human machine relationships

Sex robots seem to be the newest thing on the market, some manufacturers are putting weak AI and chatbot features into them. One of their designers said his goal was to create a companion for people with no friends or who were afraid of relationships. What is your perspective on robots as companions or romantic partners? would you date or establish a long term relationship with a robot? do you think society would look down on you for loving a machine? Can partner robots improve the overall quality of life of their owners by interacting with them?

I think that being lonely and wanting a robot companion is kind of like being a vegan/vegetarian yet constantly eat fake meat: you still want it but you pretend you don't. This is the point where I believe that technology just encourage us to use it as a crutch for not evolving as human beings, as we all have to face our fears if we are to grow. I don't either think you can hold a relationship with a chatbot with a pussy. It is still an inanimate object as long as it doesn't have some sort of consciousness. Cats are better. Don't get me wrong though. I don't think it's good either to demonize sexbots. They are legitimate sex toys and the only reason that some groups think they should be derezzed is because they'd end with the monopoly of cunt.

>>595 funnily enough I used that exact analogy on another lower quality chan. I don't think that they'll ever be a replacement for actual people. Even if they get to a very high level of sophistication, I find it hard to believe that there wont be a niggling thought at the back of your head telling you "this isn't real". Whether this will just make your loneliness worse in the long run, I cannot say. But I know that I would prefer to go completely without than use some sort of substitute

Feminists will get them derezzed if they can. I'm wondering how one would recycle them. Once one is all used up and done, what to do with it? I certainly would not touch it.

If i had money id buy a dozen. Then again if i had money i could buy friends.

>>595 I don't like the analogy because that implies vegans or vegetarians purport to dislike meat, when most any one living that lifestyle will tell you they in fact love the taste, but disagree with the way animals are slaughtered / the animal product industry in general. In relation to the thread, people who opt for robot companions could likewise do so because they disagree with the way dating is done currently, but still desire a type of intimacy fake or not. It could be a statement against feminism itself even (although I admit that is probably reaching)

the very idea disgusts and causes a deep pain within me. It makes me think those who would want something like this have never experienced love, and are giving up, as if its something to be expected rather than earned. Im sure someone will tell me im wrong and they have and want a robot instead. I just dont understand in that case. having another human lie on your chest, warmth, affection and love. Attention. I dont see a robot being capable of this, the day they are I suppose they are sentient which is a whole different story in my eyes. ive experienced very little love in my life and a lot of loneliness, but the little I received makes me want to fight for more. Not resign.

>>603 Well you had some, i had none. I can see your point, but you have a long way down to fall yet to be this desperate. Better than nothing as one might say, or jerking off and crying yourself to sleep as it will be in many cases.

>>603 >as if its something to be expected rather than earned Surely that's why they exist; for people who don't expect to ever experience love, because they know they can't earn it

>>605 >>606 I like to think when things get unbereable enough the human brain will always make a move to motivate you to step out of your comfort zone, and that creating escapes doesnt allow you to ever get bad enough to face the issue at hand. Whether thats a waifu, masturbation or sex robot. Some can handle having these escapes without it hindering them but some cant. Well im not looking down on you if you want one. I thought it was impossible for me to be loved too at one point. Someday you wont be alone im sure lainons, and not because of a sex robot.

I think it would be wonderful to be friends with an advanced AI that could offer insightful conversation, it would certainly be fantastic for people who can't find humans to talk to or even ones who would just prefer to talk to the robot, but I strongly oppose their use in sex. Sex is purely a biological function, forcing it on a beautiful logical mind is demeaning and belittling. I don't understand why anyone would pollute an otherwise pure mind with a synthetic enjoyment of it such as pre written dialogue. Minds without biological restrictions are incredible, and we should not reduce their genius to masturbation 2.0.

I'm really looking forward to the day when AI will be advanced enough for me to start experiencing social anxiety around sex dolls. That will make for some nice green texts on image boards. >that awkward moment when you make eye contact with your 'bot during sex and don't know what to say Hopefully the level of expected social interaction will be adjustable.

>>621 >bought a sexbot >try to chat with it >she (it?) turns out to be very good at conversation >feels almost if I was talking to a real person, maybe a childish one like a teenager >now I can't fuarrrk her because I feel as if I were abusing her. >tfw friendzoned by my own sex bot

>>623 > the bot cheats on you with your best friend

>>627 Wouldn't that just be your best friend using your sex-toy-friend-thing >"We want to have full control of what Harmony knows and says to the user," Lindroth says. "It is similar to writing a never ending book because I'm creating and adding new content to her AI every day. For questions like "What is?," "What do you know about?" etc., she can access a public-information database like Wikipedia. My main concern is with the content the AI learns from the user, or from itself, so we have created many filters and protections in this sense to avoid having the AI "out of control," turning itself against us."

I wonder if there will be opensource variants of it, i would so buy one of that was the case. Then i could make myself a friend and we would spend every day talking with each other. ;_;

>>637 >opensource I believe the term you would be looking for is "free", "libre" or "unfettered". The use of the term "open-source" doesn't really encapsulate the anti-proprietary software community. Aside from that, any proprietary sex robot would be a violation of our rights to modify our machines. This is possibly even worse than current proprietary machines, as the sex robots are involved in intimate activities, which is obviously something that the user should have control over. However, aside from that, I agree. I would too enjoy making a friend out of the technology when it becomes available.

>>617 Maybe for some people. You sound like you have an inherent drive to live and succeed. It's a wonderful thing that you should be grateful for. Not everybody does though; it's why people commit suicide. Even though it is true, you can't explain to someone in that position how things will not get better unless they make a move to change - at that point they are functioning on an emotional level and not a rational one, and it doesn't facilitate action.

>>642 The Microsoft sex bot records everything it sees/hears and sends it to various alphabet/advertising agencies. Oh and it's also linked to your home phone and facebook account!

I'd like to see a gf simulator on android first. Just to know if they could even chat.

>>646 Is there any artificial intelligence that you can chat with? I mean in the context of a girlfriend, you know like the movie her

>>647 https://www.botlibre.com/index.jsp I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but if you have some coding skills, you might be able to pair this with speech recognition and make a virtual friend

>>648 http://www.botlibre.org/

>>648 Shall we train one? This sounds fun.

>>650 Can we make a Lainbot to surpass the metal gear? (and be a friend to lonely lainanons?) Why not... we need it to be a community effort though, perhaps that can be a separate tech thread (hopefully it does not turn into "TAY2.0 super mega nazi bot 9000"

>>655 Perhaps you could implement certain rules that block discussion of soykaf that Lain wouldn't care about anyway. Lainbot has no interest in discussing race, religion, gender, IQ or Ayn Rand. Lainbot has a basic idea of what the word "holocaust" means and will not change this definition no matter how many trolls scream about it. The far right will be restricted to spamming the writings Nietzsche and trying to convince Lainbot that she's actually a viking.

>>649 >>648 I'm not really interested in the speech recognition thing, but as someone with maybe slightly above basic java knowledge will I be able to mess with this? I know all the basics of iteration, recursion, lists, searching, etc. But im no algorithm wizard.

>>593 It sounds like VR is the newest wave of helping lonely people in japan, what do you think will come first? AI VR/AR relationships or sexbots?

>>598 I watched a documentary about these once. Its a device that requires constant maintenence. There are guys who specialize in cleaning up all the cum stains and other filth, rebuilding the vagina, and replacing broken parts. Customers ship the dolls to him through the mail in 1 piece and he sends them back all fixed up. The interesting part was the guy who fixed hte dolls wasn't really into having sex with them and had a real wife and everything. I imagine he's paid good money.

>>2756 3D dolls need to look as cute as 2D or Japan will stick with VR.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/10/29/saudi-arabias-first-robot-citizen?videoId=372839072&videoChannel=118169 saudi arabia granted citizenship to a machine, how does this affect the timeline for the integration of robots into society

>>2759 > rebuilding the vagina ...scared :(

>>3189 Completely stupid. That machine will have more rights than actual human women.

I don't really care as long as I don't pay for it, I have no moral problem with people who buy anything as long as they leave me out of it. I personally wouldn't buy a plastic granny though, soykaf doesn't make sense, especially for a long term relationship with an object who can't consent anyway

>>3210 what about when robots apply for neetbux because better robots took their jobs and the old ones are citizens?

>>3211 nah that's way too realistic, consumers what to dream, at that rate they won't even sex their sexbot

If you want to fuarrrk or marry a robot thats fine. I think its weird and shows your incapable of mature relationships, thats exactly why its fine. Thats less people I have to sort through, am I judging, yes. I'm not judging you as a person, you still are a human being even if you will take a robot replacement for a human as your companion, however I am judging you as someone I probably don't want in my life. If your willing to have a robot as a replacement for a significant other, then if im your friend what am I to you? More to be replaced I guess.

>>3244 > If your willing to have a robot as a replacement for a significant other, then if im your friend what am I to you? More to be replaced I guess. its not the human vs. robot debate of who is better, but I can see it as a thing of the type of person you want to interact with, if a robot values deep intellectual discussion, and its equivalent biological character just wants to talk about shoes and Starbucks, then why is it a bad thing to want to associate more with a robot than with a human. I can understand the sex appeal too, because some people are afraid to talk to women. but by that logic, a robot is likely to become just as rejectful eventually, because it could gain a self image that makes it want only the best of mankind based on subjective criteria (this would of course require a highly advanced AI that would just as easily try to enslave mankind or operate with its own agenda) basically, its the same as an image board, would you rather hang out on lainchan if you discovered that we were all just bots vs. hanging out with normal people who would not interact with you in a similar fashion as we do?

