quote:

We’ve got to SAVE this RETARDED BOY

Mercury_Storm posted:

He seems to have a shrine to noted mass murderer Dylann Roof on his homepage.

Sharkie posted:

are you talking about magic-masochist? he's also following a tumblr called mr-wants-bbc that's nothing but pictures of black guys' penises and interracial porn.

Guavanaut posted:

Wait, Dylan Klebold was born on 9/11? No wonder the kid was messed up.

The Vosgian Beast posted:

Wheeee posted:

Just think, this idiot manchild and most others like him come from a place of privilege that will ensure their own personal spheres of influence remain greater than those of the vulnerable members of society they seek to subjugate. Through nepotism in the workplace, money and social status carrying them through higher education, and the servile nature of their ideology ensuring that they shall always be allowed a voice by the extant power structures in our society, these Millennial Generation reactionaries have already won.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine Sonic the Hedgehog spin-dashing into a poor person's face, forever.

Ran Mad Dog posted:

Not that I think "# of women sexed in lifetime" is an actual non-sexist lifetime goal worth striving for, I think the number you're looking for is more than likely 0.

Helsing posted:

Fair enough. How many of his girlfriends unrequited crushes have mysteriously dissapeared in the last few years?

On a related note: has anyone from the Dark Enlightenment tried to rehabilitate phrenology yet?

Ddraig posted:

Yeah, he clearly has issues. It's almost tempting to have a degree of sympathy for him, but then again he has a plastic skull called McArthur so gently caress him.

Guavanaut posted:

What?

He thinks he's a patriarch but his girlfriend tells him what he can and can't wear? Like 'wouldn't let' and not just 'fine, but I think you look like a loving idiot'? And his only recourse is violence? And he has a special movie helmet for this to take place over?

Again, what?

Pinely posted:

Now I really want to know what that helmet is. Was it like a medieval movie and he was wearing a helm? Or Top Gun with a fighter pilot helmet? Or was it a beer helmet? Maybe a medical anti seizure deal?

quote:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/albe...8/16039256.html

quote:
In a decision released Monday, provincial court Judge Terry Semenuk said Davis Aurini was acting in self-defence when he assaulted Amanda Lockhart during a manic episode.

Semenuk said he believed Aurini's testimony Lockhart attacked him when he rejected her attempt to kiss him after they viewed the Oscar-winning film about mental patients.

Aurini admitted pushing Lockhart and applying a pressure point to her neck in an attempt to get her to release his motorcycle helmet so he could leave.

"The force used by the accused ... when she was out of control and having a manic episode, was no more force than necessary to prevent her assault on him," Semenuk said.

"His actions were justified," the judge said, in finding Aurini was acting in self-defence.

Lockhart accused Aurini of choking her after he became angry at the conclusion of the movie.

He also threw her into the floor and punched, her, bloodying her nose, Lockhart testified.

But Semenuk accepted Aurini's version of the events - that he only applied a pressure point to her neck, a move learned in the military, to get her to give him his helmet.

"There was nothing in the demeanor of the accused that would lead me to believe that he was not endeavouring to tell the truth," Semenuk said.

Aurini, 28, said he and Lockhart were still living together, but no longer romantically involved after she had tried to jam him with a lit cigarette two weeks prior to their altercation last June.

Semenuk ruled the woman became angry with him when he refused to let her kiss him.

"Her anger turned into a manic episode as a result of her mental illness," the judge said.

"As soon as she became angry, and as a result of his past experience with the complainant's mental illness leading to violence, the accused prepared to leave the apartment," he said.

Hbomberguy posted:

I'm trying to understand what the satire is of Roosh's 'legalise rape' article. He claimed it was satire after people said 'what the gently caress' about it, but I really genuinely don't get what his actual point was if it is. When he tries to explain what the satire is himself he just re-states the same tenets of the article.

It also doesn't help that some of the folks who agreed with him supported the idea wholeheartedly right up until he called it satire, and some did a little longer even.

Maoist Pussy posted:

They are no longer at the top of the hierarchy. Why wouldn't they adopt the weapons of those who eroded that hierarchy? Everyone else does.

I mean, drat, I don't favor these dorks, but it is pretty revealing when you condemn your opponent for having the gall to fight back.

quote:

Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.

But don't men have value beyond breeding?
If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.

