acephalousuniverse posted:

Maoist Pussy Likes Dick And Is Scared To Admit It LoL

Freak Futanari posted:

Freak Futanari posted:

Kyrie eleison posted:

im gay

killyoureparents posted:

Sabel you should really trim your lawn lol

Maoist Pussy posted:

Think of what this does to actual women with manly features. Everyone thinks they are trannies now.

killyoureparents posted:

Sabel you should really trim your lawn lol

Sabel posted:

Good.

Sabel posted:

Good.

Enid Coleslaw posted:

Nice tearail, but how long can it distract these goons from repeatedly demonstrating their inability to tell the difference between SASS and Stormfront, or gay men and women.

acephalousuniverse posted:

Maoist Pussy Likes Dick And Is Scared To Admit It LoL

killyoureparents posted:

look at me

Sabel posted:

That's nice, hon.

killyoureparents posted:

no but seriously. but im only talking about the front lawn.

quote:

To start, some very obvious things that you already know. Human beings are a pair bonding species. Some other mammals are too, but human beings especially, it is a deeply embedded instinct, so deeply embedded that when you see human beings reject that instinct you know something went wrong somewhere.

One of the reasons pair bonding is such a deeply embedded instinct is that our offspring require massive resources in order to survive and mature properly. Whether because it is intrinsically advantageous or is contingent upon certain conditions, our psychological development is most balanced with male and female parents, a concept we've formalized with marriage. It's true you can find various primitive societies that do not have formal marriage, but they are incredibly rare, lack robustness, and remain stuck at a primitive, almost animal level of social organization.

When you are a loose band of nomads, individual deviation from the healthiest norms has very localized effects, namely your offspring are more likely to die before reproducing, group cohesion is weaker, the ability to manage large threats is reduced. But as societies grow larger and larger, these effects do not stay so localized--deviations from pair bonding contribute to social disorder, and the larger the society the more disorder they create. Family chaos creates more illegitimacy, crime, substance abuse, domestic violence, promiscuity, on and on--and these risk devouring public resources, not just government resources. You have to pay more for your auto insurance, you have to buy a more expensive house to stay in a good school system (i.e. to avoid dysgenic filth), you are physically less secure, etc.

We've been watching it in real time for the past 50 years with illegitimacy rates. We've watched lower class blacks collapse into nearly feral behavior, and without draconian incarceration of black males the problem would be a hundred times worse. We see similar problems with Mexicans and to a lesser (but still measurable) degree with whites. It isn't someone else's problem, it is devouring resources and energy at a massive rate.

So when you see pair bonding decrease or become less stable, if you are at all awake you see a huge problem. The effects won't be local, they will spread and will carry over into subsequent generations. And as it happens, homosexual couples all have higher rates of social dysfunction, remarkably like the products of illegitimacy. They have higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness (besides being sexually deviant), promiscuity, and I believe if statistics could be accurately collected they would have higher rates of criminal behavior when controlled for race. Anecdotally, homosexuals appear to be overrepresented in radical political groups of the right and left. Their hedonism is off the charts. With gay marriage it is safe to predict that homosexual "partnerships" will be shorter, non-monogamous, and more disordered.

As such homosexuals are a net cost to society, leaving out whether their sexual practices should be ignored by a "consenting adults" standard (the lowest standard of public morality you can have). Completely apart from that they are a net cost. A glance at gay subculture tells you this, and the statistics back it up. That said, politically I think arguing that homosexuality is harmful is a loser, because there are too few homosexuals and because other groups grossly overshadow them in proportional harm. Also because conservatives are inordinately bad at arguing harm.

More important than the social disorder they directly contribute to, homosexuality is a symptom of hyperliberalization. I repeat, the main problem is what homosexuality is a symptom of, not what harm it causes. To a liberal, at least one who doesn't read much, hyperliberalization might sound great--finally, real progressivism! Like they talk about on Current TV! But in reality hyperliberalization is a very bad thing. It's a sign of anomie, a state of normlessness and disillusionment which results in ramped up materialism and relaxed morality and cohesion. The main thing hyperliberalization is good for is creating lots of disorder. That's what it did back in the 1920s. This period saw a sharp increase in deviance from social norms in the Western world, which, depending on how you look at it, either fed an atmosophere of greed and materialism or was fed by it (probably both). Reactions such as Prohibition were either ineffective or stimulated even more disorder and crime.

The end result, according to social scientists like Robert Paxton, was turmoil and fascism. Generally these are not in progressive interests, even if you're an angry Journolist member and would like to kick some people through plate glass windows (metaphorically speaking of course). Usually turmoil is really bad for liberals and results in the opposite of the society they want to live in, even when the new government calls itself "the people's party".

Conservatives usually argue that homosexuality is "just wrong" (sometimes they can't even go that far). They can't say why or articulate the harmful effects or defend the benefit of shared morality (much less state why morality is more than harm and fairness). They're hopeless. That is why they have no rejoinder to the naive liberal assertion that gay marriage is about love and holding hands and being yourself. In defense of conservatives, liberals are profoundly obtuse on this subject--their thinking is inbred, they ignore their own data, and they hide behind mindless emotional catchphrases. As stupid as conservatives are, they're simply not smart enough to be as hysterically dumb as a liberal with a slogan. (Conservatives will always be second rate when it comes to idiocy, as in so many things.)

I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development--gay face, finger length, brain morphology--is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it. Emotional development mirrors the physical--neoteny, hedonism, lack of self-control--homosexuals seem a lot like hypersexualized children. It's no wonder then that in an age that exposes children to sexuality far before their brains have matured in crucial ways, homosexuality has far greater acceptance, as does most other sexual deviance.

Liberals are free to continue being stupid--no one can stop them. Fortunately they are only 20% of the public, and they seem fine with shooting themselves in the foot. I think most everyone else (at least those who have reached full maturity) can be convinced that continuing to sanction homosexuality, much less gay marriage, is a terrible idea.

FartRomancer.EXE posted:

i can confirm that Maoist Pussy does not like dick

Effectronica posted:

killyoureparents posted:

please copypaste the image url so i can click it. im not typin that poo poo out

killyoureparents posted:

holy poo poo. mods please ban this helldumping human being.

quote:

I expect everyone will agree that the last major (and current) stage in the development of racism began in 1994 with the publication of The Bell Curve. However in observing this we should note three coinciding social changes:

1) the spread of Internet use and the transformation to a computer-based society

2) the arrival at a demographic tipping point due to changing trends in birthrate, population movement, and multicultural advocacy

3) a further acceleration of social dysfunction as economic globalism, large scale cities, and wealth consolidation led to increased social anxiety

Each of these changes increased the receptive audience for The Bell Curve and/or that audience's ability to spread discussion of its main points. Although The Bell Curve is mainly about "Intelligence and Class Structure", most discussion has centered on race differences, to which only one chapter was devoted. This chapter, which popularized major social science findings on intelligence and race, effectively launched what one might call the Modern Age of Racism.

First in email lists and then in websites and blogs, The Bell Curve created an entire genre of Internet discussion, IQ samizdat, which sought to convince university-educated Americans of the scientific basis of race differences via statistics on crime, educational attainment, and social dysfunction.

A major rhetorical issue was whether believing in these race differences was in fact another form of racism. This claim was contested by neo-racists because the word racism tended to connote mindless bigotry, vigilante hate groups, low-SES whites, and similar problematic identifications. Thus, another marker for this period is the explanation, "I'm not a racist, I'm a race-realist," which meant to convey that one was not bound by visceral loathing of darkies but was rather convinced of group differences by a dispassionate view of the evidence. An attempt (we can now see it was feeble) was made to reverse the stigma by referring to IQ denialism as "liberal creationism". This didn't make much impact because a) liberals don't really seem like creationists, and b) their views were conventional, reinforced by social etiquette, and thus didn't sound as foolish to ordinary people as believing that dinosaurs are 10,000 years old.

But, to create a small sidebar, it was of course racism by the ordinary definition of the term. The word racism is from the French racisme, used to describe Nazi theories, and became a replacement for older terms such as racialism--which means more or less what "race-realism" propounds: "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities." Whether the Nazi angle forced the pejorative flavor of racism, or whether it was an inevitable development of changes relating to mass society, race-realism was really no different from racism/racialism and amounted to a marketing distinction.

Another term connoting roughly the same set of views--that human beings diverge based on rough racial/ethnic categories, and some of them are more pleasant to be around than others--was popularized by Steve Sailer: human biodiversity, or HBD, which basically means the study of group differences.

As sciencey as this sounds, a great deal of the HBD discussions on the Internet tended to have to do with what one might call "niggershines"--generally, pathological behavior engaged in by American blacks that was of growing concern due to periodic flashpoints, such as the attempt to burn down Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict. Naturally, increased population diversity heightened anxieties about this kind of remote event happening again, as well as more mundane interactions such as being murdered, tortured, or raped (usually in reverse order). HBD discussants were also fascinated by, and enamored of, Asian immigrants to the United States due to the latter's gentleness, reputed high intelligence, and the greater prospects for obtaining waifus. Asians were regarded as a "model minority" and were a useful foil in debates about whether race-realists and HBDers were actually garden variety white supremacist racists. Thus the term "NAM", meaning "non-Asian minority", was used as a way of deterring the uglier implications of being racist while employing the same basic categories and arguments as racists and racialists always had (it was also a jab at the media for conveniently leaving out Asians when discussing minority hardships).

During the period from 1994 to today this modern racism has mainly occupied itself with finding evidence that these racial categories are more or less valid, that the differences in racial groups are explicable as the natural results of geographic separation and survival pressure, and that the main problem, when you get right down to it, is that current population trends are dysgenic. An advanced economy cannot afford to produce more stupid people than smart people, the HBDers argue, and yet current policies and trends do exactly that.

It is my argument that this period is drawing to a close, that the approach of race-realist/HBD racists has already obtained maximum effectiveness, and that changing social conditions merit a rethinking of their topic focus, policy prescriptions, and rhetorical posture. I will make this argument in the next post.

FartRomancer.EXE posted:

no what if i get in trouble

Tweet Me Balls posted:

i want to pound a fake pussy while my face is buried in man-muff. i want the most innovative dick construction sciences hard at work to create new phalluses to abuse my various holes. i want to kiss a woman on the cjeeek and giggle as her stubble scrapes across my lips, and i want a big surprise baby shower after I accidentally get my boyfriend pregnant. the future of gender is its expiration, and the thought of its dying gasps gives me a raging erection

killyoureparents posted:

please copypaste the image url so i can click it. im not typin that poo poo out

killyoureparents posted:

holy poo poo. mods please ban this helldumping human being.

killyoureparents posted:

holy poo poo. mods please ban this helldumping human being.

Maoist Pussy posted:

Tweet Me Balls posted:

i want to pound a fake pussy while my face is buried in man-muff. i want the most innovative dick construction sciences hard at work to create new phalluses to abuse my various holes. i want to kiss a woman on the cjeeek and giggle as her stubble scrapes across my lips, and i want a big surprise baby shower after I accidentally get my boyfriend pregnant. the future of gender is its expiration, and the thought of its dying gasps gives me a raging erection

psyopmonkey posted:

Why does everything have to involve sex? You guys are kinda creepy.

Oh wait... goons.

acephalousuniverse posted:

Maoist Pussy Likes Dick And Is Scared To Admit It LoL

Freak Futanari posted:

their lil poopers posted:

shut the gently caress up retard

Freak Futanari posted:

psyopmonkey posted:

Why does everything have to involve sex? You guys are kinda creepy.

Oh wait... goons.