth it" and "nope, absolutely no negatives found".

It's not about banning or not introducing the sexbots but about finding out the potential effects and whether they are a net benefit or not. All we know that it's very, very, very likely that there are SOME negative effects. Also preferably a better way to market them.

Also it's important to acknowledge and discuss the downsides. If you know that overuse of X can cause Y, you're in a better position not to get affected by the downsides as much. Information is crucial for any kind of decision.

Bet we could've dealt with a lot of the porn downsides better if the topic was discussed more openly instead of pushing it into a social taboo and building up two extreme sides.

To a different point. Guns are more dangerous than porn for the public but porn is more dangerous than burgers. It seems pretty obvious that the sex bots will be even more harmful than porn, hence it's only logical to investigate the "how much" to be able to introduce them with minimal downsides to the environment.

I am not in the "AI OVERLORDS WILL TAKE OVER" camp, but why? If it's intelligent enough to have the ability to wipe out humans, surely it would've taken care of basics like maintenance before. IMO self-learning is a big part of the AI, otherwise it's just couple of algorithms.

You've got your word order mixed up there.

Yes I am perfectly aware of all of that. To say that IOT security is such a trivial thing to bypass is idiotic however. True we have nothing ready for the shit hitting the fan, but we have decades of experience in internet security that can be easily transferred in IOT security protocols. There's no way to make an IOT device hack proof, we can only do our best.

And we are already beyond the point of no return with "being dependent on technology".

I admit the bad ending for humanity in which an all powerful AI turns into a spoiled brat is not one I thought of.

On this I fully agree, I was not saying "fuck it, let's throw them in there, let's see what happens". I think that to start with the idea that they should be banned because there are negative effects and then maybe, eventually, someday slowly released is not the right way of approaching the situation.

This is extremely subjective, an unloaded gun is less dangerous than clinically harmful exposure to porn, on the other hand normal usage of porn is surely less dangerous than a poisoned burger. How much can you really test before declaring something "safe enough"?

I had something more liberal in mind, releasing couple to a diverse test audience and record the effects after 1-2-3-4-5 years or so. Basically beginning with a study to collect some data.

Also the fucking marketing needs to change. A rumba tends to be presented in a less objectifying light. Sex bots are still presented too similarly to dolls, while going with the robo-companion approach seems way better.

Well, I am going with the idea of each of these being in it's intended form, otherwise basically everything can be extremely dangerous. So a functional gun, a eatable burger and, well with porn it's tricky due the different types.

Now THAT's a tricky ass question. My out of the ass number would be 5 years but there are experts to decide that stuff.

It really depends on the level of awareness the machine has in my opinion. If the sex doll is literally just a sex doll then I really don't see any reason to treat it differently from any other object. If instead the machine is trying to simulate "companion" behaviour, then I agree it should be treated differently.

I finished just today watching season 2 of Humans. What are the chances I would be discussing this now…

But this is my point. If psychology and medicine were hard sciences like the engineering work required to build sex bots then I would be 100% with you. Even if it takes a decade to fully test something it should be done.
Meanwhile we can keep substances under constant control for decades and not know their long terms effects for a generation or even more. And this is made even worse by the market driven medical research that promotes manipulation of scientific data and public opinion rather than sensibilization and actual research. In our current situation we could find nothing in a 5 year study.
Don't get me wrong, the study should be done, but I don't think the product should be locked away in the mean time.

I'm sorry what

What penalties, it's literally masturbation combined with a prop. Like a good capitalist apologist you want to throw tons of money and state violence at the symptoms of alienation, and the the root causes.
You don't even need to dismantle capitalism to address a lot of these, like sexual assault.
Proofs, most experts on the subject contend that most sexual assault is committed by people that have either been victims themselves, or have great deal more leverage over their victim.
Yes you are by omission. You pretend to care about the mental welfare of men that you deem are sliding into a bad place something of which you have no proof of except dubious studies where even they admit the correlation is weak but ignore the way larger reasons.
Hell, we don't even know how many people are really affected by it. 1/3 not having a partner doesn't mean that 100% of them want one.
It is the only legitimate question. The "Rat Park" experiment proves it. Surprise, it shows that addiction can be treated with simple relief of alienation, and very few studies have been conducted to build on it because it undermines the profit on drugs both prescription and self medicating.

