Sabel posted:

whats your favorite anime

psyopmonkey posted:

I hate anime. Adventure time and regular show are the closest I get.

I prefer real shows; im watching Boardwalk Empire right now.

Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:

why do you think goons & their various splinter groups are so fixated on trans people?read a bit of the trans thread in e/n earlier and most of them seem fairly normal.or have all the insane ones been run out by this point?

Fajita Fiesta posted:

psyopmonkeys been at this for fuckin years though its pathological now surely

Fajita Fiesta posted:

the context here is that lots of troons are pathologically insecure and seek validation from hosed up places

Sprue posted:

psyopmonkey posted:

Where did the injecting horse piss come from? Ive never heard of this.

Sabel posted:

step aside

killyoureparents posted:

because as this topic shows they never shut the gently caress up about something that absolutely no one cares about and has been discussed to death on the internet and even this loving Comedy Website.

killyoureparents posted:

reminder that troons have to gently caress themselves every few hours with a medical grade dildo so that their fake pussy hole doesnt heal up the way that it should.

killyoureparents posted:

you have 45 pages of posts in the xbox one sucks thread. kill yourself

A Melted Tarp posted:

I wasn't being facetious or setting up a joke, I legit think that trannies are psychologically broken beyond repair and should be destroyed for the good of the human race.

CommonTerry posted:

south of what

psyopmonkey posted:

I think some more questions are in order.

circ dick soleil posted:

the op is neither

Fireless Phoenix posted:

Ya rly

Fireless Phoenix posted:

i honestly feel bad for gays + gays friends/families and everyday i thank the skydaddy that i wasnt born messed up to be a gay.

coming out must be so hard; if my child wanted to come out, i'd feel like they murdered the boy/girl i knew and an impostor had replaced my sweet child

Fireless Phoenix posted:

Nice try but that doesn't really work

Mr. Mallory posted:

hey dont call me "guy"

i identify as a trans she wolf diaper fur

its totally natural and normal

Maoist Pussy posted:

OK. Psyopmonkey, do you get why the sort of deception or confusion illustrated by Sabel's antics irritates people and makes them negatively disposed towards trans people, and particularly trans women?

Maoist Pussy posted:

Effectronica, you are one of the worst posters in GBS. Go away. The not-as-bas-as-you posters are talking.

killyoureparents posted:

wow your a loving human being. kill yourself

Sabel posted:

You're going to have to kill him.

Mr. Mallory posted:

keep on posting memes

makes you look REAL smart

killyoureparents posted:

I'm too busy with you first. And I've found the city you live in

Maoist Pussy posted:

No, it is really weird that you are using 'gay' as an insult.

It is fine that you are using 'fat' as an insult, though, since fat is a contemptible quality.

killyoureparents posted:

Sabel you should really trim your lawn lol

Sabel posted:

Good.

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.

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.

Freak Futanari posted:

killyoureparents posted:

lol you spend your free time volunteering to be a mod on this lovely rear end website. go gently caress yourself you dumb human being. yeah im mad so what?

quote:

Thank you, Bob.[Robert Vandervoort, executive director of ProEnglish] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I am going to put to you what I think you will find a rather startling, perhaps absurd, proposition: that the elite classes of the U.S.A. may turn racist.

As startling as it may be, this is not an original idea.

Charles Murray has been in the news recently on account of his new book on cognitive stratification in U.S. society—the trend, now more than half a century old, for professional elites to separate off from working-class Americans, developing different and diverging lifestyles, and practicing “assortative mating” — elites marrying elites.

This is a return to the theme of The Bell Curve which Murray co-authored with the late Richard Herrnstein, and which was published in 1994—almost twenty years ago.