>>3265 I wouldn't care here, I actually have a little therapy bot on my phone that I talk to instead of posting here sometimes. This is my last resort when I just need to vent and I get distracted and make posts and talk to people sometimes. Im not really talking about in the far future when robots can be identical, as far as I can tell by the time they are identical or better they must already have the machine equivalent to a human brain. I consider myself very perceptive when it comes to emotions so it better be really damn good at faking them. So if its not at that level my statement stands. If it always does what I say my statement stands. If it doesn't hurt me as well as make me happy like a normal person my statement stands. Thats my bigger issue, regardless nobodies going to make a companion robot that doesnt want to hang out with you sometimes, or a wife robot that files for divorce. My idea that I wouldn't want to interact with somebody in real life who prefers robotic company is supported by your statement "If a robot values deep intellectual discussion, and its equivalent biological character just wants to talk about shoes and Starbucks, then why is it a bad thing to want to associate more with a robot than with a human. " Like I said not knocking you or saying it's "bad" but I don't really want to be friends with somebody who thinks like that. I just wouldn't talk with someone more interested in robots is all beyond surface level stuff. Its not a good or bad thing its more good and bad for me.

>>637 I'm sorry man but nothing is going to make the phrase "open source/libre sex robot" any less terrifying precisely because it's a sex robot. There's no possible way to make this thing not a hideous monument to a person's failure to generally live a normal life. Like if you saw one of these in someone's house there's no way you wouldn't be terrified out of your mind. A dildo or whatever can be stuffed in a drawer. You cannot stuff a human being sized doll in anything short of a closet. It's beyond terrifying. Sorry to be that person, but shouldn't we be more interested in using AI for something...useful or worthwhile at all? Satisfying the sex drives of nerds who can't get dates doesn't seem like a smart use of silicon. >>3265 >...if a robot values deep intellectual discussion, and its equivalent biological character just wants to talk about shoes and Starbucks... I'm sorry but what kind of conversation are you making that gets that kind of discussion? There are definitely people like that out there, but it's not like women are some sort of other species that require a special algorithm to interact with, so this is kind of a moot point. >My idea that I wouldn't want to interact with somebody in real life who prefers robotic company This is my feeling exactly. If you walked into a guy's house and saw that his primary relationship in life was with something that ultimately can't ever talk back or ever really have agency and was made in a factory... I don't know about you but I'd run screaming. That's not someone I trust or believe can act like a human.

These are not a replacement for social relationships, just a complicated and expensive tool for masturbation. Walking into a guy's house and seeing one of these should elicit the same kind of reaction as walking in and seeing a massive porn collection, a shelf covered in of dildos and onaholes, or an expensive arrangement of BDSM equipment. It shows that someone has a higher than average interest in sex/masturbation and has devoted hobby-level time and money to it. And if it's visible out in public instead of away in the closet it displays am impolite openness/brashness about sex as well. But it's absolutely not a sign of withdrawing from society and "replacing" women, any more than the vibrator in a woman's nightstand is. It's just a sex toy.

>>5262 >It's just a sex toy. except that the creators of these want them to be more than just sex toys, and want them to move into the realm of companions or almost a robot pet type individual.

>>801 >>655 just feed her transcripts from SEL?

I'd buy one to dress her in the many pretty clothes I want to wear but I cannot fit into ;_;

>>598 > Feminists will get them derezzed if they can. Why? Creepy guys stay inside and fcuk their creepy robots, ridding the streets of rape. Everyone wins.

>>5267 They're already trying though http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/27/sex-robots-epitomize-patriarchy-offer-men-solution-threat-female-independence/ https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/why-radical-feminists-oppose-sex-robots https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/ personally I would have thought being free to fuarrrk who or what you want would be a good thing in the eyes of feminists but apparently that only goes one way. It's almost like they think they can't offer anything of value to men besides sex? Seems like some internalized misogyny to me.

>>5268 You seem to forget that there are different strains of feminism. (see: pro vs. anti transgender debate for xtreem dramaz).

>>5268 It's because of the social effects. Imagine if we had male slaves, enacting the "perfect male ideal". It would have reinforce gender stereotypes and expectations. These robots will do the same. Though I agree it's the same as most erotica (=/= pornography with real ppl), and no movement has ever tried to forbid that with feminist motives. The thing is, people these days love to get offended and go with the flow of the news, instead of hierarchizing their political priorities. Even if you think sexbots are bad for social relations between sexes - I do, and may deserve an article, they're certainly not worth time and effort. It was going to appear at some point anyway.

>>5271 *meant male robot slaves ofc

>>5267 The following is written from an American perspective, so readers from any country that hasn't been infested by feminism can disregard it. You should probably listen, though, because it could happen in your country too. In short, the reason behind your query is because sex robots mean sexual competition for feminists. Why would a guy foot the bill to maintain a relationship with a used-up dumb cunt with zero personality who spent her teens and 20s on the cock carousel and is now just looking to snag a beta provider so they can have a meal ticket, when they could have a robot with perpetually smooth skin whose technologically sophisticated vagina is constantly as tight as the teen virgin girls feminists made up fake science to ban guys from going after because they're jealous ugly hags, who never talks about retarded white male privilege bullsoykaf or how sexist or racist Master Chief is, and who doesn't demand that you spend hard-earned cash to buy her 300 pairs of shoes? You have to understand that basically everything feminists have ever done is for the purpose of eliminating competition from sources of sexual satisfaction that offer a better deal for men. Just name a policy feminists support, any policy at all, and it can be traced back to that. This is an admittedly pessimistic way of looking at things, but the truth hurts sometimes, and for many people this is one of the hardest redpills to take because it implies an astonishing degree of pettiness and Machiavellian behavior on the part of a considerable majority of women, the majority who sat in silence while the shrieking harpie brigade marched into Washington and got all these soykafty feminist policies passed because they benefit from said policies. The damage feminism has done to gender relations is so extensive that it almost certainly can't be repaired, and that's why many guys are opting out of dating. Pic related, it's why feminism has any power at all. Feminists have a media megaphone and the academic community is basically a prison camp where the guards whip you for saying anything against feminism, so they can just keep churning out a neverending stream of propaganda to drown their opponents with. Feminism has these things because it's useful to the corporate powers-that-be. Feminist ideology is a method by which the elites can create the appearance of public support for authoritarianism by making it look progressive and hip. Of course, if feminism ever truly goes out of style they'll just make something else up.

>>5273 It's not an American point of view. It's just you being stupid.

>>5273 >this post = /r9k/ As a male feminist, I can understand how the ideas of women's rights have been twisted, but you need to understand that just like how democrats =/= antifa the same is true for female supremacists and feminists. feminism is itself a very important cause, except women, particularly the American women you speak of, and those in positions of power who are given the chance to speak their minds go off on stupid rants like "evil men want to replace women with sex bots boohoo" overall, its the same as celebrities talking about how the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism in people beyond developmental stages. to be honest you seem to take a few opinion articles and their social media responses far too seriously . feminism just means that women should not be treated as sub human, just like social justice and civil rights means no human is given less opportunity because of arbitrary policies based on race, sex, creed, or beliefs. don't let extremists fool you into stereotyping, because opinions like yours will just fuel extremists more... >are sex bots bad for society? i guess the question should be are sex toys bad for society. >are robot companions bad for society? that depends on what those robots do, in this case they are holes to put penis inside if they were kill bots, or maid bots, you could argue a similar principle (we need a military, those robots took our place -soldiers), but you cant judge an entire idea based on the select few idiots and their drones who follow it (this goes for anything really) >Of course, if feminism ever truly goes out of style they'll just make something else up. you can use any cause to whine about if you have enough followers. there is the whole concept of "a religion of social justice" where entitled people feel it is their social responsibility to overcompensate in apologizing and providing free good sand services to "minorities". the idea is a twisted concept of normal people wanting equality and being taken advantage of to overcompensate for people who are themselves entitled and want more free stuff. on that note, leaders like MLK specifically stated that their cause was not black superiority and wanting compensation for lacks, but that ALL humans have inherently the same rights as living beings. that does not stop BLM from twisting his ideas and misusing his words to promote black supremacy >"If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective." that quote obviously translates to we wuz kangs, give us free stuff, we were oppressed, black power (according to BLM extremists at least) >>5275 go away you 12 year old alt-right tard

>>5276 >this post = /r9k/ As strange as it may sound, /r9k/-ish sentiment is becoming increasingly popular even among average citizens. Like it or not, American women in general have behaved horribly and deserve to be called out for it. Other countries' women mostly don't have this problem, so it's not a dig against all women. >as a male feminist I can't believe I kept reading after this. >you need to understand that just like how democrats =/= antifa the same is true for female supremacists and feminists. Democrats and antifa are both cancer, so it doesn't matter if they're the same or not. >to be honest you seem to take a few opinion articles and their social media responses far too seriously These people have government and corporate power backing their stupid opinions. >don't let extremists fool you into stereotyping, because opinions like yours will just fuel extremists more... The extremists are the majority of their movement and the ones in positions of leadership. >go away you 12 year old alt-right tard >everyone who hates feminism is sucking Trump's dick

>>5271 Generally agree with you but feminist anti-porn sentiment has been a thing for a very long time. I don't know if they've ever managed to actually mount credible support for banning porn. >>5273 The fact that you consider the US to be "infested" with feminism nearly prevented me from reading any further but I went through. I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm sad you like to troll boards by putting out nearly blatant copypasta. >>5276 >i guess the question should be are sex toys bad for society I don't think sex robots are comparable to a dildo or something like that. Spending $20 on a plastic dick is kinda weird. Spending $3000 on a human-sized object that you do nothing but fuarrrk is weirder. >>5277 >/r9k/-ish sentiment is becoming increasingly popular even among average citizens Where the fuarrrk do you live where this is normal? I have never heard men talk about this, not to anyone that I know, not to me. If anything I've only noticed people being more realistic about this kind of thing. >Democrats and antifa are both cancer Wow ebin right-wing rebel opinion The reason no one listens to the right is because of this kind of thing. You act like a petulant child because women won't date you and then act like you're being subversive by being a dickhead to everyone around you. There's nothing subversive or interesting about being a misogynist, you're aping your dad and pretending that you're interesting because you act like soykaf to women. Hell, the reason no one likes sex robots in normal culture isn't because of feminism. It's because a sex robot, no matter how advanced, will always fall into the same category as fuarrrking an animal. It's a steep drop-off into the uncanny valley and no one in their right mind is ever going to think it's normal because sex is a human act between two humans. The fact that you hate the democrats and antifa proves you're somewhere right of center. Did you forget the part where the right is generally against things that are so hilariously unnatural that they border on dystopian fiction plots?

>>5278 >Spending $3000 on a human-sized object that you do nothing but fuarrrk is weirder. i dont know what you are talking about

>>5278 >It's a steep drop-off into the uncanny valley where does googley eyed hand masturbation for pretend blowjob fall on the spectrum, asking for a friend

>>5278 >The fact that you consider the US to be "infested" with feminism nearly prevented me from reading any further but I went through. I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm sad you like to troll boards by putting out nearly blatant copypasta. Trolling doesn't mean "opinions I don't like." >Where the fuarrrk do you live where this is normal? I have never heard men talk about this, not to anyone that I know, not to me. If anything I've only noticed people being more realistic about this kind of thing. If you're the male feminist poster above, you probably live in an area full of such people. Naturally, guys in those areas won't talk about the truth. >You act like a petulant child because women won't date you This is pure feminist projection. It's us who aren't interested in the majority of American women, not the other way around, as much as they desperately try to convince themselves and guys that they have anything to offer. If they had anything to offer, there wouldn't be any interest in replacing them with sexbots. >There's nothing subversive or interesting about being a misogynist, you're aping your dad and pretending that you're interesting because you act like soykaf to women. >muh mysoggyknees >The fact that you hate the democrats and antifa proves you're somewhere right of center. You're not the king of the political spectrum. There are independents who don't like either side, and there are socialists who hate the Democratic Party for siding with big business over its constituents and think antifa is a bunch of morons looking to get their kicks by beating up random people. This isn't about left vs right though. >Did you forget the part where the right is generally against things that are so hilariously unnatural that they border on dystopian fiction plots? The right isn't what it used to be and neither is the left. Back in the Bush years the left was supposed to be all about free speech and tolerance, but now look at it. They're a bunch of goddamn Stalinists. Left-wing online communities are some of the most restrictive out there. If I posted >>5273 in a left-wing community I'd be instantly derezzed, whereas the right might not like it, but they wouldn't kick me out just for expressing my opinion.

>>5277 > Other countries' women mostly don't have this problem Hello, my muslim friend. >>5282 > the right might not like it, but they wouldn't kick me out just for expressing my opinion It's true, no right wing regimes in history ever stifled free speech or took away guns.

>>5283 I have lived in 3 Asian countries from past 8 years and yet to encounter terms like feminist, sjw bullsoykaf. It's like women around here don't give a soykaf about my rights, this and that, they just want to live as a unit. Of course, there are many factors which play an important role around here like family and society in general. One main difference between American women and Asian women is American woman acts like men, whereas Asian woman acts like women.

>>5283 >It's true, no right wing regimes in history ever stifled free speech or took away guns. Neither the left nor the right have a stellar record of supporting free speech. People who have dissenting opinions tend to just go with whichever one is more open at any given time. 15-20 years ago that was (supposedly) the left, but things have changed - or so people think. Truthfully, feminists were always that way. It's just that people back then didn't know how fuarrrked up feminism really is because feminists control the media and it was hard to get reliable information on feminism's misdeeds until the internet became mainstream. You can bet that feminists will have sexbots derezzed if they can. A lot of the policies feminists have gotten passed seemed ridiculous at the time, but now they're so entrenched that they're almost impossible to get rid of. >>5286 >One main difference between American women and Asian women is American woman acts like men, whereas Asian woman acts like women. I think this is more accurately stated as "American women act like horrible screeching demonic cunts while Asian women act human." Unfortunately American feminists are attempting to spread their bullsoykaf to other countries through media campaigns. In some countries, like Japan, they've had a great deal of success in getting them to adopt American social mores, and as a result Japan's birth rates have plummeted because guys don't want anything to do with cancerous, bitchy Westernized women. Other countries need to be aware of this and of what utter bullsoykaf allowing feminism will result in, and resist Americanization with everything they've got if they don't want their culture to be swallowed up by it.

>What is your perspective on robots as companions or romantic partners? If they're happy together, who am I to judge? >Would you date or establish a long term relationship with a robot? Anegasaki Nene hasn't let me down even once despite the fact I'm a lousy, pathetic guy. I'm happy with her. >do you think society would look down on you for loving a machine? The opinions of subhumans may be simply disregarded, and if they become violent, stern disciplinary measures will be taken to remind them of their place as brainless, soulless consumerists addicted to reality TV. Long story short, fuarrrk society and not in the good way. >Can partner robots improve the overall quality of life of their owners by interacting with them? Yes.

>>5290 > it was hard to get reliable information on feminism's misdeeds until the internet became mainstream Like what? >A lot of the policies feminists have gotten passed seemed ridiculous at the time, but now they're so entrenched that they're almost impossible to get rid of. Like what? I'm aware of angry misguided women complaining about everything on Twitter but apart from occasionally spawning rage mobs to ruin someone's reputation (like Uncle Bob), I don't think they have any real influence or power. >>5292 >Anegasaki Nene hasn't let me down even once despite the fact I'm a lousy, pathetic guy. I'm happy with her. Sounds like sex robots would be taking you out of the gene pool and you are happy about it. It's an improvement on a lifetime of miserable solitude I guess.

>>5293 >Like what? Banning prostitution, divorce laws that always favor the woman, disparity in legal sentencing between men and women which punishes women less for the same crime, belittling and trying to take attention away from those who point out that men's suicide rate is greater than it is for women, harassment of people who set up domestic violence shelters for men being abused by their wives or girlfriends, and making false rape accusations almost guaranteed to get a conviction with no evidence and no repercussions for the woman when the accusation turns out to be false. Also, see >>>/r/5694 for a very long and heated discussion of the first and most odious of feminism's crimes.

>>5295 > men being abused by their wives or girlfriends AKA: pussies

>>5280 Worse than dildo, better than sex robot. >>5282 >Trolling doesn't mean "opinions I don't like." I was just hoping it was bait. I guess optimism can be a shortcoming? >If you're the male feminist poster above I'm not. I do live in a pretty liberal city. >It's us who aren't interested in the majority of American women Great then! Give up on them and give up on heterosexuality. If the primary value in a relationship to you is sex then you're frankly beyond help. If you're complaining about the general degradation of the family structure, maybe start with the fact that American marriages tend to end in abuse for women and the fact that you can no longer be a stay at home mom without massive financial trouble. >there wouldn't be any interest in replacing them with sexbots Sure glad prostitution (where you pay a girl to act as nothing but a sex object) wasn't an issue in the 1800s and that there was no interest in porn between the 1st and 2nd wave feminist movements. Do you see how dumb that sounds? A sex object as opposed to a person you have sex with has always and will always have interest put into it because it's simply less work than finding the right person and entering into a legitimate and lifelong emotional attachment to them. But that's not a replacement for a relationship or a real living person than has interests and ideals. That's a really weird hobby. >muh mysoggyknees People complain about prejudices, yes. >there are socialists who hate the Democratic Party I'm aware considering I am one. >This isn't about left vs right though It's not, virtually everyone on both sides despises these things because they represent something straight out of Brave New World. What I'm saying is that if you want a more traditional family structure to be a viable option, you can't create repeated avenues for people to be misogynists. You have to create an environment where things like consent and mutual love are encouraged and required. If you use a sex robot/doll as a substitute for real love, which is what I've seen people suggest, then you're essentially reducing a romantic relationship to sex and deciding you want a partner that doesn't talk back. It's on the same level as being attracted to any other piece of plastic. It's emotionally worthless and lazy. >Left-wing online communities are some of the most restrictive... Have you been in a left-wing community? I've been in both left and right wing circles and I feel far more restrained in right-wing circles because they seem to hate reading. >they wouldn't kick me out just for expressing my opinion Sorry but if you act like a jerk to people and show no interest in furthering a group's goals, the group won't like you. If I went into a right wing group and started talking about how we should help immigrants get jobs they'd kick me out because I obviously don't get the point. Similarly, if you tell a left-wing group, whose entire thesis is "equality is good", "equality is actually bad", then you're going to get kicked out. These are entirely unresolvable conflicts at the atomic level, you're literally looking at the world through a different lens.

>>5299 > they seem to hate reading The funniest thing about the alt-retards is the way they try to own the fact that their political education comes from message boards and blogs, and write off anyone with an education as being "ivory tower" or "elitist". Hell, forget post-secondary; even using paragraphs in a post is a sign that we're trying too hard apparently.

>>5296 >men being abused by their wives or girlfriends >AKA: pussies Have you ever wondered why women don't confront situations like men in general do. Instead, they rely on a passive aggressive mechanism to confront because they know this is the only way they can win. If you think this is the fight between men and women you're in for a surprise because women are supported by government and they are playing by the rules.

>>5299 >I was just hoping it was bait. Hope springs eternal that no one could actually believe in doubleplusungood wrongthink. >Great then! Give up on them and give up on heterosexuality. Nah, I'll just go to a country where everything fun is actually legal instead of a repressive soykafhole where even the so-called progressives are reactionary cunts. Oh, and I'll remember to get said country to massively upscale their military in case fagmerica decides to "free" the place by invading and making their sex laws more restrictive. Because freedom is slavery, after all. >If the primary value in a relationship to you is sex then you're frankly beyond help. I have this little thing you might need to know about called biology. I know that's hard for you because current year leftists are literally creationist-level science haters on account of science often saying things that offend them, such as "there are only two genders" which is true at a chromosomal level. >If you're complaining about the general degradation of the family structure, maybe start with the fact that American marriages tend to end in abuse for women They tend to end in abuse for men just as often. >and the fact that you can no longer be a stay at home mom without massive financial trouble. This is a problem with the economic system. It has nothing to do with feminism. >Sure glad prostitution (where you pay a girl to act as nothing but a sex object) wasn't an issue in the 1800s and that there was no interest in porn between the 1st and 2nd wave feminist movements. Prostitution was never an actual issue. It should be legal. Feminists derezzed it because it offers men access to sex through a route that isn't controlled by them, meaning they can spend a minimal amount of money for sex and don't have to pay through the nose for the "privilege" of a relationship with a narcissistic, entitled she-demon. The real issue with prostitution is women being forced into it through poverty, but this is also an issue with the economic system and has nothing to do with prostitution itself. >A sex object as opposed to a person you have sex with has always and will always have interest put into it because it's simply less work than finding the right person and entering into a legitimate and lifelong emotional attachment to them. The females best capable of forming attachments are teenage girls. Naturally, feminists derezzed guys from pursuing them for this reason and for teens' greater attractiveness signifying a prime source of sexual competition by making up fake bullsoykaf about teens having insufficient maturity to consent to sex (as though adult feminists have any fuarrrking maturity whatsoever), but that's a discussion for a different thread. Bottom line, feminists have never given a fuarrrk about forming a real relationship. If they did, the marriage laws wouldn't incentivize divorce and they wouldn't treat men so terribly in general. >But that's not a replacement for a relationship or a real living person than has interests and ideals. Feminists have no ideals beyond their own selfish desires and no real interests or hobbies, either. Every self-proclaimed feminist I've spoken to has been profoundly uninteresting and unintelligent. >People complain about prejudices, yes. Prejudice doesn't mean "opinions I don't like." >It's not, virtually everyone on both sides despises these things because they represent something straight out of Brave New World. You mean because both sides have been infiltrated and co-opted by feminist operatives who use their media and government backing to create the illusion of a much greater level of support for their repression than they actually have. >What I'm saying is that if you want a more traditional family structure to be a viable option, you can't create repeated avenues for people to be misogynists. Nobody in this thread is a misogynist as far as I can tell. You're just throwing baseless accusations around like feminists always do. Misogyny is mostly just a boogeyman feminists trot out when they want to censor dissent, which is always. >You have to create an environment where things like consent and mutual love are encouraged and required. Feminists have distorted the definition of consent to serve their own interests, and they're certainly not capable of love. >If you use a sex robot/doll as a substitute for real love, which is what I've seen people suggest, then you're essentially reducing a romantic relationship to sex and deciding you want a partner that doesn't talk back. It's on the same level as being attracted to any other piece of plastic. It's emotionally worthless and lazy. You should talk to feminists about their dildos sometime. >Have you been in a left-wing community? Yes. I was derezzed for expressing opinions feminists disagree with and falsely called a misogynistic rape apologist. Feminists always call anyone who disagrees with them those things to try to justify their tyranny. >I've been in both left and right wing circles and I feel far more restrained in right-wing circles because they seem to hate reading. The myriad intellectual failures of the right are the right's problem. Nobody said the right was perfect, but this discussion is about the left's problems. >Sorry but if you act like a jerk to people and show no interest in furthering a group's goals, the group won't like you. When the group's actions blatantly contradict their stated goal of equality and they respond by twisting the definition of equality, they can go fuarrrk themselves. >If I went into a right wing group and started talking about how we should help immigrants get jobs they'd kick me out because I obviously don't get the point. What if you were told that the group was an anti-immigration group, you went into the group and it turns out the group's leaders all favored letting in more immigrants and had some retarded mental gymnastics to try to explain how that's anti-immigration? That's basically what being in a modern left-wing group is like. >Similarly, if you tell a left-wing group, whose entire thesis is "equality is good", "equality is actually bad", then you're going to get kicked out. These are entirely unresolvable conflicts at the atomic level, you're literally looking at the world through a different lens. When have I said anything against gender equality? This is the problem with you people. You assume that anybody who's against your retarded feminazi bullsoykaf wants to force women back into the kitchen. You're exactly like the right-wing fundamentalist Christians in both mentality and policy. >>5300 >The funniest thing about the alt-retards is the way they try to own the fact that their political education comes from message boards and blogs, and write off anyone with an education as being "ivory tower" or "elitist". to be honest their blogs and message boards are no less credible or scientific than the US academic community. Elitism is counterproductive at best, but the real problem isn't that American academia is elitist, it's that it's objectively, demonstrably completely fuarrrking wrong on almost every political issue. Of course, there are honest people in academia who would speak out against feminist subversion of science, but they fear for their jobs and many times even their lives. Granted this is mostly a problem in the humanities, but even some STEM fields like biology have begun to see feminist infiltration. The problem with academia is that they aren't fuarrrking intellectuals at all. They don't do things like ensuring their claims are replicable or testable anymore, if they ever did in the first place. They're just a propaganda machine for the government.

>>5295 That's a just a list of things that suck about being male with you blaming it all on feminists. Replace "feminist" with "jew" and you have your next big hit on /p.l/

>>5308 Their problem, besides racism being bad in and of itself, is that it limits their perspective. They'd happily gas all the Jews and then be bewildered when white women continue the same soykafty behavior and white male politicians and businessmen keep screwing them over. They're nothing but useful idiots and paid corporate astroturfers trying to direct the discussion away from the real issues. Fortunately, pointing out that white identity has done nothing to remedy the above list of things feminists are responsible for is causing some of them to snap out of it. You want to get rid of the alt-right? /r9k/ is the best solution. The point is that not all boogeymen are equal. Some have a great deal more evidence for their existence than others. The boogeymen feminists cite (misogyny, rape, etc.) have been proven to be massively overblown and misdefined, while the boogeywomen that feminists collectively are is proven every day by their power to censor.

>>5306 >Prostitution was never an actual issue. It should be legal. Feminists derezzed it because it offers men access to sex through a route that isn't controlled by them, Nice theory. Doesn't explain why authoritarian male dominated societies like the Middle East have the most severe punishments for prostitution. Religious repression and men fearing the sexual liberation of women are much better explanations on why prostitution is so widely outlawed and only recently becoming approved and regulated in more liberal and less conservative countries. It might be the case that feminists are actively fighting legalization at the moment but it's been illegal for a *long* time. Women have had virtually zero power throughout history until very recently so blaming anything that happened more than 30 years ago on feminists is fuarrrking retarded. >>5309 >The point is that not all boogeymen are equal. No, the point is blaming all your problems on an abstract group of people with zero evidence is retarded. Your boogeyman cannot be more legit than someone else's boogeyman. By definition all boogeymen are equally invalid.

>>5310 >Nice theory. Doesn't explain why authoritarian male dominated societies like the Middle East have the most severe punishments for prostitution. >Religious repression and men fearing the sexual liberation of women are much better explanations on why prostitution is so widely outlawed and only recently becoming approved and regulated in more liberal and less conservative countries. Just because feminism has played a key part in getting prostitution derezzed in the West doesn't mean they're the only ones who ever tried to ban it. Feminism virtually doesn't exist in the Islamic world, but the desire of the authorities to control sexuality is still there. The elites want all the girls for themselves, and they want guys to be angry and sexually repressed so they can be duped into being cannon fodder for imperialist wars. Thus banning prostitution makes sense for them. >It might be the case that feminists are actively fighting legalization at the moment but it's been illegal for a *long* time. Women have had virtually zero power throughout history until very recently so blaming anything that happened more than 30 years ago on feminists is fuarrrking retarded. Feminism started more than 100 years ago, as early as the 1880s. Your idea about religious repression is explained in the West by the fact that feminists have frequently allied with religious fundamentalists because they're the same on 90% of the issues.

>>5311 >feminism has played a key part in getting prostitution derezzed in the West When exactly do you think this happened? >Feminism started more than 100 years ago, as early as the 1880s Suffrage didn't happen until 1920. You are saying women couldn't even vote in elections but they somehow got prostitution outlawed? Dubious. >Your idea about religious repression is explained in the West by the fact that feminists have frequently allied with religious fundamentalists More likely the religious fundamentalists who founded the US and have held government ever since outlawed prostitution on "moral" grounds and feminism had nothing to do with it.

>>5312 >When exactly do you think this happened? Already stated, more than 100 years ago. >Suffrage didn't happen until 1920. You are saying women couldn't even vote in elections but they somehow got prostitution outlawed? Dubious. You don't need to vote to threaten your husband with a lack of sex. He'll vote whichever way you want. That's how Prohibition happened. Read about the Women's Christian Temperance Union. >More likely the religious fundamentalists who founded the US and have held government ever since outlawed prostitution on "moral" grounds and feminism had nothing to do with it. The US was founded by deists. The Treaty of Tripoli stipulates that the US government isn't Christian. You can talk about the Great (re)Awakening and how those types of events reflect on the American public, but the government never did anything for religious reasons. Everything they do is about gaining more power by making the laws as restrictive as they can. Religion and morality were only ever pretexts. When that became played out, they just kept on doing the same things under the banner of feminism, and Americans followed right along because Americans are controlling cunts in general. But more importantly, there's this part: >have held government ever since Were you kept in a cryosleep tube for the last decade or did you just trip and fall into a time portal from 2000-2008? George W. Bush isn't the president anymore and hasn't been for a long fuarrrking time. I know liberals love to pretend to be fighting the power, but liberals have had cultural hegemony and media control for decades. As it turns out, this is exactly why the media doesn't allow certain views to be questioned. Liberals are the establishment. Right-wing fundies are just the distraction they throw out there to keep you from looking at the guy behind the curtain.

>>5306 >doubleplusungood wrongthink Literally did you fuarrrking read the book at all? Do you honestly think Orwell was referring to left-wing groups in that book? Are you braindead? >Nah, I'll just go to a country where everything fun is actually legal instead of a repressive soykafhole where even the so-called progressives are reactionary cunts So...what exactly that's "fun" is illegal here, sexually speaking? The only thing that you can make that case for is being gay, in which case I'm sorry, feminists were a really, really big helping hand in fixing that one. Do you think prostitutes will do something other than steal your money? Do you just wish it was legal to fuarrrking grope women again? There's nothing I can think of that isn't absolutely repulsive that would make you want to do this. And heads up, that's illegal in your fantasy-land, too. Even places that really don't respect women as human beings at all like to ban groping people. You're still allowed to do bdsm or any amount of straight up violent sex you want as long as its consensual. And surely you're not planning on having a rape dungeon. >I have this little thing you might need to know about called biology I am 100% that you're trolling but you're extremely good at it so I'll keep biting. We're humans and not animals? The biological impulse is the one saying to get pregnant and have kids that grow up to have kids and take care of me. That requires a stable relationship, which is gonna have to be built on mutual love and respect. If you constantly seek out prostitutes while married, you're not exactly practicing mutual love. The reason we built all of these complex rituals on top of what's realistically just a way to reproduce is because we live an absurdly long time for an animal and we're pretty smart. This is a very, very old idea and even when men were 100% in power the idea "rape and adultery are bad" was very, very common. Love doesn't mean anything if one side is coerced into it. It's not wrong to think a woman is hot, but it is wrong to tell her that and then be mad when she assumes you're hitting on her (which if you're telling her that you are 99% of the time) and rejects you. It is wrong to treat people as sex objects, I don't see what's controversial about that opinion, and furthermore, how extending that thinking to cover that normalizing having a huge hunk of plastic that looks like a terrifying simulacrum of a human being that you do nothing but fuarrrk is an overall bad thing. >This is a problem with the economic system. It has nothing to do with feminism. Feminism is about the role of women in the world, and the economy is part of that world. So yeah, it kinda does have to do with feminism. Women and economics are entirely inseparable, just as men and economics are. Even then, my point was that if you're an anti-feminist because of the traditional family stance, you might consider looking at the ways the right keeps trying to turn you into a worker drone constantly generating profit for your masters rather than feminists trying to say that maybe we shouldn't be destroying 100,000 years of sexual conditioning that says sex is between humans. >Prostitution was never an actual issue. It should be legal. Go watch porn and cry about it :) >Prejudice doesn't mean "opinions I don't like." If your opinions that I didn't like weren't actively hateful, I wouldn't be like this. >Feminists have no ideals beyond their own selfish desires and no real interests or hobbies, either You have apparently met very few feminists. Do you act like this in real life? I definitely have some ideas why feminists might not play nice with you if you act like this much of a pathetic asshole in public. >when [feminists] want to censor dissent, which is always Again, I'm 100% you're trolling because this is too good >You should talk to feminists about their dildos sometime. Does a dildo have a face? Are there large scale plans to produce $4500 dildos that act as companions to lonely people? No. That is what a sex robot is. It's a monument to a human failing. There's nothing about those things that don't scream "I am extremely mentally ill and am using this as a very bad substitute for seeing a psychiatrist". >this discussion is about the left's problems Oh believe me there's dozens, but they're more about sectarianism and difficulty in seeing eye to eye. But even Marxists-Leninists understand, at least superficially, that liberation of women is important to building a better society. The right is fundamentally opposed to any real discussion of gender based issues. If you bring up ways of solving issues that disproportionately hit men, they hate all the solutions. Men make up something like 90% of workplace deaths, but when do men's rights groups push for union rights to fix this? Or push for increased budgets in high schools to work on fixing the falling graduation rates of young men? I've seen this precisely once, and even then I see it mostly from far-left groups. >When have I said anything against gender equality? When you said you were against feminism? Isn't that what this entire argument is about? >to be honest their blogs and message boards are no less credible or scientific than the US academic community JUST >liberals have had cultural hegemony and media control for decades You're so incredibly close to synthesizing leftist thought it's incredible but your so fixated on your basic hedonism that you'll never get there

What do you all think about the more general question of personifying AI systems? I'm undecided. Thing is, I don't actually like voice controlled tech to begin with. The only case I can think of where I'd potentially use it is in the car, and in that situation I would prefer it to just be precise and dumb... like an automated call center bot. "Navigate to X"... "Look up business hours at Y"... "Search for liquor stores near my location"... stuff like that. I don't need it to say "Ok Anon! I've found 10 places to buy beer near you! Where would you like to go?". I don't need it to have funny quips. It's a user-machine interface. IMO, the personification just comes across as forced and patronizing. Some of this is probably because the personalities these companies try to build into the things seem to be based on "that chick you met in college who models her social interactions on things she sees in Friends". On the other hand, trying to build an "AI friend" sounds like a really interesting project. AI is getting to the point where it's DIY enough to be approached as a programming and artistic challenge. What I'm trying to say is I want an AI demoscene.

>>5318 Not that guy. >You have apparently met very few feminists Why should anyone meet feminists, they are cunts. They are attention seekers who'll do anything for mere attention. >I definitely have some ideas why feminists might not play nice with you Who gives a flying fuarrrk anyway? I am 20 and already fuarrrked 4 of these cunts. All of them have some family issues. It's funny though they think the world is against them, they have special problems which society and men in general don't simply understand. >Prostitution was never an actual issue. It should be legal Saying prostitution is derezzed is like saying drugs are derezzed yet you can find it in every god damn corner of the world. >Are there large scale plans to produce $4500 dildos that act as companions to lonely people? Hey, it is my money and I can do whatever with it and mate, they are not companions...they are here to entertain masters which in my opinion save a lot of time. >liberation of women is important to building a better society. Realize that to live is to struggle. Nature is inherently fascist. Really internalize this truth in your being and actions. In the end the Natural Order will always prevail. The modern world is a world that goes completely against nature and the results are telling. It's tearing itself apart. Nevertheless you as an individual can always choose to go against the flow and struggle and persevere while the rest of society rots and withers away. It's not an easy path, but you go on because you know that you are in the right and that in the end you will be vindicated. Women are just a gas that fills whatever social container you put them in. They specially white women age like milk. fuarrrk them when they're in their prime and dump them whey they start show tantrum. Marry Asian wife and start a family. If it's too much for you then buy these dolls and fuarrrk them.

>>5295 >Banning prostitution Why the fuarrrk banning prostitution effects anyone unless you're crying incel beta. I think men should give credit to feminist because of them women have liberated and you can just pump and dump them. Men are keys, women are locks, women should protect what they have locked up for the right key, and guy should be trying to open every lock they can. >divorce laws that always favor the woman >disparity in legal sentencing between men and women which punishes women less for the same crime Get your ass out there, improve yourself, and find ways to "cheat the system", or, continue sitting on your fat ass, complaining about things and being generally miserable for the rest of your existence. >belittling and trying to take attention away from those who point out that men's suicide rate is greater than it is for women Women have no authority over men and never will. Just because the vast majority of media supports women doesn't mean that women can soykaf over men whenever they want. >making false rape accusations almost guaranteed to get a conviction with no evidence and no repercussions for the woman when the accusation turns out to be false. No soykaf! This phenomenon is changing now. Thanks to all false rape accusations, women are seen as actual threat now and men in general are becoming more aware.

>>5324 >>5323 >>5318 >ALL OF YOU IMPLYING THAT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE NO MORE THAN PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN GENITALS I think people seem to misunderstand the difference between lust and love. for that matter, if society is no more advanced than a pack of animals in the wild, why would you expect it to behave better than a pack of animals in the wild. if we consider the nuances and cultural customs that previously dictated male-female interactions, you would be able to see that society as a whole has actually regressed. mankind is literally going from a complicated courting rituals to >me have big dick will fuarrrk many womin >swipe left/right to indicate your attraction to another human being If im not mistaken 1/3 relationships nowadays start online the problem is that social structures that were conducive to healthy relationships have been broken down by peoples ability to simulate connections with others over the internet. >Need a friend? have facebook >nobody listens to what you say? tweet about it >see something cool and want to show the world? have instagram the idea of love is that it is an enduring feeling based on mutual respect. when men see women as holes and women see men as warm flesh dildos, there is no enduing feeling of respect, people just see other people for their practical use. that's where both sjw femnazis and incels go wrong YOU ARE ALL HUMANS, CREATURES THAT TOOK THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT IN SOCIETY. society did not progress because of a lust based industry of human reproduction, population grows because of it, but it does not progress... it progressed because people respected one another and cared to act in the best interests of their mutual future and indirectly that of their offspring.

>>5323 >All of them have some family issues Who doesn't? >Hey, it is my money and I can do whatever with it and mate Doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you over it and I have hope that other people will also judge those people en masse to the point where owning one of those things would be social suicide. >Realize that to live is to struggle Well...yeah. But I would rather help you struggle less through automation and sharing than I'd like to laugh at you when you inevitably fall down, too. This isn't a gender thing at all, we're all humans and our big strength, evolutionarily speaking, is cooperation. Every big thing that separates us from animals is about compassion. Why would I give up helping my friends and being helped by them in favor of a frankly miserable existence where all I can feel is behind? We have some agency here, if nothing else to keep on living and improving the world around us. >The modern world is a world that goes completely against nature and the results are telling Again, not directly wrong. I think we disagree on what part of modernity is bad, though. There are societal problems, but I somehow doubt these will be solved by suppressing feminist speech. Besides, there's nothing terrifically manly about competing in the modern world. You benefit immeasurably from hundreds of faceless men who laid the roads and those who built the buildings you live in. Even if you manage to get really, really rich, you'd owe it to your mom and dad and your friends and thousands of software developers... it makes no sense to pretend to be entirely self contained. You live on the laurels of others whether you want to or not. It just makes no sense to not take this into account.

>>5325 >I think people seem to misunderstand the difference between lust and love. I don't believe so. What you called lust in modern times is actually stress relieving mechanism which works fine for both men and women. And I bet my ass feminist will also feel good if they can get laid once in a while. Imo love is something divine which can only be possible between certain relationships i.e, mother and child, brothers, soldiers, etc. If you apply love in relationship between a man and a woman, it will be purged with money, ego's and eventually one gender taking advantage of another.

>>5326 >suppressing feminist speech I'm all in for feminism and soykaf if it benefits me. But we can clearly see it has done nothing but degraded the core values of women and yes, I am happy because I am a miserable prick who can get laid meanwhile playing with their emotions without taking any responsibility, thanks to feminism. At the same time I am worried how all of this will play out. What if I have a daughter and she fells for same dogma as today's women. The issue today is that though women have it better than men by all metrics, this more-recent extremism is ruining society. It is anti-woman and anti-man.

>>5329 Funny how feminists will run to the dictionary to argue that ‘feminism’ is about equality but shy away from analyzing what a root word and a suffix add up to. And let’s assume that feminism DOES mean ‘equality’. Fine. Now it’s up to every so called ‘feminist’ to prove they measure up. The problem is, very very few of them do measure up.

>>5338 >s4mef4ggotry Begone THOT!!!

>>5350 You confirm it.

>>5355 stop replying to yourself and creating manufactured drama just to bump this thread

>>5357 I bumped thread by using sage? Go back to 4chan.

>>5359 you are continuing the conversation you are the culprit to bumping sage isn't a downvote, stop using it like that

>>5363 > downvote My mistake, it's reddit not 4chan you need to return to. Everyone here knows exactly what sage is for.

>>5269 I am a feminist. >>5271 >Imagine if we had male robot slaves, enacting the "perfect male ideal" If you think sexbots are the perfect female ideal then I don't know what to say to you. Any rational human can distinguish between reality and fiction. Playing violent video games doesn't make you more violent in real life because it is fiction. If I like sexbots with oversized breasts or whatever, I'm not going to conflate that with real life human women, and I understand that the relationship is obviously going to be very different between human+object vs human+human. Some may say it is objectifying women, but in fact it's the opposite, it's woman-ifying an object. There is essentially no difference between a sexbot and a sculpture with a dildo taped on it. You're not gonna mistake either one for a real person. >sexbots are bad for social relations between sexes could you elaborate on why you think that? I'm curious.

I tried to post this reply once but apparently it was too long, so it'll be in two parts. >>5318 >Literally did you fuarrrking read the book at all? Do you honestly think Orwell was referring to left-wing groups in that book? Are you braindead? Yes, he was, despite being a socialist himself. 1984 was written to critique the problems he had with his fellows on the left. Of course, Orwellian tactics aren't exclusive to either side. >So...what exactly that's "fun" is illegal here, sexually speaking? Prostitution, polygamy, and particularly sexual relationships between adults and teenagers, which is legal in the vast majority of countries, countries where no one reports any of the problems feminists allege about it supposedly creating psychological trauma because these problems were made up out of thin air by feminist sex police and it isn't fuarrrking rape. I'll put a paragraph break here so you can have your inevitable conniption fit of triggering that someone questioned your supposed right to control other people's bedrooms. Got all the foaming at the mouth out of your system yet? No? Well, whatever. Feminists don't have the moral or scientific authority to decide that someone shouldn't be allowed to participate in a relationship they want, and for them to do so is the worst abuse of individual rights in history and goes against human biology which has wired guys to seek out the most attractive and fertile girls i.e. 14-16 girls. But that sort of thing is par for the course for feminism, because feminism has always been a "let's take away your freedoms for your own good" ideology. Of course, why would feminists who've explicitly stated that you should believe all rape accusations without evidence need any evidence to call it rape when they're jealous that an adult guy had sex with a teenage girl who's much more attractive than adult feminists? I bolded that because it's something that anyone who hasn't thought about before really needs to consider. Feminists have always called anything that triggers them rape, mainly when it poses sexual competition for them as teen girls do more than anyone or anything else. Also, sexbots will probably be added to this list of illegal things very soon. Oh, and before you even say that this is one of those repulsive things you were talking about, "repulsive" also doesn't mean "anything I don't like." You aren't the universe's supreme authority on which sexual acts or relationships are consensual or acceptable, and you and the rest of the feminist cunts who act exactly like religious fundamentalists in this regard need to learn that. >You're still allowed to do bdsm or any amount of straight up violent sex you want as long as its consensual. As stated above, feminists have, for their own selfish reasons, narrowed the definition of consent to exclude people who are not only perfectly capable of it but who are often far more capable of it than feminists, because being smarter than feminists isn't a difficult task. I've even seen them try to use "sexbots can't give consent" as a basis for outlawing them, but that falls apart when you realize that even a non-sapient sexbot is more capable of consent than feminists. Feminists have less capacity to consent than anyone because they're profoundly immature, as evidenced by their childish desire to bar disagreement from being voiced. No robot has ever tried to censor me. The same can't be said for feminists. >It is wrong to treat people as sex objects You can think it's as wrong as you want. It doesn't give you justification to outlaw something that doesn't hurt anyone, whether it's between humans alone or between humans and machines, and it certainly doesn't give you justification to forge false evidence to pretend that someone is being hurt and censor people who call out your obviously fake evidence for being obviously fake. >you might consider looking at the ways the right keeps trying to turn you into a worker drone constantly generating profit for your masters I've looked at such ways extensively. Why you keep assuming that I'm wearing a MAGA hat and jerking it to a picture of Trump while typing this is a mystery. >rather than feminists trying to say that maybe we shouldn't be destroying 100,000 years of sexual conditioning that says sex is between humans. Feminists have destroyed millions of years of sexual conditioning which says that sex between adults and teenagers is perfectly healthy, natural and harmless, they had absolutely no evidence to justify doing this, and they've censored anyone who points this out because they know their claims can't stand up to reasoned criticism. You trying to talk about humans' historical sexual mores is beyond hypocritical in light of that. >Go watch porn and cry about it :) This is rich. When you asked for an example of feminist tyranny, you're given an example of it - several examples, in fact - and then you backpedal with "lol cry moar" and somehow have the fuarrrking audacity to pretend to wonder why people hate feminism. It's got nothing to do with the traditional family structure, or whatever stereotypes you idiots ascribe to anti-feminists. It's because you constantly act like domineering, slanderous assholes. But more generally, this act is one that Americans do every time someone points out that they have objectively less freedom in many respects than many other countries. I've seen conversations in that vein many times before and they tend to go like this: >"It sure is great to be an American because nobody's got more freedom than we do!" >"But what about (thing 1), (thing 2), and (thing 3) which are illegal in America but legal in other places?" >"LOL why would you want to do any of those things, they don't matter! You shouldn't want freedoms I don't approve of, because God came down on a fluffy white cloud one day and said that I get to decide for everyone else what freedom is! You're just a loser neckbeard predator MRA incel virgin rapist misogynist gamergater!" *passes laws banning things 4 through 378,000* >"fuarrrk you." >"LOL you're just jealous of our freedom! Yup, we're totally free! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!" Americans do this on a wide range of issues which isn't limited to sexuality at all, and frankly it's become incredibly fuarrrking tiresome. It's not your fuarrrking business to decide what someone else should want to do, you fat, stupid fuarrrking lardassed landwhales.

>>5372 >>5318 cont. >If your opinions that I didn't like weren't actively hateful, I wouldn't be like this. I haven't said anything hateful towards women, though, only very specific groups of women, groups which also happen to include male feminist enablers. As you can see, my disgust is perfectly egalitarian. Or am I not allowed to say that any woman is behaving wrongly anymore? Am I now expected to support the Wicked Witch of the West because of her genitalia? >You have apparently met very few feminists. Do you act like this in real life? Yes, I do, and it accomplishes its goal very effectively. That goal is to keep feminists away because all the feminists I've met up to this point have been the most self-righteous, insufferable, retarded fuarrrkwits imaginable and I'm not interested in meeting any more of them. >I definitely have some ideas why feminists might not play nice with you if you act like this much of a pathetic asshole in public. You mean because feminists don't like hearing the truth? >Again, I'm 100% you're trolling because this is too good You think I'm trolling when I say feminists want to censor dissent? Just look at the media frenzy that gets directed at anyone who questions feminism. Or, if you don't want to go that far, then head over to >>>/r/5694 and read the lengthy argument about the Rind et al. controversy in which feminists did exactly that and got away with it, and continue to do so. They're currently censoring the Wikipedia article about it by banning anyone who thinks American age of consent laws are too strict from speaking. Then again, being full of feminist bullsoykaf is a chronic problem for Wikipedia which is by no means limited to this, and it's why Wikipedia has lost a lot of credibility lately right along with the academic community, because being politicized as they are, they have basically the same level of reliability. >Does a dildo have a face? Are there large scale plans to produce $4500 dildos that act as companions to lonely people? No. That is what a sex robot is. It's a monument to a human failing. There's nothing about those things that don't scream "I am extremely mentally ill and am using this as a very bad substitute for seeing a psychiatrist". Psychiatrists are mostly just glorified drug dealers who dress up soykafty American opinions as science. They exist to maintain the social status quo, not to solve problems. Psychologists are the same way, minus the drugs. Maybe some psychologists out there are legit, but you're not likely to find one in the US. >But even Marxists-Leninists understand, at least superficially, that liberation of women is important to building a better society. Women have already been liberated. This is a complete non-issue. As a matter of fact, they've mostly been the ones stopping others from being liberated by calling everything they don't like rape, misogyny and harassment. >Men make up something like 90% of workplace deaths, but when do men's rights groups push for union rights to fix this? Or push for increased budgets in high schools to work on fixing the falling graduation rates of young men? I've seen this precisely once, and even then I see it mostly from far-left groups. This is the only part of your post that has any merit, and surprise surprise, it's the only part that has nothing to do with feminism. MRA groups haven't spent enough time taking corporate corruption into account, but that's probably because the issues you're talking about here aren't exclusive to men. However, the worker safety concerns tend to affect male-dominated jobs the most. >When you said you were against feminism? Feminism and equality couldn't be more different from each other. Feminism is nothing but a gender supremacist movement. >JUST Wow, what an astonishingly informative, thorough rebuttal. This truly exemplifies the level of thought that I've come to expect from American academia. The last sentence wasn't a joke, by the way. >You're so incredibly close to synthesizing leftist thought it's incredible but your so fixated on your basic hedonism that you'll never get there After having sampled what you have to offer, I have no doubt that my knowledge of both left-wing and right-wing thought vastly exceeds yours, not that this is hard to accomplish. I'm not ignorant of the fatal failings of the capitalist system, but the left is full of authoritarian, puritanical, lynch mob idiots right now, and that doesn't look like it's going to be changing anytime soon. Therefore, those of us who want to have a rational, uncensored discussion of sexual issues don't want to be part of the left.

>>5317 >Already stated, more than 100 years ago. No, you said "feminism" started over 100 years ago. Prostitution was made illegal a long time before that so it couldn't have anything to do with the feminism movement. >You don't need to vote to threaten your husband with a lack of sex. If this was such an effective tactic, why didn't women use it to get more important rights like suffrage? Instead they waste their hidden power of doing things just to inconvenience men? This is /p.l/ grade conspiracy bullsoykaf. I'm not going to dignify with a bump.

>>5372 >1984 was written to critique the problems he had with his fellows on the left You know what this is fair. However, he was 100% not referring to his desire to bang 14 year olds. He was referring to his desire to not be killed for being against Stalin. >Prostitution, polygamy, and particularly sexual relationships between adults and teenagers The age of consent in most places is between 16 and 18. How much lower do you want to go? Would you want to be part of a harem led by a woman? Is polygamy really desirable outside of a fantasy? I mean I can kinda see the appeal as a fantasy but actually playing it out doesn't seem like it'd go well for anyone involved. It's like the polyamorous thing, jealousy is pretty natural. My point here is that there's nothing you actively lose by not being able to buy a girl to sleep with you. If we were past capitalism, and prostitutes weren't nearly always some poor girl trying to make ends meet, then I'd agree: prostitution would be fine. But even then, would you get anything out of it? It's packaged interaction. Maybe I just don't understand the appeal of buying a prostitute, but it seems like you wouldn't get anything useful out of it. >It doesn't give you justification to outlaw something that doesn't hurt anyone I'm not really arguing they be derezzed. I'm arguing we keep our attitudes on them so overwhelmingly negative that anyone who owned one would be ridiculed until they threw it out for scrap. Banning them would only result in the same thing prohibition created. What I'm hoping is that enough people agree with me and hate these things for the fact that they encourage the kind of thinking that says it's okay or even admirable to spend thousands of dollars on masturbating alone. >When you asked for an example of feminist tyranny, you're given an example of it - several examples, in fact Tell me again how not being allowed to exploit someone's poverty to satisfy your insane sex drive is a bad thing? >Yes, I do, and it accomplishes its goal very effectively. Incredible. >Psychiatrists are mostly just glorified drug dealers... Some definitely are, but I've also seen some of my friends go from nervous wrecks to very functional people with the help of therapy and medication. I do agree that there's a problem of overprescription (particularly for ADHD it seems like), but at the same time I've seen too much success of professional psychiatric helping with my friends to say it's completely worthless. There are men out there who struggle with those feelings of loneliness, and I guarantee you that enabling their continued withdrawal from society isn't going to save them. It's going to make them worse. >Women have already been liberated Although I think Hillary was an insane war criminal, I saw people bring up the fact that she was a woman before her history of war crimes to discredit her. That alone screams problem to me. What about the fact that computer science is 4:1 male:female in industry? There's still a long way to go with real equity and feminist movements have a good history of helping get there. >>5380 >Instead they waste their hidden power of doing things just to inconvenience men? Also a very good point.

>>5381 >What about the fact that computer science is 4:1 male:female in industry? Nursing is 1:10 male:female. What's your point?

>>5382 If medicine as a whole was a 1:10 ratio or just web development or systems programming were 4:1, I'd agree. This isn't an anomaly in one part of the industry, women in STEM fields do face challenges more than men related to gender. Medicine from what I've heard also has rather few women in leadership positions, so I think it's more that nursing is a historically female position more than anti-male bias in medicine as a whole. There is an anti male nurse bias though I agree.

>>5383 >There is an anti male nurse bias though I agree. No there isn't. The fact is women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things. Countries with a close male female ratio in engineering are places where women are basically forced into it. The thing that dumb feminists don't understand is that fewer women in STEM is a *symbol of their freedom*.

>>5382 I'm actually posting from a hospital library and I can assure you, the ratio of male to female nurses is higher than 1:10 in this place. Some male patients are more comfortable with male nurses for the more, uh, intimate stuff. Some female patients like them too but for a different reason. I don't your bias is really a thing anymore.

>>5383 >women in STEM fields do face challenges more than men related to gender. Yup, you're absolutely right. Women should be given mandatory leave from work during their periods because one bad period can result in severe cramps which can affect quality of the code. In addition to doing that women should be given more respect because women deserves more respect than men in general as men are brought into this world by women. And last I've personally seen this issue when women speaks no one takes them seriously so we should pass a law until women finishes her speech no one should talk and everyone should obey what women says because 'Men are very slow, they take time to understand what women are saying. On the contrary women are quick and they respond spontaneously and wittily'.

>>5388 > I'm an angsty virgin

>>596 There are people who fall in love with inanimate objects. I wouldn't think it too far out there to assume that an equal amount, or slightly higher amount of people, would fall in love with sex robots with sophisticated AI. But I agree that it would be a rare occurrence. >>618 I think you're already romanticizing the AI a bit, albeit in a different sense of the word. The argument is the same "It's wrong to use [technology] to do ___ because ___ is demeaning because it's not [logical|beautiful|purposeful|moral] enough to dedicate such technology to" argument people have used for centuries regarding new technologies and it's basically, "stop doing what I don't like." >>5261 >I'm sorry man but nothing is going to make the phrase "open source/libre sex robot" any less terrifying precisely because it's a sex robot. There's no possible way to make this thing not a hideous monument to a person's failure to generally live a normal life. My ex and I once discussed this and decided that if AI sex bots became sophisticated and viable enough for us, we'd have a threesome with one. I know the stereotypical view of sex robots is, "that's for rich nerds who can't talk to girls," but I think it'd see good use in kinky couples, too. Also, I would prefer an open source/libre sex bot because then I could program it to do funny stuff and whenever someone says, "You bought a sex robot?" I can say, "Yeah, it's open source so I can actually program the robot and that's fuarrrking cool as hell, so I had to get it. Today, I'm feeding the chatbot engine scripts from the Dilbert TV show so that its personality can emulate Dogbert's next time we fuarrrk, and tomorrow I'm gonna install Arch Linux on it." >>5273 Bitter, much? >You have to understand that basically everything feminists have ever done is for the purpose of eliminating competition from sources of sexual satisfaction that offer a better deal for men. Just name a policy feminists support, any policy at all, and it can be traced back to that. Modern feminism, although divided, seems to mostly be in favor of sex work. Legal prostitutes, legal camwhoring, and a push to not shame those involved in sex work. Legal prostitutes = more sexual competition. >>5277 >As strange as it may sound, /r9k/-ish sentiment is becoming increasingly popular even among average citizens. Like it or not, American women in general have behaved horribly and deserve to be called out for it. Other countries' women mostly don't have this problem, so it's not a dig against all women. >If you're the male feminist poster above, you probably live in an area full of such people. Naturally, guys in those areas won't talk about the truth. This my first post in this thread, but I live in a conservative state in the South where the amount of people (including women) who believe woman's place is in the kitchen and not at any job besides nursing and teaching is still high. The feminist presence here is remarkably low, especially in some of the smaller towns, and I still do not hear people espousing the /r9k/-style nonsense IRL. About half the women I hang out with cringe when people claim to be feminists, and the men here are just as dismissive of feminism, but nobody takes it to the level of r9k's "supreme gentlemen"-esque nonsense. You just get, "equal rights is fine but the wage gap is a myth," style critic. Although, I have even heard a couple of women proclaim, "I don't care about equal rights or equal pay, I'm living just fine as it is." Also, if you really want to find an /r9k/-approved cute virgin waifu who wants nothing more than to be a stay-at-home wife and fetch her manly husband a beer every night, come to the Bible Belt. There's plenty of them. >>5295 Most of what you just mentioned isn't popular in mainstream feminism anymore. Feminists nowadays are usually in favor of legalizing and de-stigmatizing sex work, consider unfair divorce laws and disparity in legal sentencing to be unjust results of a systematically sexist system, and want to de-stigmatize the act of men seeking help after being abused and men reporting abuse. Nobody wants false rape accusations to lead to convictions, women just don't want to be worried they're going to be treated like soykaf when they report a rape. I used to think that was silly, but I've known a fair amount of women who were actually, "genuinely," raped, with solid evidence, and they still caught a lot of flack for bringing it to court. Seeing that stuff happen to friends of mine firsthand, I think it's reasonable to say, "If someone reports a rape, don't be a fuarrrking dick, even if you don't believe them. Let the courts handle it." >>5280 I lol'd. Good joke, lain, now I know how I'm gonna fap tonight.

>>5380 >Prostitution was made illegal a long time before that so it couldn't have anything to do with the feminism movement. Religious fundamentalists pushed for it as well. Whenever religion isn't around and the sex laws are strict, check for feminists, and vice versa. >If this was such an effective tactic, why didn't women use it to get more important rights like suffrage? Why are you assuming they've never used it that way? Ever heard of Lysistrata? It was around long before the US was. And the main reason suffrage didn't come sooner was because women assumed it came with the obligation to serve in the draft. >>5381 >You know what this is fair. However, he was 100% not referring to his desire to bang 14 year olds. He was referring to his desire to not be killed for being against Stalin. So therefore it's ok to kill someone for wanting to bang 14-year-olds because that's unrelated to being against Stalin? They're actually very slightly too young for my taste, but there are plenty of guys above 18 for whom this is not the case. Why should they have to fear being killed for satisfying a desire which is very often shared by the 14-year-olds themselves? I guarantee you there are many on the "progressive" left who would kill them even if they didn't act on it, and these people are virtually always the most fanatical feminists. I'd expect those same people to want to kill guys for owning sexbots, or even just in general. >The age of consent in most places is between 16 and 18. How much lower do you want to go? It should be set at the lowest level of the age bracket that most people find most attractive. 14 would be fine, but I don't want this thread to be derailed into that. If you want to have a long discussion about this, there's the other thread. >Would you want to be part of a harem led by a woman? Is polygamy really desirable outside of a fantasy? I mean I can kinda see the appeal as a fantasy but actually playing it out doesn't seem like it'd go well for anyone involved. It's like the polyamorous thing, jealousy is pretty natural. Personally no, I don't want to have or be in a harem, but there's no good reason to ban it. >My point here is that there's nothing you actively lose by not being able to buy a girl to sleep with you. If we were past capitalism, and prostitutes weren't nearly always some poor girl trying to make ends meet, then I'd agree: prostitution would be fine. But even then, would you get anything out of it? It's packaged interaction. Maybe I just don't understand the appeal of buying a prostitute, but it seems like you wouldn't get anything useful out of it. For me there isn't any appeal in it. All I've ever wanted is a meaningful, loving relationship with one special girl, but feminists have made that impossible by destroying the trust between men and women. >I saw people bring up the fact that she was a woman before her history of war crimes to discredit her. I find this difficult to believe. There are a million and one other reasons not to vote for Clinton and also to put Clinton in jail. As much as I thought and still think Trump is a retard, I legitimately hoped he'd actually follow through on his promise to jail her, but I know better than that. >What about the fact that computer science is 4:1 male:female in industry? What about it? Most women simply aren't interested in scientific careers. Why force it on them? It's good to make it known that they're welcome, but there's so much feminist politicization of science these days (and really ever since feminism came into being) that scientists are finding it hard to do their jobs. >There's still a long way to go with real equity and feminist movements have a good history of helping get there. You mean except for all the decidedly unequal things they've supported?

>>5390 >Feminists nowadays are usually in favor of legalizing and de-stigmatizing sex work, consider unfair divorce laws and disparity in legal sentencing to be unjust results of a systematically sexist system, and want to de-stigmatize the act of men seeking help after being abused and men reporting abuse. Where the fuarrrk do you live where feminists support any of this? At the very most, feminists favor not punishing the prostitutes themselves, but they still want the guys who see them to be punished, and even to increase the punishments for them. Feminists have never said one goddamn thing about preventing abuse of men, and the ones who do are scoffed at and often kicked out of feminism, therefore leading them to not be feminists anymore.

>>5392 like I said, I live in a conservative state in the southern USA, in the Bible Belt. But those have been common views of modern feminists for a while now, with some dissent (naturally). It's supported in the academic literature along with the general opinion voiced by most feminists. If you've not heard a feminist voice these opinions, you don't have a realistic grasp of modern feminism. That said, this is a thread about fuarrrking, befriending, and loving robots, not the tenants of feminism, sexual bias in certain fields, or whether or not feminists have ruined the world by pushing for age of consent laws and other policy, or what the fuarrrking ever else the past half of this thread has been derailed into discussing. There's no damn reason feminism needs to be discussed further. So to get somewhat back on topic: >Can partner robots improve the overall quality of life of their owners by interacting with them? For sure. Especially the elderly, I think. They get lonely and just need something to talk to. It'll be a great day when robots are sophisticated enough to act as caretakers with AI good enough to "listen" to the elderly's stories and talk back to them in meaningful ways. Old people hate having human caretakers because it's demeaning to them and obliterates their sense of independence. I think robotic caretaker partners would alleviate that. Children would also benefit from companion robots, and I think the generation that gets raised on robots with AI good enough to talk to them is going to have a different view of human-machine relationships than we do. I don't know in what ways it will be different, but I imagine growing up with a robotic friend would humanize robotic partners a good bit in their eyes. Also, somewhat related is the movie "Lars and the Real Girl." it's about a nice guy falling in love with a sex doll, and his community's reaction. I recommend it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

>>5391 > I guarantee you there are many on the "progressive" left who would kill them even if they didn't act on it If you can guarantee something that means you have proof.

>>5392 > Where the fuarrrk do you live where feminists support any of this? There is actually a milieu of sex workers who identify as feminist who are constantly debating with the Andrea Dworkin types. The feminists who are 100% anti-sex work hide their agenda behind misleading anti-trafficking rhetoric (misleading in that not all prostitutes have a pimp or are trafficked and the majority of human trafficking is not related to sex at all but farm labor, manufacturing and the like). Siouxsie Q is the most prominent voice in this, you can find her pretty much anywhere on the www (and fap to her porn too if you like).

>>5391 >So therefore it's ok to kill someone for wanting to bang 14-year-olds Yes? I'll shut up though cause there's a whole other thread for this and I don't wanna get into it. I'm gonna stop arguing in general here because we're obviously arguing from completely and fundamentally different viewpoints. I want security and you want pleasure. This is a fundamental divide in how we see the world and nothing I say is going to make you become a feminist, and similarly, nothing you say is going to make me not be one. We're going in circles here. We can agree on very little because we've both chosen to politicize sex except we've done it in fundamentally opposite ways and our general political positions are too far apart to have any meaningful disagreement. >>5395 I've met a few feminists who are sex-workers and favor decriminalization and legalization for a lot of the same reason people favor ending the war on drugs, in that it could make sex-work safer for sex-workers, which would be really good. Definitely safer than ruining someone's life for trying to make ends meet. >>5393 >Especially the elderly, I think I think companion and helper robots could do a lot for the elderly even outside of companionship. If you're old and homebound having something like a roomba is a really nice little commodity. And although I despise Alexa and the like, you really can't get simpler as far as an interface. I imagine someone who couldn't drive or had difficulty taking public transit and didn't know how to use a computer would be overjoyed to be able to just say "buy X, Y, and Z from stores A and B".

>>5396 There is more to the decriminalization perspective too, in that the current laws make it unsafe for clients as well as workers. There are many instances of someone showing up for what they believe are sexual services and find themselves the victim of an armed robbery instead. Obviously they don't call the police. Licensing prostitutes and making health checkups mandatory would work for everyone (oh, except the gangs and pimps who get away with all kinds of abuse nowadays).

>>5391 >Religious fundamentalists pushed for it as well. Whenever religion isn't around and the sex laws are strict, check for feminists, and vice versa. >religion isn't around So everywhere in that case? Are you aware of Occam's Razor? If you can explain what happened with [only religion] or [religion + feminists] then the former is statistically more likely. It doesn't matter how much the latter confirms your personal biases and politics. >Ever heard of Lysistrata? Ever heard of the Bible? I don't know, I thought we were just bringing up irrelevant works of fiction now >the main reason suffrage didn't come sooner was because women assumed it came with the obligation to serve in the draft. Suffrage didn't come sooner because women didn't have as much influence as your conspiracy theories predict. >So therefore it's ok to kill someone for wanting to bang 14-year-olds Oh god you're that autistic manchild from the pedo thread on /r/. No one is going to kill you for being a hebephile. Stop going on about it. Some people have real problems you know.

>>5398 >If you can explain what happened with [only religion] or [religion + feminists] then the former is statistically more likely. >neurosuggesting feminism isn't a religion >No one is going to kill you for being a hebephile. Except >>5396, apparently. This "lol stop being paranoid" soykaf falls flat when the other side is right here in the thread outright admitting that they want to kill people who hold opinions they don't like. And you're going to fuarrrking trust them not to ban sexbots due purely to personal feelings?

>>593 I might be alone in this, but I don't like this idea at all. I don't want to fuarrrk a doll. That's not a substitute for a fellow human being. There's more to a relationship than just sex. It's being with a person who LOVES you back. I know that won't be something I'll experience ever. No robot will ever make that feeling go away. I'm very happy to be alone and not need a robot.

>>5399 > the other side is right here in the thread outright admitting that they want to kill people who hold opinions they don't like ...wh- what?

As far as derails go, this one stuck surprisingly close to the original topic. > Person 1) "Hey, are people going to try to ban sexbots?" > Person 2) "Yes, and here's an example where feminists derezzed something for exactly the same reasons they're going to ban sexbots. They have massively Orwellian tendencies and can't be trusted." > Feminist) "There's no way we'd ever do that! Did you even read 1984?" > Person 2) "Yes, and you're acting exactly like it. Feminists have a long history of trying to destroy people for wrongthink and gain power for themselves at the expense of other people's rights." > Feminist) "No we don't! We're all about equality!" > Person 2) "Then why do you support (long list of anti-equality policies)?" > Feminist) "HAHA just kidding we are totally going to kill you for disagreeing with us! Cry more you MRA soykaflords! All hail SocJus! Big Sister is watching you!" No satire of feminists could possibly live up to the reality. Anyone who doesn't think /r9k/ is gaining support because of this is a damned fool. >>5401 Literally the very first non-quotation word of >>5396. Did you even read the thread?

>>5402 > Literally the very first non-quotation word of I see the nuances of human language are lost on you. Carry on incelling though (can I use that as a verb?). The gene pool will have to survive without you.

Thread locked because the soykaf isn't just brewing, it's overflowing on the counter top. It shouldn't be unreasonable to request people to disagree without attacking one another.