Keeping young men alone, alienated by maintaining a monopoly on intimacy is in the interests of porky and third wave feminists whose politics are just of those of petite bourgeois white women.
By keeping so many men single it maintains a reserve army of labor for women to marry, marriage being a primarily economic union.
You rightfully realize that if sex dolls become sophisticated enough and widely accepted, many young poor men will opt for the shadow of an intimate relationship, instead of pay the staggeringly high monopolistic price forming a relationship with a flesh and blood woman.
Instead of being introspective on how dating became so commodified and toxic to so many young men, you're going to try to scapegoat sex dolls. Like sex dolls have evil mental illness spirits in them and they spread to you when you use them, this same rationalization was used to start the war on drugs. But drug addition and growing sex doll use have their roots in poverty.
I myself am forming the
MRA
Masturbation Rights Association
You can have my sex doll when you pry it from my cold dead privates.

*Like a good capitalist apologist you want to throw tons of money and state violence at the symptoms of alienation, and NOT the the root causes.

...

The root cause is genetics, how do you solve that?

How is the cause genetics? Men didn't get uglier in the last generation.

it's not generational, that's just a delusion that everything is getting worse because of such and such. Men have always died alone after living as slaves for family in vast numbers.

Well i would hope culture would be more open to concepts like pornography and sextoys so men would feel more open to the use of things like fleshlights etc whilst sexbots are being developed. I would also hope greater sexual freedom would lead to stuff like weird hippie orgies where anyone could join in like in the 60s but really i have no fucking idea if that would ever happen again.

Read Houellebecq, then be ashamed you ever thought of such idiotic liberalism. Liberalism is the chief cause of this evil, regardless if it is economic or sexual: those who are most able to collect and hold for themselves will do so to the detriment of the larger population.
Not anymore, bitch, we are wise to your shit, and you will be tamed, for we will perish if we don't.
We have discovered that the population at large will follow people with the most compelling and forceful message, and ours is the best, because it specifically attracts the most driven and desperate. Young, desperate, lonely men, who will get their sense of self-worth returned to them. We can win, because we must!

The funniest shit about literally all conservacucks and nazis is that they literally advocate near sexual communism.

The funniest shit about most socialists is that they advocate sexual capitalism.

It's probably why both movements are seen as hypocritical by some. You'd make some good gains if you could promise guys reproductive success under your system. You could probably scoop up people who would otherwise be vulnerable to "the red pill" and groups like mgtow.

Islam has polygamy which works similarly to sexual capitalism and they have to solve the problem with the stop-gap measure of afterlife magic virgin pussy.

Yeah, it's like this weird reactionary perverse type of chivalry.

I can't really disagree, I'm waiting to try to self-medicate with drugs too. It's an incredible hing when people have created a society so awful it makes me feel it's not worth living in it, then if I try to find the motivation to keep on living they'll doom me to decades in "corrective facilities" that are actually just rape-rife Hobbesian nightmares.

because Holla Forums has an extremely large incel group, just as large as 4chan, as much as I know you hate to hear this

You just want the incel thing to be a right-wing thing. Well it's not.

Talk to them and you'll find out they don't actually advocate this. A few of them actually do want this deep down. But challenge them if they believe in sexual communism, and they actually see themselves as temporarily embarassed alphas. They still want there to be people on the bottom of the sexual hierarchy, just not them.

The funniest shit about most socialists is that they advocate sexual capitalism.
Socialism isn't inherently left or right. On social issues, many socialism is generally pretty meritocratic, so they would want there to be sexual winners and losers, hypothetically on a less extreme.

But the left-socialists, egalitarians, hippies, and people with basic levels of empathy etc who genuinely want to help incels are too afraid to speak up because they know feminists have already pushed a consensus on this issue. That being "any attempt to solve this would be a violation of female agency". Which is just a ridiculous argument, given there are many solutions that wouldn't require violation of female ageny, including ones that would make the world have less genuine incels. And I'm not talking about robot sex.

This is exactly what the left has to do regarding this issue. If it wants to change minds (the point of any political action besides killing people) it has to offer an incentive to the many people who are going to join the alt-right over this issue.

It's not hard for us to come up with a solution. Multiple EU centrist/leftist parties already came up with a few band-aids on the problem, which is better than nothing as long as you are pro-prostitution for the time being. But solutions don't have to involve subsidized voluntary prostitutes/Girlfriend-experiences.

And as of the last few months, the incel discussion from actual incels has been more on leftypol than 4chan. It's pretty awesome. Whoever creates an avenue for leftist incels first are going to be pretty powerful (well at least as powerful as their right counterparts are, but probably moreso given the left could make a better case for incels).

...

NO CHADS NO MASTERS

Well, I guess we could have less chads by androgynous the population and making gender roles less of a big deal like in Scandinivian countries.

But I think it's possible to let chads be chads and still find a way for us to get incel boys and girls laid.

you are being a chad sympathizer now

...

Replace that as "make our social sphere more inclusive and understanding, lifting people out of their reclusiveness, increasing the frequency by which lumpenproles meet people, and at the end of the day there'd be much less incels without violating anyones agency"

The issue as to why there are so many incels isn't because of capitalism. This whole thread is retarded.

This, there are so many incels because marrigage laws give women a ton of property rights. They all spend their prime dating years chasing the same high status men, until they run out of time. Leaving a bunch of poor men in the lerch. Simply abolishing marriage laws and child support would stop this.

Any analysis of why half of Japan's millennials are are virgins without talking about material conditions would be retarded.

Half of Japan's millenials are virgins is because of an incogruence btw culture and material conditions.

Their culture says "men must be the breadwinners, choose mates that way, you must raise a family in a nuclear family environment and you must pay have children and raise them".

Their material conditions are making it so they can't afford housing, the men can't be breadwinners, and they couldn't afford to raise a child properly.

You could try change the cultural conditions alone, but it's more likely that the cultural conditions would shift when you improve their financial situation. If it really is important to balance out responsibility for childcare btw man and woman, then afterward yea it'd make sense to make a cultural shift.

that's brutal

this is a non-problem
who cares

5 generations in there would be no ugly people, since the only reason uggos got laid in the first place was due to being high-class.

It's genuinely news to me that this a problem outside of an extremely tiny group of individuals. I wouldn't be against more of you guys talking about your problems.

It's just the stigma that gives me the knee jerk reaction of "get these fuckers off my board". These threads always devolve into state sponsored gf idiocy but as long as things like that stay off the table I welcome leftist incels

There already is state sponsored gfs (in the form of voluntary state subsidized prostitution in EU states who basically provide GFE). It's excellent for many reasons, but I'd like to hear your take on it besides the obvious moral problems with prostitution that have existed forever.

Virgins outnumber trans people by almost 9x
About 20% of the American population, male and female in equal numbers, is celibate at any given time virgin or not.
Millennials are twice as celibate as Gen Xers, and way more than boomers

It's probably not yet an epidemic in the US like in Japan, but I don't see the situation improving. It's just going to get worse.

sorry meant celibate in a given year

And leftypol autocorrected pr oblematic to excellent

300 posts before him
300 posts after him

My reasons are pretty simple. I like my freedom to choose a partner. I don't think women's freedom to choose a partner should be taken away either

Like it was stated by other earlier itt, I wouldn't be opposed to a VOLUNTARY matching service for those such as incels who want to take part in it.

I just don't think that in the society we want to see there is any place for that kind of thing

In the EU states that implemented the band-aid solution, the prostitutes are voluntary, or at least as voluntary as they would be as a prostitute anywhere else in the capitalist system

Ok well in my, maybe not your, utopia, everyone who wants to have sex would be able to find a willing partner.
And I'm not an incel for the record.

or more to the point anyone who wants to be in an intimate relationship would be able to find a willing partner (some polyamory would probably be required for this)

I'm not talking about solutions to this problems in a capitalist system though. Minus the profit motive, how would you get people to associate with those they don't want to? Genuine question

You'd need force

Your question assumes that in an ideal society there would be women so disgusting that no man would not want to have a realtionship with them. When I truly don't believe that is the case, or if it is the case the 20% of Americans who are celibate in any given year and the 50% of Japanese millenials that are virgins, those numbers could be reduced easily without force. Just consider that those numbers rose to where they are now, so we can take an empirical look as to why that happened, even in a capitalist system, and safeguard that from happening in whatever other economic system.