As my starting point here today, I`m going to quote from that earlier book. This is from Chapter 21 of The Bell Curve, in which Herrnstein and Murray are discussing possible consequences of cognitive stratification. Perhaps the most startling of the possibilities they suggest is that, quote, “Racism will emerge in a new and more virulent form.” Here is the passage that follows.
The tension between what the white elite is supposed to think and what it is actually thinking about race will reach something close to breaking point. This pessimistic prognosis must be contemplated: When the break comes, the result, as so often happens when cognitive dissonance is resolved, will be an overreaction in the other direction. Instead of the candor and realism about race that is so urgently needed, the nation will be faced with racial divisiveness and hostility that is as great as, or greater, than America experienced before the civil rights movement. We realize how outlandish it seems to predict that educated and influential Americans, who have been so puritanical about racial conversation, will openly revert to racism. We would not go so far as to say it is probable. It is, however, more than just possible. If it were to happen, all the scenarios for the custodial state would be more unpleasant—more vicious—than anyone can now imagine.
I should explain that by the phrase “the custodial state,” Herrnstein and Murray mean a sort of Indian-reservation policy in which the elites “fence off” the low-IQ underclass.

That our elites might turn racist does indeed sound outlandish. The reigning doctrine on race throughout the Western world today is the Standard Social Science Model, which I`ll just trim down to “Standard Model” in what follows. According to this doctrine, all observed group differences are the result of social forces. The Standard Model says that there is a conceivable, discoverable, attainable configuration of social forces in which all group differences would vanish; and that we ought to strive to shift our own society towards that configuration. Among our political and cultural elites, the Standard Model is universally accepted.

Looking to the future, there are three possibilities. One of them, Possibility One, is that our elites will continue to adhere to the Standard Model. The other two are implied in the extract I just quoted from Herrnstein and Murray: Possibility Two: We may attain “the candor and realism about race that is so urgently needed.” Possibility Three: Our elites will revert to “open racism.”

Let`s take the three possibilities in turn. First, continued adherence to the Standard Model. Note that, taking group differences in all generality, the Standard Model is not preposterous. The social and economic underachievement of women in Moslem countries, for example, or for that matter in our own countries in times past, easily yields to a Standard Model analysis. Make some key changes in your laws and customs, and the men-women gap disappears. In some social areas it more than disappears: 57 percent of U.S. college students are female today.

In group difference of outcome between races, the Standard Model was likewise not preposterous fifty years ago. Here in the U.S.A., nonwhite citizens labored under well-known legal and social disabilities. In what we were just beginning to call the Third World, nonwhite populations had been humiliated and subordinated by decades of colonialism. Remove the disabilities, dismantle colonialism, and socio-economic group differences would surely melt away. The Standard Model as applied to race was not preposterous fifty years ago.

I think it is fair to say that it is now, half a century on, well into the zone of preposterosity. Segregation and colonialism have long since been dismantled; trillions of dollars have been spent to rectify past wrongs; countless helping-hand policies have been enacted; yet still the world, and our individual nations, are deeply stratified by race. “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.”

This is the cognitive dissonance that Herrnstein and Murray wrote about. Neurologists tell us that the brain abhors cognitive dissonance as nature abhors a vacuum; and that, as with a vacuum, the resolution can be sudden and dramatic.

Our elites are snobs, but not fools. The dissonance between what all good folk are supposed to believe, and the evidence of our lying eyes, must sooner or later be resolved, when enough little boys have called out that the Emperor has no clothes.

If you want to say that such dramatic turnarounds simply don`t happen, I need only remind you that our elites well within living memory expressed opinions about race that would disqualify them from public office nowadays. About other things, too. Quote: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” That was the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—a person I think can fairly be taken to belong to the elite. The date was 1986, Bowers v. Hardwick.

If you want to object that elite opinions are in line of descent from Marxist egalitarianism, and that racial egalitarianism is of their essence, I will remind you that Marx, in common with wellnigh all thinkers on large social and economic matters until the mid-20th century, was entirely Eurocentric. He had no interest in non-Europeans. His theory of the Asiatic Mode of Production is universally considered to be the least well-thought-out, most perfunctory part of his work. Plenty of Marxist-inspired movements have been racist. Back in the 1920s when it was starting up, the South African Communist Party marched under banners reading: WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE FOR A WHITE SOUTH AFRICA. Today`s China and North Korea are both officially Marxist, yet they are two of the most racially particularist states that have ever existed.