Like slaves?
Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.

What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?

That's kind of depressing.
The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.

Doesn't all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants.

But realistically that's not what's best for the kids.
Children must be provided a proper education, a sex-separated education that will focus on developing real-world skills and capacities for concept building. They will be taught the reality of true equality, production, labour, and will be provided a better understanding of sexuality, science, culture and ethnicity. If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.

Does this assume all women would automatically form lesbian relationships?
Relationships between females and males have been different throughout all of history. Associations between women and men differ with the time and popular socialisation. Today that is not common or normalised, but as time passes more women are interested in other women or are willing to indulge and experiment.

Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics—with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?

I'm not sure, you think it's genetic?
Perhaps it's partially genetic, but it's also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn't what a "man" is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

nah, she sounds more like a tumblr nut/ biting beaver era(the old something awful subject from 2000 something)feminists. Vice is know to be left leaning/progresive and probably wouldn't post an opinion piece by some dark endarkenment wanker. a mra dude would have the roles reversed.

Guavanaut posted:

Worse, sometimes he lights one and lets it burn down and lets the ice in his whiskey water it down.

Solving toxic masculinity with violence never works, but I'd appreciate the artistic value of seeing any man from my granddad's generation give him a slap for wasting good tobacco and liquor.

Cingulate posted:

Bushiz posted:

I think there's an interesting culture that's emerged in the Edgelord-Skeleton wars that are taking place on twitter. Like, prominent social justice twitter personalities received serious threats via more private channels, but talk about them via public channels. This becomes a story and, toiling in the content mines, various writers drum up some mean tweets to go along with the stories. These tweets are bad, the worst offenders are banned, and things proceed. The cycle repeats, but the tweets become less openly violent at specific individuals, because that gets you thrown off twitter, and, because we're dealing with /pol/ rejects who think having LOIC and a wget ddos makes them Anonymous, the new hostile tweets are just very, very low quality. So now you have this hoard of idiots tweeting shittily at people, and a hoard of victims that are, by and large, fairly new to and inexperienced with mass communication platforms on the web, people for whom facebook or myspace was their first foray into an online identity, and it just amazes me. You've got this group of /pol/ rejects who think they're some kind of elite internet harassment squad, and then these other people, the victims, who seem to also believe the hype about their harassers, but it just doesn't pierce the noise floor of general shittiness on the internet. I earned the ire of internet edgelords a while back, and cleaning them out from my mentions took maybe ten minutes, and was considerably harder than the five or six times I've had dozens to hundreds of porn bots spontaneously follow me on twitter.

I mean, it's bad that the edgelords are being deliberately lovely for no reason, but they're not any good at it.

Maoist Pussy posted:

OK, sure, but some social changes should be campaigned against and some shouldn't. Racism, for instance, is insupportable and should never have existed, whereas counternarratives on gender and culture and capitalism are certainly possible.

Helsing posted:

We are long over due for some conservative academics to troll women's studies and sociology departments everywhere by declaring Foucault one of their own. A Foucauldian neoconservative philosophy would be pretty easy to develop, in fact he arguably got us most of the way there on his own.

Helsing posted:

I thought of the ultimate philosopher of liberal modernity (which ironically means he is anticipating the philosophy of many forms of contemporary conservatism). Even better he's one of the few writers who is still genuinely scandalous enough that a lot of people will become angry or judgement simply knowing you've read him: De Sade. The guy had some... interesting... beliefs. For instance, he was a strong opponent of the death penalty but believed that murder should be legal.

Here's an excerpt from one of his numerous depraved novels where he anticipates everything from Ayn Randian style selfishness (complete with the arugment that it's the natural expression of human nature and even the deeper nature of hte universe) as well as a criticism of the SJW mindset, penned two centuries before SJWs were a thing.

A young woman named Therese sees a man being trampled by men on horseback in a field. She rushes to his side after the men have left and treats his wounds, much to his gratitude:


The man offers to give her a job in reward for her saving his life, and then leads her to his home - a remote castle in the mountains. Therese becomes anxious as she recognizes that this is clearly a bandit den and not the home of a legitimate and trustworthy man:


I was going to argue you could turn this into a pretty funny and comprehensive reactionary anti-modern philosophy but then I remembered that Hans Herman-Hoppe already exists.

Peztopiary posted:

nah, you're just broken.