I guess it's my own short-sightedness to assume that hideous neckbeard manchildren are some kind of constant.

Still, the time you're referring to that was free from Chad rule or whatever was one with strong religion and gender roles. I mean that's a huge reasons why there are a certain kind of right winger. You know the type

People aren't entitled to the emotional labor of doctors in the form of universal health care. There is necessarily always a shortage of doctors. Why force a doctor to operate on someone e.g. who clearly is probably going to die and hates his patient to help him /her

In the same thought process

People aren't entitled to female emotional labor. There is necessarily always a shortage of women willing to have sex with men or visa versa. Why force a woman to have sex with a man who clearly hates him?

lolz

In both those scenarios you are assuming that the shortage has to exist period. Like there's no flexibility on societies part. That people can't change their attiudes.

You assume that there CAN'T be doctors or women empathetic enough to be with certain people or that there is necessarily always a shortage of women or doctors.

Also you reduce both women and doctors to resources, when in fact they are both people that like sex and helping others, so there's no problemo to fixing the incel problem.

Trannies got oppressed for being trannies though. Unless you're surrounded by asshats, no one really gives a shit about your virginity.

Also celibate kinda implies that it's their choice, so no point in forcing people to something they are not comfortable with.

A prostitute in the EU can always turn down a customer either way. Some incel who is just socially retarded might get laid but most are just nasty people and below the standards of prostitutes too.

Why reducing the numbers when overpopulation might become a serious problem in the future? The fewer people breed, the better, at least at this point.

Yea it seems we are pre-sexual-revolution, but believe it or not we are post-sexual-revolution, we have birth control and condoms. In combo it works 100% of the time.

I've heard of people being turned down by prostitutes, but they always seem to find a willing voluntary prostitute somewhere else down the road.

...

Capitalism depends on scarcity to sustain profits, be it natural or artificial. Cartels and outright destruction of produced good has occurred and occurs still in order to guarantee a certain profitable price-level. You see, a saturated market where everyone has enough, where everyone is content, a luxurious one in a sense, is one without customers.
Mines remain undug, because the ore is not profitable to mine. Factories remain unbuilt, because the products can't be sold at a good enough price.
When these artificial limitations are removed and the surplus production-capacity is used to fulfill the needs of the people and to expand itself…

Currently there is a huge mass of unemployed in the United States, all with skills from many professions. The US Census Department estimates that in the first quarter of this year only about 70% of the available facilities (factories, farms, offices, workshops etc., everything) are in use.
census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/
The means of production exist, currently rusting and gathering dust, and the labor force exists to use it, but this potential remains unused and wasted because there is no will to use it. This will does not exist because it is not profitable to make use of this potential.

So, the profit-motive alone cuts off about a quarter of the US production capacity. Think what could be achieved trough proper and coordinated use of this: A full quarter of the whole economic power of the United States, full-spectrum, for whatever goal one wishes to work towards.

Uggos probably won't have much more success getting laid than now honestly, if anything the divide between uggos and hotties will only become greater without the advantage of money and the chains of family, monogamy and child support to tie them down with, so really the very attractive desirable people in society will likely amass large harems of suitors to mate with with.

this whole scenario seems too good to be true
as if you're being led to a honey pot

I can see some people men going postal out of sheer sexual frustration.

Source me all over my face you big stud you.

You'd be surprised what girls will do for a bit of foreign money and food.
bow chicka wow wow

articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-09-15/news/9109150275_1_ruble-soviet-economy-tanya

Why would one believe that, in the absence of economic or social capital, females will not use biological capital - to the point of exclusivity - to determine their mates? From a female biological perspective, someone with no money and no status but desirable genetic features (or even the appearance thereof) is infinitely more appealing as a potential mate than someone with no money and no status but an apparent lack of desirable genetic features because at that point the summation of the value of a male human being with regards to sexual reproduction is almost entirely genetic. Without some sort of regulatory structure (at which point social capital enters the equation again), you would just end up with a relative handful of überchads more-or-less monopolizing sexual reproduction while everyone else humps sexbots and/or whines about being incel on whatever this hypothetical society's equivalent of /r9k/ is.

Word it however fancy you want kid, it will never not be utterly pathetic

Can you provide a link to a post providing an answer to the question, then? I read down the thread but didn't see one.

Agreed. Taxation is theft.