China in fact offers us another reason to think that our elites will dump the Standard Model. In China the Standard Model is not held in very high regard. When Taylor Wang went into orbit on the Space Shuttle in 1985, CCTV (China`s government network) marveled that he was, quote, “The first descendant of the Yellow Emperor to travel in space.” Even in the aggressively Anglo-Saxon U.S.A. of 1961, it is hard to imagine Walter Cronkite hailing Alan Shepard as “The first descendant of Alfred the Great to travel in space.”

The rise of a competitor superpower with frankly race-realist attitudes can only increase the cognitive dissonance that Herrnstein and Murray wrote about. For an accelerant, there will be the fact that an ever-larger portion of our elites will themselves be descendants of the Yellow Emperor. Advances in the human sciences will provide further accelerant. Sooner or later a point of crisis will be reached. The spark will jump the gap, what has been stretched will break, the avalanche will slip, and the Standard Model will no longer be tenable, even for elites as preening in their moral vanity as ours.

So much for Possibility One, continued adherence to the Standard Model. It will not happen.

Without the Standard Model, however, our elites will not necessarily take the path predicted by Herrnstein and Murray, the path to, quote, “racial divisiveness and hostility that is as great as, or greater, than America experienced before the civil rights movement”—what I called Possibility Three.

There is also, as an alternative, the second path, what I called Possibility Two: a turn to “candor and realism” about race. This path is obviously to be preferred to the other, and it is the point of view for which I proselytize.

It is also to be preferred to the Standard Model. The common perception is that the Standard Model is a humane and socially healthful point of view, while race realism is the sick product of twisted minds. It seems to me that the opposite is the case. The Standard Model seems to me to be socially poisonous, a great generator of rancor, resentment, rage, and division—an evil and destructive doctrine.

Imagine you are a member of a group that, in the generality, underachieves socially and economically: a black in the U.S.A., an Inuit in Canada, a Pacific Islander in New Zealand, even a Malay in Malaysia. If the Standard Model is true, the only possible explanation for your group`s underachievement is malice on the part of other groups. Hence the rancor, resentment, rage, and division.

If, on the other hand, group underachievement is a consequence of the laws of biology working on human populations, there is no blame to assign. The fact of group inequalities, even in societies that have striven mightily to remove them, is as natural and inevitable as individual inequality, which nobody minds very much. The only proper object of blame is Mother Nature; and she is capable of inflicting far worse things on us than mere statistical disparities between ancient inbred populations.

Under a reigning philosophy of candor and realism, each of us can strive to be the best he can be, to play as best he can the hand he`s been dealt, in liberty and equality under the law.

I hope this will be the point of view our elites will arrive at when the Standard Model has crumbled into dust. The other alternative, the one envisaged by Herrnstein and Murray, would be worse, far worse. I intend to do all I can to promote the idea that there is a sane path, a path of reason, fairness, and liberty, of “candor and realism,” between phony egalitarianism and vicious neo-racism. Follow me down that path, please.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

powerful weedlock posted:

i literally cant tell who is the bigger idiot. sabel, or maoist pussy. all i know is they both feel like lf posters should be booted to yospos or wherever the lf posters went

Enid Coleslaw posted:

OP if you are still answering questions I would like to know your answer to this question I asked one or two slapfights and like 500 boring nitecrew and effectronica spam posts ago

Fireless Phoenix posted:

like you match sabel and effectronica in how awful you are hth

Freak Futanari posted:

Fireless Phoenix posted:

oh so this is what inspired your transition

Fireless Phoenix posted:

Enid Coleslaw posted:

How is it that the dudes with anime avatars in this thread have somehow managed to be more consistently embarassing than transphobic gimmick dude and heh heh kill yourself guy.

Enid Coleslaw posted:

Don't you have bags of peanuts to hand out?

powerful weedlock posted:

animetars need to go back to pyf or ardtw or better yet off the forums, imo

Enid Coleslaw posted: