(untitled)

What's youe opinion of current state of politics in western countries such as Sweden, UK, Canada and now US? I think the guise of social equality and tolerance has been overtaken by people who want to incorporate a totalitarian governments with thoughcrimes and everyone being a personal state agent.

i live in one of those countries, you should take some time of the internet.

>>7706 >i live in one of those countries, you should take some time of the internet. It's not OP's fault. The days of uniform centralized propaganda are over. Technology makes it easy for power structures to trap people inside digital bubbles and manipulate them on a targeted, individual basis. As long as the elites can divide us across arbitrary lines and make us fight (antifa vs alt right, gamergate vs sjw etc.) then nobody has the time and resources to actually change anything. OP you think social justice and equality are the big enemy. They're not. You're just getting played.

>>7705 It's all meaningless. A 1000 years from now all this will be as meaningless as the dirt on the foot of an ant today.

>>7710 Well, if it's meaningless then how come the elites keep pushing this? If it is meaningless how come radical minded people rejoice this? If it is meaningless then people wouldn't care enough to push for this, no?

>>7706 I have a lot of pictures and examples of media and politicians pushing for hardcore radical left ideas with increasing state power. You living in the country I have proof of thid happening doesn't negate the proof nor does me getting information from online mean I am getting it from biased sources. Do you have a rebuttal or? You can see the picture of OP showing you the kind of totalitarian propaganda in the UK under the disguise of tolerance and good authority knowing what is best. This was just an example.

>>7709 The creation of information bubbles is purely big social media corporations decision, not inherint feature of internet. I would say that internet allowed as a whole for easier and faster charing and clashing of information, big corporations want to stiffle that for profit and advertisement goals.And even now, when I try to present a somewhat different idea to lainchan as a whole you guys just reply with dismissing and condescending "you dont know what you are talking about" , "you are getting played" instead of arguing and challenging these ideas head on. It seems to me that part of the information bubble is the community itself that stiffle any different type of discussion. If I am getting played, as you say I am then how come a lot of western countries flops have been on the issues that have come about from social justice and equality? To have quotas for diverse hirring means you hire not on basis of someones merit, immediately lowering the skills of your workforce. To allow undocumented migrants coming from war torn countries (without any screening to see if they are war criminals or what else) is inherently lowering sanctity and autonomy of your countries security. And I am not talking about this stuff as if I am making it up as a hypothetical, but as a clear example of what happened in the past 3 or 4 years.

>>7711 >>7705 This is the same thing as nazis in germany, communists in ussr,... . Kids indoctrinated through the education system to doctrine-driven adults used as a tool for social change that will happily step even on their own parents. What you observe is just your generations flavour of a repeating sheme. Looking at past examples the convinced people didn't even see an error when it all crashed down and their own families were killed. Therefore i don't believe you can fix the current generation. You either indoctrinate the next one in a better direction or let it all rot further. Considering how it's not organic but orchestrated with funding one has to question the goal behind of course but i don't think that's too important. The important question for you as an inidividual is where can you go to escape the soykafstorm.

>>7713 >The creation of information bubbles is purely big social media corporations decision, not inherint feature of internet. That's wrong. The tailored content pushed by websites big enough to keep personal profiles on visitors is only half the story. The other half comes from the way people can close a tab the instant they encounter an idea they don't like and only chase content which avoids triggering cognitive dissonance. >when I try to present a somewhat different idea to lainchan as a whole you guys just reply with dismissing and condescending To be fair your OP has zero evidence, discussion or any real content. I'm surprised a mod hasn't blue texted it. >To have quotas for diverse hirring means you hire not on basis of someones merit, immediately lowering the skills of your workforce. Companies virtue signal the fuarrrk out of diversity but in reality they're not compromising profit for anything. You are just getting fooled by public relations and people who want to exploit you as an ideological soldier.. >To allow undocumented migrants ... is inherently lowering sanctity and autonomy of your countries security. In what way? In the past 15-20 years we've gone from planes smashing into buildings and bombs on the tube to random idiots running one or two people over then getting the soykaf kicked out of them by football hooligans. Objectively speaking life in the west is much safer now than in the past. >And I am not talking about this stuff as if I am making it up as a hypothetical Because of the bubble you're inside these problems appear much bigger and numerous than they actually are. That's why people outside your bubble don't seem to care when you bring it up.

>>7716 >The other half comes from the way people can close a tab the instant they encounter an idea they don't like and only chase content which avoids triggering cognitive dissonance The first person (>>7709 ) argued that "power structures trap people inside digital bubbles and manipulate them on a targeted, individual basis". I simply argued that it wasn't internets fault. >OP has zero evidence So a picture isn't worth a thousand words anymore? OHHH, since the recession, right right .... >discussion "Discussion starter" Heard of it? >or any real content I want to know your definition of "real content", and I wonder if there is such a thing as "fake content". Brainlet. >I'm surprised a mod hasn't blue texted it. Your whole post is just angry-posting and going around trying to start a meaningless flamewar. Wtf you talking about mod throwing his banhammer on me when you guys always start this kind of flamewars? I just wanted a friendly discussion. >Companies virtue signal the fuarrrk out of diversity but in reality they're not compromising profit for anything Yea they are, they just think it's "controlled profit loss" because if they didn't bend over backwards to hire black disabled trannies as their senior software developers then they would be labeled as bigoted and they would lose money. >You are just getting fooled by public relations and people who want to exploit you as an ideological soldier.. I still do not see how that is the case. You know, I explained my side of the story. I explained how there is a push to employ diversity instead of merit, and how companies are actually losing money from that, and how most of the times companies just give in to save their PR face and not lose money (while losing money, ironically). You STILL didn't explain how, my perfectly logical explanation is some kind of psychological operation by the elites that want us divided on left vs right. >In what way? YOU. CONCIOUSLY. LEFT OUT THE PART WHERE I SAID IN WHAT WAY >then getting the soykaf kicked out of them by football hooligans Football hooligans aren't what they used to be. They don't do that anymore. >Objectively speaking life in the west is much safer now than in the past. Yea, and I wasn't even talking about outright acts of terrorism but THANKS FOR DOWNPLAYING THAT. Not like 10 terroristic acts where a guy mows down 20 people every time is better than a bombing though. In first case people get scared of big crowds and people with bags, in other people get scared of walking next to a road. But I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about every day violence that gets swept under the rug because of "we don't want cause racism" from the police. But yea, if getting in war criminals and terrorists into your country isn't such a big deal and you like to waste tax money on policeman standing on every corner with an MP5 be my guest famalam. Nothing better than that. >Because of the bubble you're inside these problems appear much bigger and numerous than they actually are The increase of violent crimes in Sweden by 200% over the past year? The increase in child sex rings all over UK? Governments putting fines on people for jokes? Yea, tell me what my psychological state is over the internet DOC, and how all this increase in violent crimes and rapes are just figment of my imagination or "not a big deal". You are good at playing this "let me be your psychologist and condescend to you" game. Did you play it a lot when you were younger? Tell me what is your relation with your father like? btw, if you can't read sarcasm, that's it >That's why people outside your bubble don't seem to care when you bring it up. Either that, or they don't know how grave the statistics are and don't really care until they feel it on their own skin. Sort of like what Mayor of London said, that terrorism is "part and parcel" of every major city. Oblivious with facts, and uncaring they simply correlate it to proxy like population density or poverty without looking further. You know why a lot of jews fled the France to a new life in Israel after migrant crisis? It is because of all the increase in hate crimes directed by the muslims. Did you know that? Did you know that a lot of jews fled the country?

>>7715 I am living in safe country, the problem being it is in Europe. The problem being that feminist organizations here are getting well funded in orders of millions by government for their "objective reportings in news papers" and "cultural incentives". The problem being that this venom going from the west will hit every country and slowly overtake it. The overall sentiment here is on general neoliberal side mixed in with heavy nationalism and right wing, but I feel it seeping in little by little. So, we have to stay vigilant. Not just care for yourself but for your closest family. Not just care for your family but for your dearest friends. Not just care for your friends but overall community. Not just care for community but country. Not just care for country but for humanity AND TRUTH. Truth will triumph.

>>7720 I wanted to see if you're right in being worried, so I had a look at official crime statistics from Sweden. (From: https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home.html ). Firstly, there is no official statistics for this year, but in 2017, the number of reported assaults decreased by 4 370 cases (-5%). Similarly, other violent crimes had decreased. What has increased by over 200% between 2014-2016 is the number of people claiming to have been sexually harassed in an official survey. The number of actually reported rapes has however 'only' increased from 5918 (2015) to 7369 (2017), so a 25% increase at most. [Unfortunately, the reported crimes from last year is yet only available on the Swedish version of the site. Rape is 'Våldtäkt' in Swedish, if anyone wants to verify these numbers for themselves.] Just to be clear, I'm probably biased in "another direction" than you, but I think we both agree that its important to overcome biases and see things for what they are. I'd be very interested to see statistics for other countries, if anyone wants to help look for it.

>>7712 >the picture of OP showing you the kind of totalitarian propaganda in the UK It was a satirical poster by some artist, but there are equivalent real posters.

>>7720 >Wtf you talking about mod throwing his banhammer on me If you've spent any time here you'd see that 3 line OPs which start with a conclusion and no context or elaboration usually get some blue text added to them along the lines of this is a soykaf op read rule 4 and try harder >if they didn't bend over backwards to hire black disabled trannies as their senior software developers then they would be labeled as bigoted and they would lose money. Are you actually a software engineer? I am. I work with 70 white and Indian men. 2 women. Both Indian. Companies are bending over backwards to *appear* to care about minorities because the truth is they don't. That's what PR is all about. Perception. >You know, I explained my side of the story. I explained how there is a push to employ diversity instead of merit, and how companies are actually losing money from that, What you've done is explained the propaganda you've been brainwashed with. It doesn't actually map to reality though. Companies *would* lose money if they recruited for diversity instead of merit, but that's not what's happening. Besides hiring that one black disabled trannie mascot to raise publicity, companies are still filling their ranks with people who know what the fuarrrk they're doing, as they've always done. >was talking about every day violence that gets swept under the rug because of "we don't want cause racism" It's neat how the lack of evidence is woven into the narrative as a defense against falsifiability. >Yea, tell me what my psychological state is over the internet DOC, and how all this increase in violent crimes and rapes are just figment of my imagination or "not a big deal". First response was correct. Get off the internet and stop reading the Daily Mail. The fact that people don't know what the fuarrrk you're talking about is an indication that you've spent too long inside an echochamber and need to get some perspective.

>>7725 "it decreased" is the wrong way to look at it. I don't have the real numbers in my head but i remember the chart trend for germany. When you get yearly 20% decrease and suddenly it's only 5% you have to explain why the trend suddenly changed towards more crime. Then you get a police report how some groups have rates above 30% while natives & other new groups are arround 1.5% and it all fits - they are too small to flip it but they are still big enough to negatively impact the stats.

>>7730 Could you look up the statistics for Germany? In Sweden, reported cases violence or assaults has remained pretty constant. See image. You're however right that, in Sweden, people born in foreign countries are 3 times as likely to be the suspect of violent crime; compared to people born from two Swedish parents. [This is based on an official report from 2005; A new report is being prepared on this subject since of last year, to aid the current debate.] People in the worst group (People born some parts of Africa) are 4.2 times as likely to be suspect of any crime. People from the Middle East were 3 times as likely [this may have changed from 2005, though]. Thus, its probably bad, from a crime statistics point of view, for Sweden to accept immigrants. However, since the purpose of accepting refugees is humanitarian, it'd probably be fairer to assess the situation based on other metrics. We can at least conclude that it hasn't ruined Swedish society, since the effect is too small to notably affect the overall rate of crime. Also, for comparison, men in Sweden are 4 times as likely to be the suspect of violent crime than women. Thus, if the ultimate goal is to reduce violent crime, it'd be more effective to deport all men than to deport all foreign born.

>>7732 Your image shows a fluctuation between 80k and 90k. 9/8 = ~12% isn't insignificant. If i were mean i would say they intentionally made the graph bad to read cause 12% isn't something to handwave. For your request here's the first google result that comes from a police source and isn't completly useless (google seems to like old stuff, most didn't go beyond 04 looking for overall data and im too lazy too look longer) Either way shows clearly what i meant limited to youth. A developing downtrend that is then reverted. Important to note: "native" just means you're officially german. I'm an immigrant but i count as german because i got german nationality and thus im listed as part of the native population. Wouldn't be suprised if that's also the reason for the spike in 1992-2000 counted under natives - meaning my people soykafting it up. Contrary to the clean image the reality was that the local shops even hired some of our immigrant thugs for protection cause police wouldn't do soykaf about it. Made ghetto status kinda official. >People in the worst group (People born some parts of Africa) are 4.2 times as likely to be suspect of any crime. Seems too low considering the previous stated 30% among some groups. 30% vs 1.5% crime rate is a 20x increase. I guess they summed some up with the other groups who have low crime rates - south afrika isn't all the same after all. Continent is bigger than europe and the difference among countries isn't smaller. Towards your red herring - you can't kick out all men if you want the population to continue to exist. And if you want to know why men commit more crimes then look at who is homeless and who gets more welfare - men are simply put significantly more in situations where crime is the only options. Not to mention that sentencing on same crimes is statistically significant softer on women. So if you want to change men being officiall more criminal you have to change the system.

Europe is well on its way to becoming non-white and non-Western, and the only thing that could stop it is nationalist uprisings and mass deportations and killings. So I would characterize the state of politics as less than ideal.

>>7735 The 30% is probably not true. It may be as high 20%, though (5% of Swedes were suspected of some sort of crime. The problem is that the statistics include any crime, like speeding tickets. Thus, about 20% of people from 'misc. Africa' are suspects of some crime, which could mean anything between 20% rapists and 20% speeding tickets.) Also, they group together some parts of Africa simply because they have to have a larger selection to get statistics (only 0.6% the criminal cases in the study had a suspect from 'misc. Africa', which is the group with highest rate of crime). Regarding your figure: what types of crimes are included? A quick googling seems to indicate that there are about 2.4 million Germans in that age-range, so about 10% of the people in that age-range seem to be suspect of some sort of crime. According to BKA's 'Police Crime Statistics 2017' English flyer, there were about 2 million suspects in Germany during 2017, so about 2.5% of the population, but this is excluding traffic offences and some other things. Thus, I suspect that your figure may include things like not paying for public transport. If so, we can't say for sure that sharp increase in 2015 corresponds to an equally sharp increase in violent crime or immigrant thugs. Also, when looking across all age groups in that BKA flyer, it seems the most kinds of crime is actually decreasing, and the crime rate is low. Of course, if 10% of people age 14-17 are seriously criminal, then I'd be worried for the future, but it wouldn't mean that Germany is a hell-hole right now, since that age-range is still a small fraction of the total population. Which is also why Sweden is fine right now, even if 20% of the 'misc. Africans' in Sweden really were rapists.

>>7737 EU is much like USSR without the gulags and gestapo. Unelected berocrats who think they know what is best for countries vastly different from each other.

>>7739 The 30% was also from a police report, i don't remember which group it was but that's not really important. The interesting aspect to me was the strong contrast between the different groups wich is why i memorized the numbers. It got primarily only into news cause some people got mad about the police reporting the numbers and flamed the guy who published it. tldr:Streisand effect. Regarding whether it turns the country worse it's not that simple either. You assume perfect distribution which is not the case. As an immigrant you get put in the same town section within the same towns. Wich means that you are correct when you say most will never see any issue but it also means these hotspots turn significantly worse. And then comes the irony: They talk big about saving you and then stuff you together with groups known for high crime. Most crime happens local so you get to bear the brunt while the natives can feel good talking how it's not that bad.

>>7740 That's not really true. Members of the European Parliament are directly elected every five years.

>>7743 1)not every country has system 2)in my country the people dont get to decide but the political party that won the most of the vote

>>7744 It's a direct election in literally every EU member state. Are you talking about the European Commission?

>>7705 I think people like to talk about politics than actually participating in politics. Most people have never gone to a party people, and can't name their representatives. Deep inside, they don't care.

>>7741 The segregation is real, yeah. While I think politicians have good intentions (or, if you want to be cynical, want to appear to have good intentions), it doesn't mean much if the people we want to help end up feeling alienated and marginalised. Still, I'm not convinced that the ghettos in Germany and Sweden are that bad, if we compare to Syria and neighbouring countries. However, even if its still a net benefit for humanity, its not obvious that its morally right to use taxpayers money for charity. And with that, we're suddenly back at the age-old economic right-vs-left debate, which is not likely to get resolved any time soon.

>>7745 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament#Voting_system educate yourself pleb

>>7746 Wow, how arrogant can you be?

>>7751 I'm just telling you the truth. The average person can't name their local representative. In the U.S, the majority of citizens don't know the name of the congressmen that represent them. They have no participation whatsoever in internal party politics. Nobody outside of the politicians does much to interact with the parties directly besides voting. The very most you can expect of an American is to go to a "town hall" meeting or similar parade. Most Americans equate politics with "mass demonstration", and have no desire to participate in the actual political process. The average American cannot define the word caucus. Nobody I have ever met, including supposed die hard protesters, can even enumerate the various caucuses within the U.S government. I have met only one person in my life who can reliably describe what a congressional whip does. No, the average American at the very most cares about "issues" but does not for a single second consider "politics" in the sense that they exist in reality. We do not possess any form of real politic whatsoever. The vast majority of Americans who consider themselves politically active are actually just passionate about issues. They lack the basic civics knowledge to even participate much past voting, and lack any interest in carrying their involvement past that point. I have little evidence it is any different in any other country. People want a good government, but they do not want to think about it very hard.

My opinion of the current state of politics? I think that politics in it's current form can't actually solve a lot now that emotional thinking, trying to distort reality to confirm that thinking, and dehumanizing enemies is acceptable. For any issue that is important to me, I now try to gain as many perspectives as possible by talking to people I disagree with (civilly mind you) or just reading about the topic but with the full intent of understanding the world as it is. But that's hard, everyone has their pet causes that they are passionate able to the point of not being able to listen to someone that doesn't agree with them. Combine that with custom tailored social bubbles for your beliefs with good ole in group preferance and you got issues that may never get solved.

the world is unsolvable. Pretending to be neutral is a failed attempt to seem smarter than others. It doesn't work. Smart people have concrete opinions. Some people are just bad and have bad ideas and should not be taken seriously. This world needs to die. Bring on the nukes.

>>7766 Centrism was always a tool of left wing to make their worldview appear as the norm when presented with right wing opposition. Centrists were only leftists in disguise.

>>7754 That's education. Everyone get's thaught : you get to vote but people can do whatever once voted in and you can maybe demonstrate but that's dangerous and forbidden! Lobbying? You not rich so forget about it. It's not suprising that most just give up with that education. >>7766 >>7767 The defining point of the middle is the lack of intent to fight for either direction. It doesn't matter if you have a stance or not on a issue as long as you don't get involved either way.

>>7706 >>7709 I don't know that much about the situation in Canada, UK and US but it's not "propaganda" or even breaking news that Sweden has a pretty fuarrrked up situation mostly because of their careless immigration politics. We'll see how their future unfolds but it's not looking very bright right now.

>>7769 >you get to vote but people can do whatever once voted in and you can maybe demonstrate but that's dangerous and forbidden! Lobbying? You not rich so forget about it. It's not suprising that most just give up with that education. Or you could go to your local party meetings, and get involved in local iterations of the party you claim to be part of. The "party" isn't some kind of abstract concept people, it's a club you join and get to know powerful people. The majority of Americans view actual political behavior as beneath them, and could not even begin to think of how to even *locate* their local politicians. > The defining point of the middle is the lack of intent to fight for either direction That's a damn fine choice if both options suck. Or maybe you could say the middle is there to temper the lunacy of the other sides? Because left to their own devices, all I see them making is trouble. Type in extreme left, and extreme right, and you get every manner of bloodshed. I'd rather hurt people with inaction than to stamp their faces in for the sake of "extreme" ideology. Extremists only ever get to see their work undone, as people inevitably lose interest in their "movements." People just want to live, unbothered by the pseudo-revolutionary nonsense that young men with nothing better to do cook up in their minds.

>>7705 Posts like this are extremely frustrating to me. I'll try to articulate why without resorting to personal attacks and keeping an open mind. >Sweden, UK, Canada, US The countries you chose to illustrate your points already tell a lot about you and where your argument comes from. I'm guessing you are either from the US, the UK or Canada, because you picked Sweden as your socialist, totalitarian hellhole boogeyman. I live in Europe, and almost every time I hear about Sweden being "overrun by immigrants" or how "Sweden is the rape capital of Europe", it always comes from foreign (as in non-European) media or local but openly right-wing media. >I think the guise of social equality and tolerance has been overtaken by people who want to incorporate a totalitarian governments with thoughcrimes and everyone being a personal state agent. This rhetoric of "socialists are actually fascists in disguise who want to jail you for thoughtcrime" is really not new, and is a recurrent talking point brought up by right-wingers when criticising progressive or inclusive policies pushed by left-wingers (or centrists). I find it extremely alarming that you dismiss anybody who preaches social equity and tolerance as totalitarian. Western society in general is far from being tolerant and equal, and there is valid and important work to be done in that area. I agree that governments are getting more authoritarian and Orwellian, but that is not because of a secret cabal of frustrated tankies. Governments become more authoritarian when they pass surveillance laws like the patriot act in the US, or the LSCPT in Switzerland (the only two examples I have in mind right now). Governments become authoritarian when they violently suppress civil protests, like what is happening now in French universities, or what happened at the G20 in Hamburg. The odds are so obviously stacked in favour of capitalist interests that I find the idea that the real threat to democracy is people that take offense when you don't use the right pronouns or when you tell a racist joke, laughable. Western countries, as a whole, increasingly turn into Police States, and that is always because of right-wingers calling for more policing in the name of "security". I find fascist demagogues like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Recep Erdogan in Turkey or Donald Trump in te US infinitely scarier than any hypothetical "too progressive" leftist boogeyman. These men and the people supporting them are the ones we should be worried about, because they are in power right now and actively work to hurt and alienize minorities. Authoritarianism is not being disciplined by your boss because you were being soykafty to a transgender colleague, or an university refusing to give someone a platform so that they can peddle their particular brand of bigotry. Authoritarianism is the government dismantling unions, or actively working to restrict women's sexual or reproductive autonomy, or deciding who you have a right to marry. It is the police using "targeted predictive policing" like the LAPD is doing. I get that you feel that something is up in the current political climate throughout the western world. I think that almost everyone feel that way, albeit not everyone agrees what is the cause of the current state of affairs. We should not underestimate the overwhelming weight that capitalist interests have on current political discourse. I feel that on a forum with such a cyberpunk sensibility, people would be more lucid to this reality.

I'm a centrist, and I want to kill everybody.

>>7771 That's exactly what doesn't get taught or encouraged: How to become involved directly. People get tunnel visioned into their behaviour due to education presenting the former mentioned as the only options. >That's a damn fine choice if both options suck. Or maybe you could say the middle is there to temper the lunacy of the other sides? >Because left to their own devices, all I see them making is trouble. Type in extreme left, and extreme right, and you get every manner of bloodshed. The problem is the only kind of person willing to waste equal time fighting extremist ideas is an extremist in the opposition. That's arguably also our current situation. Post ww2 we derezzed right-extremism but left left-extremism untouched. So we drifted increasingly more towards left-extremists steering the direction due to lack of opposition. The middle never took up the effort to act as opposition but they don't like it so what's left to do? Vote to boost right-extremists to let them fight the left-extremists for them. This is what's happening now.

>>7766 >Pretending to be neutral is a failed attempt to seem smarter than others. It doesn't work. But that isn't what I'm doing. I'm so tired of coming into an issue and getting poor, emotional answers that I decided to just research it on my own time through reading and talking to people in a non-debate fashion or hell, just plain lurking forums and Youtube. Also, I do have opinions, but opinions are not the same as reality and can be formed through emotion, misinformation, and willful ignorance. And opinions shouldn't stop you from treating other people with dignity. >>7771 Thanks, for explaining that a little better, extremists often have the loudest voice now and if you want a straight answer without the emotional shrieking you have to go digging elsewhere.

>>7769 >The defining point of the middle is the lack of intent to fight for either direction That's not centrism or being neutral of what we are talking about but being a whimp

>7772 Any ideology with high adaption poses a threat because it can be used as a tool against the people who support anything that clads in their mantle without question. The way it's going we will personalize the mantle with big data and both left and right will get a custom spin for the same legislation. Btw don't like how you downplay people getting fired or even hunted by police for mean online comments to stern talking. Preaching is not enforcing your ideals at gunpoint. >>7776 Na, it's called living their live. Strictly speaking we're just wasting time without accomplishing anything here either.

>>7777 >Btw don't like how you downplay people getting fired or even hunted by police for mean online comments to stern talking Fair enough, and that is why I think we should be extremely wary of the constantly increasing policisation of our lives. The reason on I downplayed people getting hunted down by police for "a difference of opinion" is that such incidences are mostly anectodical compared to the systematic abusive and excessive policing directed to disenfranchised people. Police forces in general serve and have always served capitalist interests.

Currently, the way the west is heading is global bureaucratic megacommunism. At least in the EU but it's only a matter of time until USA will follow. Imagine amazon warehouses on steroids. Surveillance will be everywhere and every little detail of your privacy will be shared with big brother while SJWs will serve as the states Schutzstaffel.

>>7779 What a demented post. Other than UK, surveillance in EU is vastly lesser than in USA.

>>7780 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDECT

>Trying to use arguments like "they increase crime" or "they have lower IQ" You utilitarians! Although it's true that they bring all of those bad things, even if they were actually better than us we should still oppose their migration. We must defend our nations not because of some economic imperative, but because these are our nations, no matter how soykaf they are. If we propagate this utilitarian view of preserving our nations because we're "objectively better", then one day those same people will campaign to let in Japanese or Korean refugees because they're way better than us. Lithuanians should cede their entire country to neighbouring Europeans because they have an average IQ of 94. We must preserve our nations because we are our ethnicity, it was not a free choice and our people are all we have. We can be 5000 years old or a day old, we can have an IQ of 180 or 60, but we must still fight for our self-preservation no matter what. You can try to fight against your ethnic belonging, but you're only hurting yourself in the process. The utilitarian point of view shouldn't even be a big talking point since it feeds directly into the Enlightenment which is responsible for all of our current societal ills. The Enlightenment must be deposed entirely in favour of an ethno-religious order, similar to Shintoism. Nationalism must come from a sense of belonging, and not from some kind of economic imperative.

>>7780 https://www.stratcomcoe.org/countering-propaganda-nato-spearheads-use-behavioural-change-science

>>7772 >Western society in general is far from being tolerant and equal, and there is valid and important work to be done in that area. Yes, like ending the genocide campaign against whites.

>>7781 ... a university project. >>7783 "Twenty intelligence analysts, psychologists, and military and defence personnel from across NATO countries will be trained [...]" ... so, 20 people went through some kind of media training. · I recognize that we humans do not have a good way to deal with scope as such - we have intuitions like "concern X has higher priority than Y" or "action X was more morally repugnant than Y", and unless money is involved (but usually even then), it is very difficult to quantify. And so, people rely on their gut instincts, which tend to be overwhelmed by confirmation bias. But you are saying this is comparable to the US surveillance apparatus? How can you lose sight of scope so completely?

>>7788 >a university project. funded by the EU for research and immediate deployment in its member state.

>>7774 >Post ww2 we derezzed right-extremism but left left-extremism untouched. So we drifted increasingly more towards left-extremists steering the direction due to lack of opposition. The middle never took up the effort to act as opposition but they don't like it so what's left to do? Vote to boost right-extremists to let them fight the left-extremists for them. This is what's happening now. The middle doesn't need to "take up arms" to fight extremists. The argument for the middle is implicit, which is it's beauty. The middle only has to exist, because it exists by default, because people want to be left alone, and want "moderate" change in either direction by default. Extremism is not a cure for extremism, that's utter nonsense. That is like saying the communists in Wiemar Germany helped to "fight" the Nazis. No, the two extreme sides *validate* the existence of the other. "Oh we need these brown shirts or else the communists will get us." >Currently, the way the west is heading is global bureaucratic megacommunism I really hope the people in this thread accusing the current western state of being "communist" are trolling. If they aren't they should get a grip. Boys, the West represents neither "ideal" communism, nor the pseudo-communism of the soviets. Nor does it do a good job of socialism, either. In America especially, when the answer of "can I get a lung transplant is?" is "LAISSEZ FAIRE!!!!" from *both* sides, I refuse to tolerate some kind of argument that we are living on a commune being forced into collective economic planning. Folks the American government is both inconceivably rich, corrupt, lazy, wasteful, and greedy. That does not at all live up to "megacommunism" by any definition I know.

>>7782 I was once like you, but: 1 Ethnos is an elusive thing, and what separates one from others varies wildly; but more often than not, language is key. Do you imagine a language like Lithuanian can survive the rise of automatic translators? Do you imagine even natural language in general will last very long? Language is a tool, an adaption to a specific stage of technological progress, like horses. We in the West still have horses today - as luxuries, as a sad joke. The role of horses in society today is like that of a demented old person, with a brilliant past but now useless, whom we refuse to let off of life support. The future of nationalism is the museum fremen from God Emperor of Dune - a society of museum exhibits; not just uncompetitive but sad. A language without governmental life support will be replaced with a more optimal language, and then by whatever supercedes natural language entirely. A language with governmental life support will slightly delay this process; then fall behind others in competitiveness, as the power in the world transfers to those other factions which are the most brutally optimizing; then either the government will reconsider, or be brought under direct control of those superior factions. You can think of it as a rubber band effect - the more behind a faction falls due to lack of optimization, the more the pressure increases for it to abandon its idealism and rejoin the race, now at a disadvantage. 2 With mounting risk from misaligned AI and other technological wonders, we are quite likely living in end-times, the final centuries (perhaps decades?) of our species. Discussing the adoption of communism or fascism or shintoism or what have you - is much like discussing what hat will you be wearing when you die, rather than considering medicine. Nearly all of religion and ideology is indistinguishable as it converges on the same outcome - species extinction. But it is not too late! Imagine a totalitarian world state aimed at eradication of AI risk - this is the goal we should be working towards. In the short term, of current political factions, the Big Business center-right has proven itself the best vessel for atomizing society and unifying the world, much more so than fascist conquerors or socialist rabblerousers. Nations well-aligned with the long term interests of humanity - such as Western nations which pushed for climate treaties - should then import such humans that help the Big Business center-right the most. Unlike ethnos, there is only one humanity - there are no competitors - so there is no particular pressure to optimize ourselves to death, as long as we are under a single wise government. 3 You long for "a sense of belonging" - is that not a sedated state of existence? If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you jump as well? That is what "belonging" is. Certainly sedation is enjoyable, whether through alcohol or "belonging" - but while an alcoholic wants to drink, the wise alcoholic does not want to want to drink. One should take great effort to prevent "belongers" from infecting him with "common sense", and never lose sharpness.

>>7789 Not like EU funds just grow on trees To be an EU country you have to give funds to EU and then ask EU for funds It id basically a berocratic bdsm fetish

>>7772 >you picked Sweden as your socialist, totalitarian hellhole boogeyman The thing that makes Sweden totalitarian is that any public criticism or discussion regarding certain government policies and the outcomes thereof are actively punished into silence. The specifics of those policies and truth about the outcomes are not important at this point. >I find it extremely alarming that you dismiss anybody who preaches social equity and tolerance as totalitarian. Many of them are though. They think that the way to fix discrimination is to discriminate in reverse. Black women have historically had a hard time? Lets give white men a hard time. There, equality. The problem with this is it is inherently unjust. And people naturally resist injustice. To push through the resistance requires force. That's when they become totalitarian. "But we don't call ourselves fascists we call ourselves liberals so it's ok". >These men and the people supporting them are the ones we should be worried about, because they are in power right now and actively work to hurt and alienize minorities. Are they actually hurting minorities? Or are they just putting the brakes on this insane practice of treating minorities better than they deserve for literally no other reason than something bad will happen to you if someone accuses you of being a something-ist?

>>7790 Between kill everyone and kill 95% the middle doesn't have much of it's meaning left. To say the middleground is kill 97.5% is still extreme. The extremes have to cover the whole spectrum to make the middle meaningfull. Secondary you offer no better solution. Who is supposed to oppose extremists outside opposite extremists when we already establish that the middle does nothing? And when you say that extremes validate each other it's exactly the same meaning. Either you let them fight each other to keep it in balance or you have to remove both extremes equally to keep the middle ground from shifting.

>>7791 Language shapes thought by setting the limitations. We have many computer languages instead of one for the same reason. They fill different needs. Similiarly we should encourage different spoken languages and cultures to retain different ways of thought. Creating monocultures is creating weakness.

>>7791 All societies are wrecked upon the rock of egoism. There is no further order, no further requirement than what best suits me. The world, the farce built for us by our forefathers and by our fellow egoists, in the rejection of themselves and of their greatest power is at last reaching its final crescendo. Perhaps it is the end of the world as we know it and the beginning of a new world, one where each to his own and to each his own are all the laws that remain.

>>7793 At this point this is just willful ignorance on your part. Most civil rights movements are interested in equality, not complete reversal of the balance of powers. Now, to someone who has been in a position of privilege all their life, any time a privilege is removed, or shared with others, it feels like being discriminated against. But that is what equality is. The idea that minorities are out to bring the White Man down is not new, it has been used against the suffragette movement, the civil rights movement, trans and homosexual advocacy groups etc. Such tactics and rhetorics are so transparent, and it tires me because each time I feel like the level of discourse is set back.

>>7802 Culling asians from the benefits as they overperform betrays the claim of trying to protect minorities in your country. Your movement is merely crab bucket mentality applied to skin color. Furthermore the idea that you could say everyone in one group had it easier than everyone another is another is objectively false wich means you happily accept beating down on already fallen people just because they don't have the right skin worthy of your special benefits. It's a farce and the people know it.

>>7807 >Furthermore the idea that you could say everyone in one group had it easier than everyone another is another is objectively false wich means you happily accept beating down on already fallen people just because they don't have the right skin worthy of your special benefits. It's a farce and the people know it. Of course it's a farce, everybody knows that deciding who is worthy of "benefits" based solely on skin color is silly. The notion of privilege is more nuanced than this, it encompasses a wide variety of socio-economic factors including gender, origin, sexual orientation, class, etc. Often people in position of privilege see any attempt to level the playing field as an assault on their identity and values. For example, many conservative christians will say that they feel that they are under attack when gay people try to advocate for their right to marry. Gay marriage is objectively a net benefit equality-wise, but some people will still see it as an attempt to suppress their identity and values.

>>7807 What do you mean by "culling asians from benefits" ? Are you talking about something in specific?

>>7796 I don't know what planet you live on, but nobody has ever "gotten" 95% of anyone. Not in a long time at least. >The extremes have to cover the whole spectrum to make the middle meaningfull. That's nonsense. You don't have to do silly things to make reasonable behavior valid. >Who is supposed to oppose extremists outside opposite extremists when we already establish that the middle does nothing? The middle can oppose both sets of extremists, because they implicitly expose extremism in general. Believe or not the "extremeness" of a political philosophy does not imbue it with strength. It makes that philosophy brittle, and vulnerable to attack. > Either you let them fight each other to keep it in balance or you have to remove both extremes equall Or maybe you can just acknowledge that both sides are highly ineffective. Arguably no extremist government has survived more than 20 or so years, and even during those periods the declining returns become obvious. > keep the middle ground from shifting. If you are truly middle ground, there is nowhere to shift. You are subscribing to a theory of politics that incorrectly supposes that people redefine "normal" based on their relative moral context. That theory is wrong. The middle is about continuing life with stability, profitably, without indulging in agenda at all. No amount of shifting will change that.

>>7810 >Arguably no extremist government has survived more than 20 or so years, >The middle is about continuing life with stability, profitably, without indulging in agenda at all. No amount of shifting will change that. During these years your normal live becomes impossible. You either run if you can or you get wrecked as it explodes. Thus keeping the extremists in check matters. >Believe or not the "extremeness" of a political philosophy does not imbue it with strength. It makes that philosophy brittle, and vulnerable to attack. It doesn't matter how incompetent they are. If they act while others don't they get more results by default. That's the whole issue with it.

>>7709 >OP you think social justice and equality are the big enemy. They're not. You're just getting played. The problem isn't justice or equality, the problem is that certain people define justice and equality in distorted ways. Modern liberals' definition of justice is demonizing men for inborn sexual desires that the majority of humanity has always possessed, and their definition of equality is complete and total submission to feminazis. >>7712 >You can see the picture of OP showing you the kind of totalitarian propaganda in the UK under the disguise of tolerance and good authority knowing what is best. Sadly there are some people who believe in that too. They try to pretend they have more support than they do. >>7772 Just because capitalism is like kicking dead whales down the beach doesn't mean what you're offering is any better. >Authoritarianism is not being disciplined by your boss because you were being soykafty to a transgender colleague, or an university refusing to give someone a platform so that they can peddle their particular brand of bigotry. The problem with this is that you people define every view you don't like as bigotry. Then when someone points out actual bigotry on your part, like the modern left's ephebophobic feminazi tendencies that make you think you have the right to invade other people's bedrooms on the pretext of preventing completely nonexistent psychological harm you have zero evidence for, you refuse to consider that by your own logic someone else should deplatform you for being a bigot. By the way, the only reason this keeps getting brought up is because of the left's absolutely staggering level of hypocrisy on this issue as well as in general. >>7777 >Btw don't like how you downplay people getting fired or even hunted by police for mean online comments to stern talking. He believes in deplatforming and somehow thinks he's not part of the problem here. >>7808 >For example, many conservative christians will say that they feel that they are under attack when gay people try to advocate for their right to marry. Gay marriage is objectively a net benefit equality-wise, but some people will still see it as an attempt to suppress their identity and values. Lowering the age of consent is objectively a net benefit equality-wise but you feminist cunts actively censor anyone who points this out. Feminists see it as an attempt to destroy their sexual market value...which is actually true, but their sexual market value is not deserving of government protection.

>>7705 US anon here and i'm hoping i'm not breaking any rules with this post but i absolutely hate the identity politics so thoroughly ingrained with the left. the generic white male isn't the enemy, and overemphasizing diversity is nauseating. that being said i am starting to despise the right wing and i feel that they utilized the increasing resistance to the radical identity politics of the left and influenced the "right" (who were really libertarians sick of the left wing) and turned them into this monster hybrid of far right ideals and, ironically enough, their own brand of identity politics (mostly the pro-white alt right bullsoykaf) and now every single place is a safespace where wrongthink gets you in trouble. trump also hasn't really been that great either, and has some of the worst cabinet choices for his admin. i just want a world without identity politics being shoved down my throat. fuarrrk diversity and fuarrrk the ethnostate just give me a fuarrrking break. i'm tired of having to watch my mouth around these tightass conservatives and tumblr leftists in my life. there's no rhyme or reason for this bullsoykaf and every time you try to stop the flames just get worse. i wish everyone could just fuarrrking chill and stop trying to subtly undermine and eradicate each other like we were destined enemies or some soykaf.

>>7817 >>OP you think social justice and equality are the big enemy. They're not. You're just getting played. The problem isn't justice or equality, the problem is that certain people define justice and equality in distorted ways. Modern liberals' definition of justice is demonizing men for inborn sexual desires that the majority of humanity has always possessed, and their definition of equality is complete and total submission to feminazis. This is what is frustrating. Apart from some crazy tumblr minority (which is mostly found online, I might add), no serious feminist or equality activist advocates for "the total submission to feminazis". That is just a strawman that right-wingers attack so that they don't have to actually do anything to further equality >The problem with this is that you people define every view you don't like as bigotry. Then when someone points out actual bigotry on your part, like the modern left's ephebophobic feminazi tendencies that make you think you have the right to invade other people's bedrooms on the pretext of preventing completely nonexistent psychological harm you have zero evidence for, you refuse to consider that by your own logic someone else should deplatform you for being a bigot. By the way, the only reason this keeps getting brought up is because of the left's absolutely staggering level of hypocrisy on this issue as well as in general. Invading people's bedrooms? What are you on about? And yes, I define views that advocate for discrimmination against disenfranchized populations as bigotry. I didn't think we would reach the "people who don't let nazis speak are the real nazis !1!" talking point, but here we are. Honest question: what do you think of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance ? >Lowering the age of consent is objectively a net benefit equality-wise but you feminist cunts actively censor anyone who points this out. Feminists see it as an attempt to destroy their sexual market value...which is actually true, but their sexual market value is not deserving of government protection. Now I feel I am taking crazy pills. Regulating the age of consent is not about cranky old feminists being jealous of younger (and not even adult) women. It's about protecting people who haven't reach a developmental stage when they can meaningfully consent. It's about preventing trauma. If you think this has anything to do with "sexual market value" you need to go outside.

>>7814 > During these years your normal live becomes impossible The part you are missing is that those years don't happen when people aren't interested in extremism, which is most of the time. Extremism is a political failure, and it is politically irreverent the majority of the time. > If they act while others don't they get more results by default No, no, no. Action does not guarantee you results. That's like saying you should always attack in war, lest the other side attack first. If your resources are limited, then action should only be undertaken when you can win. It is one of the many losing traits of extremists that they feel they must always be doing something. From the perspective of the middle it is action enough in most cases to let the insane make fools of themselves, which they do constantly. Response is what they *crave*. It validates their existence. Or as the internet adage goes "don't feed the trolls." For instance, if CNN did a nightly report on the American revolutionary communist party, membership would sky rocket. Why? Because the report would *validate* their existence in the minds of the public. No, the middle will simply ignore the foolish extremists. It denies them the very air they need to breath. The "actions" they take will be isolated acts of social interruption that will have little relevance. The minute you start taking an extremist seriously, the minute you are giving that extremist power of you.

>>7818 I'm in a similar boat as you, Lain. You can't seem to say anything without someone getting mad or thinking you're trying to destroy them. Or in our case, you get accused of "wimpy centrist" when you just want to either have a peaceful conversation to learn about something or just not be bothered by ideologues.

>>7821 >the generic white male isn't the enemy, and overemphasizing diversity is nauseating You are playing into their hands by fixating on it. >and now every single place is a safespace where wrongthink gets you in trouble No, but you can say whatever you like. Doing so with some degree of thought before you speak might make you more friends wherever you go. > i just want a world without identity politics being shoved down my throat Your complaining about it is an intended effect. You are providing tears to the people who drink them. > i'm tired of having to watch my mouth around these tightass conservatives and tumblr leftists in my life You don't have to do anything. You can piss them off if you want. If you want to be friends, and tell them their views suck, I think you need to work on a more nuanced way of expressing it. If you think someone is being silly politically, the best thing to do is ignore it though. Don't engage. Don't provoke. > i wish everyone could just fuarrrking chill and stop trying to subtly undermine and eradicate each other Do your part and ignore them. I mean really people, it's not hard. And with regards to safe spaces, people aren't thinking their ideas through here. If we are talking about people who are going to lose their soykaf if you are going to insult their airship meta gender or whatever, then brother, you do not want to talk to them. There isn't some kind of free speech philosophy that will make these people any less morons to speak to. These people are just not your friends. This isn't a political issue, it's a people are dipsoykafs issue. Leave them be, I assure you those folks will find a new and inventive way to disappoint you without tumblr or fox news to help them. Political people on all sides love identity politics because everyone has an identity. They have used it since the time of the Greeks and romans ("HOW DARE THEY APPORTION LAND FOR USE BY THE PLEBIANS!") and will continue to do so forever. Yes. People are lopping on to white pride, to trans politics, to whatever, just for attention. You are letting them win by giving them attention. Stop paying attention!

>>7822 Uh... Lain... you quoted the wrong post.

>>7819 >Regulating the age of consent is not about cranky old feminists being jealous of younger (and not even adult) women. It's about protecting people who haven't reach a developmental stage when they can meaningfully consent. It's about preventing trauma. If you think this has anything to do with "sexual market value" you need to go outside. The erroneous belief you just professed comes from sensationalist feminist media and garbage feminist studies claiming the existence of said trauma, which have been exposed as irreplicable junk science that uses flawed datasets filled with selection bias. Teenagers have access to the same information about sex that adults do, rendering them every bit as capable of giving consent as adults. Furthermore, adults have frequently shown themselves to be absolute retards who are completely unqualified to determine what anyone else's level of development is, and every post you've made in this thread shows that you're a perfect example of that. "Stopping trauma" is just a feminist pretext to restrict the dating market because no adult guy would date women over (16/17/18, choose one depending on US state of residence) if pursuing younger girls was legal. Regulations on any given marketplace have a great deal to do with which of its products are favored over others, and this is such a basic economic principle that for you to pretend it's not in play here is breathtaking disingenuousness on your part. The feminist censorship of studies that prove that American age of consent laws are wrong is a testament to this. If you think you can trust the studies that claim the existence of inherent trauma and coercion in teen-adult relationships in spite of the fact that the people who did them censor their critics aggressively, you know nothing about science. Real scientists don't need to censor because they can rely on evidence and reason. Then again, every post you've made in this thread is advocating for censorship, so I don't expect you to acknowledge that. >Apart from some crazy tumblr minority (which is mostly found online, I might add), no serious feminist or equality activist advocates for "the total submission to feminazis". That is just a strawman that right-wingers attack so that they don't have to actually do anything to further equality This #NotAllFeminists nonsense is pretty much the same as when Muslims go #NotAllMuslims after a Muslim terrorist attack when the Quran specifically tells them to kill all the infidels. You can't disavow this because every high-profile feminist supports soykaf like #MeToo and every other stupid witch hunt like the one described in the previous two paragraphs. I'm not even a right-winger and you're so full of crap that somebody needs to call the Mario Brothers to unclog you. >Invading people's bedrooms? What are you on about? Saying that a teenager can't be in a sexual relationship with an adult they like because you've decided they can't control their own bodies when all credible (read: not made by disgusting feminazi hags) scientific research (which again, you've censored relentlessly) shows that they can is invading people's bedrooms, yes. You don't have any right to tell them or anyone else what to do and you're not more mature than anyone else. Get the fuarrrk over yourself. >And yes, I define views that advocate for discrimmination against disenfranchized populations as bigotry. The problem with this is your progressive stack bullsoykaf isn't how disenfranchisement is actually defined. A rich woman is not more oppressed than a homeless man by virtue of her genitalia, and a rich black man is not more oppressed than a homeless white man because of his skin. >I didn't think we would reach the "people who don't let nazis speak are the real nazis !1!" talking point, but here we are. Honest question: what do you think of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance ? I think unironic Nazis, actual pedophiles (not feminism's politically convenient redefinition of the word to mean attraction to prime-age teenagers that pose the biggest threat to feminists' sexual prospects), cannibals, serial killers, shyster lawyers, space aliens invading the Earth, and those annoying cunts across the street who play rap music at full volume at 3 AM are all less cancerous and more deserving of tolerance than you. "Progressive" ephebophobes who crow about how tolerant they are while they cite fake science, specious reasoning and fearmongering about nonexistent psychological trauma to remove sexual freedom because it hurts their feelings are the worst people who've ever existed bar none.

>>7824 > "Stopping trauma" is just a feminist pretext to restrict the dating market because no adult guy would date women over You either have never met people outside your basement, are trolling, or a serious consumer of cheese pizza. Either way EWWWWW! > The feminist censorship of studies that prove that American age of consent laws are wrong is a testament to this You know people have been doing this for millennia right? Like it's a basic human instinct right? Like you don't need the formal laws to realize people are going to attack you for fuarrrking teenagers right? Like, even in ye olden times most of the marriage to young girls was *arranged* marriage, that was consummated later on. It was a money thing. You realize people have an instinctual revulsion to that sort of behavior that transcends the law and is older than feminism? right? > If you think you can trust the studies that claim the existence of inherent trauma and coercion in teen-adult relationships in spite of the fact that the people who did them censor their critics aggressively Feminists are about as capable of censoring the media as pedophiles are, which is not very much. People have a very basic intuition that screwing kids is gross. Why is that weird to you? > Real scientists don't need to censor because they can rely on evidence and reason But the part you are missing is that some things should be icky to everyone. Like, we don't need a scientific study to declare trash to smell awful. And so it is with the proposition of older dudes pursuing teenage girls. > Regulations on any given marketplace have a great deal to do with which of its products are favored over others People are not products. Sex is not a marketplace. > Saying that a teenager can't be in a sexual relationship with an adult they like because you've decided You might be right for some people and some values of right, but you sound like you want it really bad, and even without the evidence that this is factually harmful, you should be able to tell why people don't want it to happen. Let me spell this out for you: Just imagine the redneck guy with the shotgun. Nobody wants you to bone their daughter. Thus spoke society from the dawn of society. This is politics, not science. > A rich woman is not more oppressed than a homeless man by virtue of her genitalia, and a rich black man is not more oppressed than a homeless white man because of his skin. Or maybe the both of you are foolishly attempting to make comparisons that are subjective in the first place, with no end in mind whatsoever. Equality cannot be measured, and it can't be enforced. It can be encouraged, but only so much. It doesn't matter how objectively oppressed someone is, only whether they are complaining to the point it is impeding their useful role in society. If giving them some kind of token reassurance makes them feel good enough to soldier on, so be it. The entire cultural conversation is stupid from both sides because neither of you know how to speak clearly. When people talk about being oppressed, they make it sound like their is active conspiracy to oppress them, which is not what they mean. What they actually mean is that they are nervous that they have not yet attained full social standing many years after that legal inequality ended. That's the kind of thing that's hard to reassure people of. It's likely communicated that way because the truth of it sounds much less sexy, but the cultural insecurity is very understandable. The same way rural people are insecure their way of life is ending, or that they are losing status to city people. But the people on the other end of the issue take that kind of statement literally, and inject their own bad communication too. They want to evaluate the claims literally and start proving them wrong, so that they don't have to feel guilty about things they weren't actually asked to feel guilty for. They start talking about people like they are livestock, and boom gas has been thrown on the fire for both sides.

>>7824 >I think unironic Nazis, You are comparing someone negatively to nazis. We have violated godwins law. This thread may be over. >actual pedophiles The original pedophile panic, and it's subsequent waves branched across the political spectrum. >(not feminism's politically convenient redefinition of the word to mean attraction to prime-age teenagers that pose the biggest threat to feminists' sexual prospects), When you call teenagers girls "prime", you are going to get people calling you names you don't like. You have some intuition for why that is right? > cannibals, serial killers, shyster lawyers, space aliens invading the Earth, and those annoying cunts across the street who play rap music at full volume at 3 AM The fact that you mark all of these as equivalent means you are either a troll or taking the piss here. >are all less cancerous and more deserving of tolerance than you. Telling someone they are cancerous is one of those cyclical things that tends to end up with it coming right back at you... And no one ever sounded good saying someone else didn't deserve tolerance. > "Progressive" ephebophobes who crow about how tolerant they are while they cite fake science, specious reasoning and fearmongering about nonexistent Only pedos use that word dude, stop you are going to get put on a list. The guys in the /cyb/ threads wont be able to help save you from Chris Hanson. >psychological trauma to remove sexual freedom because it hurts their feelings are the worst people who've ever existed bar none. If your main concern is the freedom to bone teenagers before the age of 18, then you need to get out of your basement more dude. Like, get a job. Do drugs maybe? There is more to life than young girls. I can tell you as a guy who gets laid a bunch, that young girls are like, by far, the most annoying bitches ever. Would not return. Ever.

>>7825 >EWWWWW! How very mature of you. Tell me, what makes you any more capable of consent than a teenage girl? You certainly can't argue better than one. >You realize people have an instinctual revulsion to that sort of behavior that transcends the law and is older than feminism? right? Actually they don't. It was EXTREMELY common until feminism showed up because it's how human biology is wired. >Feminists are about as capable of censoring the media as pedophiles are, which is not very much. Feminists own the entire mainstream media and are capable of censoring any aspect of it at will. >Just imagine the redneck guy with the shotgun. He's not the only one with a gun and a lot of guys are sick of his puritan bullsoykaf. >Like, we don't need a scientific study to declare trash to smell awful. This is a stupid comparison and you're a retard for even suggesting it. Nice Reddit spacing, by the way. Your historical revisionism on this subject is characteristic of Redditors, and Reddit is where you need to go the fuarrrk back to immediately because people on imageboards are redpilled about feminism and don't want you here. >>7826 >muh chris hansen >stop expressing dissent you fuarrrking peasant, just accept substandard roastie whores lel fuarrrk off

>>7825 >You know people have been doing this for millennia right? Like it's a basic human instinct right? Like you don't need the formal laws to realize people are going to attack you for fuarrrking teenagers right? You don't need the formal laws to realize that people will defend themselves from psychotic lynch mobs attempting to stop them from exercising their freedoms, right? >And so it is with the proposition of older dudes pursuing teenage girls. Jealous feminist hags and people who've been suckered into believing their propaganda are the only ones in the entire world who think this. If a guy can attract a teenage girl, he deserves to have her. Period. >People are not products. Sex is not a marketplace. Everything is a marketplace and everything is a product. This is a law of nature.

>>7824 Wait, is this teen-anon posting in this thread? If so, long time no see man! It must of been months. Hope things have been great for you. So since I still wish to be a father at some point and still have some personal issues myself I have been researching how children have been mistreated throughout history. My own personal stance has and still is, for the best interest of children and teens (but I'm keeping in mind that you simply want the AOC to be lowered to teens and not little kids) but the more I've read about how children and teens were often forced into human sacrifice, sexual slavery, harsh work conditions, abandoned or exposed to the elements to die, etc. It's really made me realize that my desire to protect children and teens from abuse, while perfectly understandable by today's moral standards, is sort of weird in context of world history. And even today, children and teens are still more or less a resource to get politics passed. For example the mass hysteria over violent video games, people use "think of the children" to try to control an alternative media or another good example, "think of the children" (I'll shorten it to TOTC for now on) is also used to push more restrictive gun laws, after all, you don't want kids to die, right? The main reason I'm saying all this is that lately, I've been questioning myself. Preventing hurt feelings or trauma is impossible, I see, at least not without stepping all over people. I can be the most well meaning person and people will still get hurt. We can at least prevent some of the trauma like keeping full blown child rapists and killers out of society and they need to be out of society. But I personally don't know how much I can add now, I personally am not really into teens myself so it doesn't affect me either way and if I had teenage kids with adult partners depending on how old they are and how independent they are, they can just throw me out of their life if they wanted. Feel free to tear this post apart man, while my research was for a different subject, I think it could apply to this subject and I want to sharpen my ideas.

>>7828 >Everything is a marketplace and everything is a product. This is a law of nature. Have to agree with this 100%, while ideally people shouldn't be products, it's how trade works. I work in retail for 5 to 8 hours a day, my body and mind is a resource for the company I work for. If I meet a woman and she doesn't have any life skills that will help me but I have her live in my home then she is a negative in my assets. Whereas the woman who at least can work a job would be WAY better than the first one. While it's sort of cynical, life is a lot of transactions whether it's money, time, land, etc. Sage for double posting.

>>7829 I remember you, but I'm surprised you remember me. I didn't realize I left enough of an impression for anyone here to remember me. >but the more I've read about how children and teens were often forced into human sacrifice, sexual slavery, harsh work conditions, abandoned or exposed to the elements to die, etc. It's really made me realize that my desire to protect children and teens from abuse, while perfectly understandable by today's moral standards, is sort of weird in context of world history. And even today, children and teens are still more or less a resource to get politics passed. For example the mass hysteria over violent video games, people use "think of the children" to try to control an alternative media or another good example, "think of the children" (I'll shorten it to TOTC for now on) is also used to push more restrictive gun laws, after all, you don't want kids to die, right? This is all very true. It's revolting, and to me the hysteria over teens being in a relationship with someone older is almost exactly like the hysteria over violent video games. Jack Thompson and his cohort used phony studies to make their case too, and said they knew better than you what you should be allowed to do. But a major part of the reason this state of affairs infuriates me is because the people engaged in all this virtue signaling have never actually done anything to help young people, and in many cases have made their situation worse. If you asked some Democratic Party apparatchik his opinion on the age of consent, he/she/it would be ardently in support of the current restrictive laws and state his support of having you murdered for expressing the slightest hint of disagreement because that's apparently what's necessary to protect the youth, but if you asked that same apparatchik to justify Obama's use of drone strikes that killed children and teenagers, you'd get bloviation in return, and that the fact that hypocrites like that run America is the worst thing about it. I wonder if the liberal in here defending censorship is going to defend Obama's drone strikes too. >The main reason I'm saying all this is that lately, I've been questioning myself. Preventing hurt feelings or trauma is impossible, I see, at least not without stepping all over people. That's the whole point of this thread.

>>7831 Well, you and few other anons had a massive impact on my thinking or at least my approach to topics. It's kinda hard to forget people who cause you to reconsider a strongly held idea, so of course I would get really happy and excited to share how I've changed with someone I've butted heads with. Anyways, while it pains me, the fact is that as a whole, people don't care about kids. Not in any real way. What really pissed me off was when that Florida shooting happened and some politician was all like, "Our culture devalues human life, we have abortion and violent video games and movies" and I was dumbfounded (and really, I shouldn't be) that this person would just rattle off a bunch of buzzwords to get the American public to feel good or whatever after a bunch of kids were killed. No actual help for the troubled kid who would later kill, no real measures to protect kids, just as you said, virtue signalling. And oh boy, you are right about those drone strikes, we give even less of a damn for those foreign kids.

>>7802 >Most civil rights movements are interested in equality, not complete reversal of the balance of powers. Now, to someone who has been in a position of privilege all their life, any time a privilege is removed, or shared with others, it feels like being discriminated against. But that is what equality is. Well no, this is what equality is to *you* and it also very much depends on your definition of privilege as well. Is being born with a high IQ considered privilege which needs to be equalized? Or being born with white skin in a predominantly white country? You seem to think there is a Single Truth where there isn't one. You just draw your line in the sand very far away from me. >The idea that minorities are out to bring the White Man down is not new, Except white men are not the majority are they. Did you know every single person of influence in the People's Republic of China Communist Party has yellow skin? Why no liberal rage against China? Surly that is a bigger threat to "equality" than the ethnic composition of any western government. I mean the major of London is a fuarrrking Muslim. How much more "equality" do you want? >Such tactics and rhetorics are so transparent, and it tires me because each time I feel like the level of discourse is set back. It's called cognitive dissonance. You feel mental pain when you encounter ideas that don't mesh with your extreme politics so you dismiss everyone you disagree with as "ignorant".

>>7827 > Actually they don't. It was EXTREMELY common until feminism showed up because it's how human biology is wired. No, that's a misconception lainon. Get your history straight. Check out this historian going on about it on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pafst/what_was_the_average_marriage_age_for_people/?st=ji26dcdq&sh=7671c946 Essentially, yes, people did marry young in olden times, but more often than not they didn't. For lots of reasons. > Feminists own the entire mainstream media and are capable of censoring any aspect of it at will. Explain literally everything on Fox news then. You are calling people who hate feminists, feminists. > Nice Reddit spacing, by the way. Your historical revisionism on this subject is characteristic of Redditors I'm not a redditor, or a feminist for that matter. However, I do think you might be into cheese pizza. Chris is gonna find you bub. > You don't need the formal laws to realize that people will defend themselves from psychotic lynch mobs attempting to stop them from exercising their freedoms, right? Yeah, but society is, has been, and will continue to be on the side of the lynch mob in this case. > If a guy can attract a teenage girl, he deserves to have her. Period. You don't deserve woman dipsoykaf. No one deserves people. There is no god, and he doesn't owe you anything. Are you incapable of comprehending the ramification of your actions? > Everything is a marketplace and everything is a product. This is a law of nature. No, market places are human constructs. Animals don't have marketplaces, and animals aren't products. Space is not a market place. We didn't even have a concept of a marketplace until recently. It's an abstract concept made to server a purpose. A purpose you are twisting to make a silly argument. > I work in retail for 5 to 8 hours a day, my body and mind is a resource for the company I work for No, it's not. Your very narrowly negotiated labor is. The company can't ask you for sex now can it? The company doesn't list body as a resource on it's tax statements, I promise you. Just your labor. > While it's sort of cynical, life is a lot of transactions whether it's money, time, land, etc Stop learning about economics from Ayn Rand books. Life is full of intangibles, along with benefits that are hard to put a price tag on in the early stages. Most big benefits are losses early on. > Whereas the woman who at least can work a job would be WAY better than the first one. Unless she was ugly, or bad at sex, or a bitch, or maybe she was in college and was going to get a better job than yours later on. Life isn't that simple. > This is all very true. It's revolting, and to me the hysteria over teens being in a relationship with someone older is almost exactly like the hysteria over violent video games I can't decide if you are teenage or a pedobear. Comparing a 30 year old fuarrrking a 15 year old, to Jack Thompson's failed crusade against video games is the most emotionally stunted thing I have ever heard. If you cannot comprehend why a adult, with life experience and job would have an unfair advantage, and great ability to abuse a 15 year old, then you are way, way off the reservation lainon. > virtue signaling have never actually done anything to help young people You don't have to help people to recognize something as wrong. > his support of having you murdered for expressing the slightest hint of disagreement Murdered? Are you ok anon. I don't think any politicos are asking for people to murder you. Chris Hanson has a very warm van for you. No murder, just help. > but if you asked that same apparatchik to justify Obama's use of drone strikes that killed children and teenage Accidentally killing a kid with a bomb, while you were trying to kill everyone else in his house is not morally equivalent to leveraging your intellectual advantage of a young girl to fuarrrk her when someone with a little more life experience would tell you to fuarrrk off. The two are not comparable. > defending censorship Nobody is "censoring" you dude. Have you seen the soykaf our president says? We are the least P.C country in the world. We say all kinds of fuarrrked up soykaf. The reason people say mean things to you when you speak, is that you sound like you are fixated on fuarrrking little girls. Society traditionally frowns on that lainon.

>>7832 >No actual help for the troubled kid who would later kill, Society has a hard time helping reclusive assholes. Read Eliot Rodgers e-mails. You think that kid would have accepted a trip to a therapist? No. No, there was no help that was going to stop him from doing what he was going to do. Help would have been at the very best, confinement. > virtue signalling. And this makes me think you are a sock puppet talking to the other guy. > we give even less of a damn for those foreign kid Because that is the same situation at all. There is more moral value to our kids than to the kids of the terrorists. You get that right?

>>7827 Dude can we have ONE thread without you derailing into age of consent bullsoykaf. Seriously mods I will pay you money to ban this pedo cunt.

>>7832 >Anyways, while it pains me, the fact is that as a whole, people don't care about kids. Not in any real way. Ain't that the goddamn truth. When I was growing up I was almost always more competent than any adult I knew even as a young child, let alone a teen. Given that this is a site full of technologically knowledgeable people, I'd imagine this is the case for many others here as well. Yet competence and meritocracy were ignored because our parents had all the social and physical power and thought they deserved to control every aspect of our lives like mini-dictators. And now after we millennials have become an incredibly dysfunctional generation because they wouldn't allow us any form of autonomy to develop ourselves as people, they have the nerve to ask why we're like this. >What really pissed me off was when that Florida shooting happened and some politician was all like, "Our culture devalues human life, we have abortion and violent video games and movies" and I was dumbfounded (and really, I shouldn't be) that this person would just rattle off a bunch of buzzwords to get the American public to feel good or whatever after a bunch of kids were killed. No actual help for the troubled kid who would later kill, no real measures to protect kids, just as you said, virtue signalling. The politicians not only don't care about kids, they don't care about anyone but themselves. It's impossible to overstate how craven they really are, but the citizens of western society are just as bad for the most part. We wouldn't live in a cyberpunk dystopia if this wasn't the case because the people would have had enough respect for freedom and justice to not let things get this bad, and this fact doesn't get brought up nearly enough. >And oh boy, you are right about those drone strikes, we give even less of a damn for those foreign kids. Funny how when the aforementioned politicians are talking about how our culture devalues human life, they don't mention this part.

>>7836 > Funny how when the aforementioned politicians are talking about how our culture devalues human life, they don't mention this part. You are comparing the morals of killing kids to the morals of fuarrrking kids. What is wrong with you? >they don't care about anyone but themselves And just what is your grand act of selflessness? What makes you so superior to the politicos? It appears that act is seducing children. How, uh, brave of you. I can hear the van coming for you lainon. What will you say to the camera men when Hanson walks in?

>>7824 FFS let children learn and grow together amongst themselves. Let them play life's game fairly with people on the same level. What makes you think your presence among them would be anything but detrimental? If you've failed to follow the standard growth pattern of your society (which I assume to be the case with anyone seriously purporting lowering the age of consent), then you would only be teaching them failure. Don't burden the future generation with your incompetence.

>>7839 I am waiting for the pedos reply with baited breath. What will it be this time? Accuse you of censorship? Complain that your views are based on feminist propaganda? Perhaps you are a redditor? I am genuinely curious as to where the ad hominem is going this time. I'm split on banning him like the other dude said... it would validate his censorship paranoia.

>>7834 >actually citing reddit, the most censored liberal soykafhole on the internet, for anything lel >Explain literally everything on Fox news then. Modern conservatives are disguised feminists. >Yeah, but society is, has been, and will continue to be on the side of the lynch mob in this case. Look at this fuarrrking bullsoykaf. You're not even attempting to contest the validity of the assertions being made against you, instead getting some Reddit hack to do it for you because you have no opinions of your own. You're just going "lol tyranny is justified if the majority agrees!" America is basically the only place where this is true by the way. This is because America is the most feminazified farce of a country in existence and it's a cancer on the planet. >We didn't even have a concept of a marketplace until recently. If by recently you mean on a geological timescale, then perhaps. >If you cannot comprehend why a adult, with life experience and job would have an unfair advantage, and great ability to abuse a 15 year old, then you are way, way off the reservation lainon. You're presumably okay with an 18 year old fuarrrking a 50 year old despite the supposed experience gap, which is legal. Why is that? Perhaps it's because the 18 year old has passed a threshold of understanding needed to give sexual consent. As soon as you acknowledge this, you acknowledge that consent is based on competence and not age difference. Now we can bring in the fact that sex is exceedingly easy to understand and thus arrive at the fact that a 30 year old's understanding of sex is no better than that of a 15 year old because there really isn't anything more to understand than what the 15 year old knows. Thus we can conclude that the experience gap you claim doesn't actually exist because even if someone has more experience in the workplace or some other aspect of life, that doesn't translate into anything that would matter in sexual situations. >No murder, just help. Ah yes, the "everything that offends me is a mental disorder" ploy. How could I forget your "help" from hack psychologists whose theories on the age of consent are about as scientifically rigorous and politically unbiased as drapetomania? This is a textbook example of the political abuse of psychology, which America has a long history of. >Accidentally killing a kid with a bomb, while you were trying to kill everyone else in his house is not morally equivalent to leveraging your intellectual advantage of a young girl to fuarrrk her when someone with a little more life experience would tell you to fuarrrk off. >neurosuggesting it was an accident There is no intellectual advantage here. Mentally speaking, people are basically adults by 14-15. Except for you. >Nobody is "censoring" you dude. Have you seen the soykaf our president says? We are the least P.C country in the world. We say all kinds of fuarrrked up soykaf. All the stuff you see in the mainstream media that's supposedly un-PC is controlled opposition. Actual un-PC statements are suppressed ruthlessly. America is the most PC country in history. >>7836 >stop talking about politics in a politics thread >mods please stop this person from saying things I don't like >but nobody's censoring you though Some of us don't need to run to the mods for help because we can actually debate.

>>7838 >>7840 >I am waiting for the pedos reply with baited breath. What will it be this time? Accuse you of censorship? Complain that your views are based on feminist propaganda? Perhaps you are a redditor? Any reply anyone could come up with is better than "lol chris hansen is coming for you." In all seriousness, if this happened I'd challenge him to a structured public debate on the topic, like you'd see in a presidential election. Somehow I doubt he'd show up, though, because he has no actual evidence to back up his beliefs and he knows it. By the way, yes, the analogies I made do feature moral equivalence. Denying this makes you guilty of a special pleading fallacy.

>>7841 >Modern conservatives are disguised feminists. You are suffering from paranoia, you should get some help before you kidnap any more children. > America is basically the only place where this is true by the way Did you move to Romania by any chance? You remind me of a certain hacker celebrity that moved there to avoid the pedovan. Are the Romanians a little more comfortable with your child abductions? Last I checked, all of western Europe had age of consent laws. Or has Germany taken leather week too far? > lol tyranny is justified if the majority agrees! You need to progress past a 3rd grade education. If *everyone* agrees that is not tyranny is it. > If by recently you mean on a geological timescale, then perhaps I'm sorry lainon, Dinosaurs were not day traders. They had no economy. > You're presumably okay with an 18 year old fuarrrking a 50 year old despite the supposed experience gap You have to draw the line somewhere. That doesn't make the line useless. Lainon, you really suck at math. > fact that sex is exceedingly easy to understand I'm sorry, it must be easy to feel that way when you have the pedophilia stunting your emotional development. > that doesn't translate into anything that would matter in sexual situations. Ok dude, see this is where you sound like a very bad pedo. Like the kind with a creepy abduction van. We were not discussing a skill gap with regard to the *act* of sex, dude. Like, the emotional maturity to know when to say no. Yes, this is a thing people develop over their entire lives. If you don't think adults can take advantage of children, using their intellect, there is something wrong with your intellect. > hack psychologists Not all pyschologists are hacks. Maybe you should get some help from one, it's not bad pedobear. I swear. I'm sure you will find your way into their arms eventually anyway. >There is no intellectual advantage here. Mentally speaking, people are basically adults by 14-15. Except for you. If you think there is no emotional, or intellectual difference between someone who is in high school and someone who is 30, then you are literally in highschool, or you are mentally disabled. I am leaning toward the latter. > Actual un-PC statements are suppressed ruthlessly By who? Fox news? The pussy grabber people? Are you insane? > America is the most PC country in history. More than North Korea even? You need to like, go out and see the world lainon. >if this happened I'd challenge him to a structured public debate on the topic, He still does shows. Why don't you call him up about it? I'm sure he'd be glad to oblige. > Somehow I doubt he'd show up Oh but lainon, he is already on his way. Do you know they have dogs that can smell hidden disk drives now? They can find media as small as a micro sd. I hope you are prepared pedo. > analogies I made do feature moral equivalence No, murder in war is not the same as rape in peace time. Ask your prison pyschologist about it once you finish getting integrated.

>>7840 You sound really vindictive in your little ego trip of a comment Who hurt you? Dont tell me it was some text on a screen because that is baloney You were hurt by someone and you are lashing out in this thread online because nobody can retaliate

>>7842 I love the part where you have not yet denied you prey upon children. What will your legal defense be when they find the drive? Will it be your age of consent line? Will you take it to the supreme court?

>>7777 >"living their lives" >my tax money going into social programs is literally "not my life" Yea, "why should you stick your nose into my life?" , right? Having beliefs and not talking them out or trying to show them to others or even trying to make your tax money work in youe political goals is the sole definition of a coward. You are not neutral or centrist, just "living your own life" while Jamal takes your money and buys liquor or whoever your enemy is doing whatever you think bad is. Like fat people? Want a national health system where we subsidize the fat fuarrrks and their soykafty life decisions with MY tax money? fuarrrk no. This is why I believe in some things like increasing tax for fat. And I aint a wimp to state my opinion clearly for everyone to hear me out because I dont care if they believe it is best or not. "I live my life" and showcase it to others to be jealous

>>7843 >Last I checked, all of western Europe had age of consent laws. Which are on the whole much more permissive than those in the US, though there are femicunts there trying to change that. >You need to progress past a 3rd grade education. If *everyone* agrees that is not tyranny is it. You don't have anything like this level of consensus, but let's indulge you just a bit. Suppose you have a scenario where everyone in the world is white except for one person who's a black man and all the whites want to murder all black people. Is it justified for them to kill the black man? That's exactly what you're advocating for. This is a much broader issue than the age of consent, and when you say this kind of thing it makes a lot more people sympathetic to whichever group you're going on a witch hunt against because they realize that you and everyone like you are literal clinical psychopaths and they might be in your crosshairs next. This is why I call you people cancer. I'd actually like the thread to focus on this for a while. People are accusing me of derailing (by which they mean calling them out on their hypocrisy and illogical beliefs), so let's talk about something everyone can relate to. >I'm sorry lainon, Dinosaurs were not day traders. They had no economy. Early humans traded. Even animals sometimes exhibit behaviors similar to what we know as economics. >You have to draw the line somewhere. That doesn't make the line useless. I never said it was useless, only that it should be drawn somewhere that reflects biological reality. >Ok dude, see this is where you sound like a very bad pedo. Like the kind with a creepy abduction van. We were not discussing a skill gap with regard to the *act* of sex, dude. Yes, we are, because that's the only skill gap that's important here. Skill at an office job is completely irrelevant to relationships. >If you don't think adults can take advantage of children, using their intellect, there is something wrong with your intellect. Adults can also take advantage of other adults. This could happen to anyone, so it's not a reason to outlaw one particular category of relationships. >If you think there is no emotional, or intellectual difference between someone who is in high school and someone who is 30, then you are literally in highschool, or you are mentally disabled. The difference is that I was more mature and less prone to being taken advantage of in high school than you are now. >No, murder in war is not the same as rape in peace time. And an adult having sex with a willing teenager who has access to the information necessary to give consent is not the same as rape. >Ask your prison pyschologist about it once you finish getting integrated. Or I could ask a psychologist from a country that doesn't have insane laws made by violent, psychopathic soykafbags like you.

>>7845 First, people increasingly aren't buying your overextended definition of children, because your behavior is no more mature than that of a child. Second, I find most people uninteresting and vapid regardless of age, people like you being the prime example, and I rarely bother to ask anyone out at all, let alone someone underage. But more importantly, I don't prey on anyone. I can't say the same about you. You don't care about young people at all. You're a bloodthirsty, sociopathic monster who's just looking for your Two Minutes' Hate against any target you can get away with destroying. You're the reason for every single problem anyone has mentioned in this thread and many more. >>7844 Some people like this were never really hurt. Some people just want to destroy others because they think it's fun and/or they can gain power from it.

>>7834 Okay, I'm the Neptune poster, not Teen-Anon. >No, it's not. Your very narrowly negotiated labor is. The company can't ask you for sex now can it? The company doesn't list body as a resource on it's tax statements, I promise you. Just your labor. Okay... but how am I going to do said labor without my body? I'm not trying to be funny here, but you kinda need a body and a mind to control it in order to work, otherwise you're disabled. >Stop learning about economics from Ayn Rand books. Life is full of intangibles, along with benefits that are hard to put a price tag on in the early stages. Most big benefits are losses early on. I've actually never read a single Ayn Rand book. All I know is that my mom keeps telling me that I should give her grandchildren because she gave birth to me and she had sperm donated to her under the agreement she never says who the donor is. Apparently I'm just an investment to my mother and supposed to be a sperm donor to some woman. I know that isn't the reality but that's how I feel. It just feels like it's all about money and it's either act in your best interest or get used. Maybe I need to see a therapist about this, actually. >>7835 Not a sock puppet, if you know my history with Teen-anpn, and he can vouch for this but we do not see eye to eye on dating teens. I find them annoying but he wants them.

>>7847 >Which are on the whole much more permissive than those in the US, though there are femicunts there trying to change that. It really does sound like you are in Romania lainon. Tell me do you run a troll oriented e-mail service? > Is it justified for them to kill the black man? It would be unjust, but it would also not be tyranny. Learn what words mean. > sometimes > similar You are grasping at straws because you made a stupid statement. > biological reality You know other animals have things called sub adults? Just because you are capable of reproducing doesn't make you biologically, and more importantly psychologically an an adult. > Yes, we are, because that's the only skill gap that's important here You are failing miserably to comprehend why you sound like a ragin pedophile. Dude, what changes when you grow older is your ability to rationalize about whether or not to have sex. If you think that's not a thing you learn over time, then you need to get out more. Maybe if you fuarrrked a couple of adult women it would click for you? I know you are batting 1000 with the children, but someone over 16 might up the challenge factor a bit. > than you are now. Are you thinking about taking advantage of me? Maybe that means you are graduating to raping adults. > to give consent is not the same as rape. The law, and the people who made it beg to differ. >country that doesn't have insane laws made by violent, psychopathic soykafbags like you Are the psychologists a little better in Romania? Just what is your pedo paradise? Thailand maybe? > because your behavior is no more mature than that of a child I don't see anyone jumping to your defense. > and I rarely bother to ask anyone out at all, let alone someone underage Oh are you the kind that just looks at the cheese pizza? I love how you didn't specifically deny having over asked out an underage girl. >care care about young people at all Certainly not in the creepy way that you do. >You're a bloodthirsty, sociopathic monster who's just looking for your Two Minutes' Hate against any target Now when you react like that to me telling you it's bad to be a pedophile, it kind of reinforces to me that you are a pedophile. Normal humans say things like "OH NO NO NO! I WOULD NEVER fuarrrk CHILDREN!" in these circumstances. > You're the reason for every single problem anyone has mentioned in this thread and many more. And you're the reason we have Amber's alerts! 15 year olds are children lainon. You want to fuarrrk children lainon.

>>7849 >Okay, I'm the Neptune poster, not Teen-Anon. One of you ought to trip then, it's hard to tell his "self advocacy" from you. > but how am I going to do said labor without my body They are paying for your labor only. If they could get it without endangering your body they would. Your body is a liability to them in almost every way. They don't want to know about it. They don't want to touch it. It is not theirs, it is yours only. They also don't control your mind, or have any right to. They just want you to perform a task. You can think anything you want. > and it's either act in your best interest or get used. Maybe I need to see a therapist about this, actually. Yeah, you should. People aren't investments. And if you think a women is just with you for Jizz, I have a fuarrrking supply and demand curve for you to check out. People in life actually like you anon, don't reduce them to costs and benefits. > I find them annoying but he wants them. Uh. Those should not be the moral contrasts my dude. It's not ok to fuarrrk children.

>>7850 >It would be unjust, but it would also not be tyranny. Learn what words mean. You posted this, and then proceeded to post this: >15 year olds are children lainon. You want to fuarrrk children lainon. Teenagers are not children. Learn what words mean. Not only was I intellectually superior to your current self at 15, the average 15-year-old is intellectually superior to you. You're a pathetic mental child, and having online shouting matches with children isn't worth my time. That's why I'm not going to respond to any further posts you make. >The law, and the people who made it beg to differ. And you think the law is always right, apparently. This is of course a nonsensical position, and one that a child would be expected to hold because they haven't yet progressed past the "moral policeman" stage of Konigsberg's scale of moral development. It's also one that you'd expect Redditors to hold because they're dipsoykafs obsessed with conformity, which is why you keep getting told to go back to Reddit. It's not worth replying to anything else you say both because the thread needs to be open for discussion of other topics and because if this slavish legalism is what you believe in, reason will never get through to you. You're a mob mentality idiot and we should have taken a much tougher stance against you a long time ago.

>>7852 >You're a pathetic mental child, and having online shouting matches with children isn't worth my time. That's why I'm not going to respond to any further posts you make. That's funny because you obviously spend a lot of time trying to convince children on the internet, don't you?

>>7853 And you never denied you ran an e-mail service in Romania. That you man?

>>7851 I'll name user then, if it makes the discussion a little easier. Had to pick up some food so I thought a little bit about; >People in life actually like you anon, don't reduce them to costs and benefits. It's just really fuarrrked up to view other people as costs or benefits and even worse to just see yourself as just a single utility. Sadly, my feelings go pretty deep and pretty off-topic. Maybe a support group is a good idea. As far as the last point, I know that. Kids can't consent, it's just that was the first difference between us I can name quickly. I'm sure we would disagree with a lot of things both morality wise or non-moral topics, maybe he thinks Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid is like kicking dead whales down the beach or something? I do remember that we disagreed on whether morality was subjective or objective. In the end, you get more conversation with an eagerness to learn about someone than just attacking someone based on your own misconceptions or previous biases. It's why I try to approach discussions online not as a debate but a chance to listen THEN form an opinion.

>>7855 >Kids can't consent, it's just that was the first difference between us I can name quickly. There isn't a difference between us on that. I'm just pointing out that this person's definition of a child is wrong, and he keeps insisting on using this wrong definition even after multiple substantive points are made against it, which is why I'm not responding to him anymore. It's like he thinks that if he just says teens are children enough times that makes it true. >It's just really fuarrrked up to view other people as costs or benefits and even worse to just see yourself as just a single utility. This kind of thing would be much less necessary in a world that wasn't a dystopia.

>>7856 > in a world that wasn't a dystopia A dystopia where grown men argue for their right to rape children. What a world. Has the van shown up yet anon?

>>7825 > The entire cultural conversation is stupid from both sides because neither of you know how to speak clearly. When people talk about being oppressed, they make it sound like their is active conspiracy to oppress them, which is not what they mean. Thank you for this. It is true that I feel sometimes that I can't make myself clear about my opinion on this issue.

>>7833 >How much more "equality" do you want? A lot more. It's not because Barack Obama was president once that racism disappeared overnight. Again, I agree defining privilege is hard and that we can not have a 100% effective method of deciding who is privileged and who isn't. Beside, it would be a pointless enterprise to begin with. Privilege used to be a valid term used mainly in academia and social studies, but as always with social sciences, people chose to willfully misunderstand it and we have to explain what it means everytime someone is like "but how can white homeless people be more privileged that billionaire black transgender women????". Once the term left academia and entered the mainstream public debate space, it lost all it nuance and usefulness. >Except white men are not the majority are they I was obviously talking about equality in the context of the Western world. >You feel mental pain when you encounter ideas that don't mesh with your extreme politics so you dismiss everyone you disagree with as "ignorant" Equality advocacy is hardly "extreme politics".

>>7860 >Once the term left academia and entered the mainstream public debate space, it lost all it nuance and usefulness. And yet you use this word and expect me to understand and accept your position. >I was obviously talking about equality in the context of the Western world. You brushed off 2 of my points. I'll reiterate them 1) How come non-western countries do not care about "equality" and why do you not care that they don't care? 2) The major of London (capital of a white, christian country) is a Muslim. Do you actually have a stopping criteria? At what point does your "equality" go too far and overrepresent the minorities? I think the fact that you don't even acknowledge this is where the Right get their "white genocide" rhetoric from. Remember that ethnic minorities are minorities in this country only. In the grand scheme of things they have their own country and culture they are free to return to at any time. Surly it is the natives who should take priority? Especially in a world where the minorities don't reciprocate western standards of tolerance and equality in their own countries. >Equality advocacy is hardly "extreme politics". That's the beauty of it. Extremists don't realize they are extremists, they just think everyone around them are ignorant sheep.

>>7863 (not who you were replying to) I don't really care about the "equality" argument, just giving my two cents on one of your points. I live in London, whether it's majority muslim or not I don't know, there certainly is a large muslim population here. But you say that as if that's some crazy injustice against white people. They're just people, sure I disagree with Islam but I also disagree with Christianity, one doesn't affect me more than the other. It doesn't hurt me to just let other people live how they want. It's not like they're forcing me to go to a mosque or anything, they do their thing, I do mine and it's no more of an issue than having Christians everywhere. I would also like to point out that christianity is a middle eastern immigrant religion too so if you really wanted true tradition you should be a pagan. I don't see why natives are inherently a priority, unless maybe you're taking the sort of anti-imperialist point of view in which case I guess white folks need to go back to their own countries and give america and australia back to the natives right? Oh no wait it only counts when it's brown people doing it, it's fine when we do it.

>>7709 >The days of uniform centralized propaganda are over. The mainstream media all report on the same stories, in the same way, with the same angle. Every single time. That's pretty much the definition of uniform propaganda. >Technology makes it easy for power structures to trap people inside digital bubbles and manipulate them on a targeted, individual basis. No? Technology makes it impossible to trap people inside a bubble. Who is to stop me from pursuing alternative information if I so choose? The internet exists and there are millions of people to listen to. >As long as the elites Please define elites. >can divide us across arbitrary lines Nobody is being divided against their will, people choose to divide themselves. In what way are these divisions arbitrary? You're saying that the average Antifa goon and the average Spencerite aren't different in a meaningful way, which is wrong. There are vast ideological differences between the two groups. > then nobody has the time and resources to actually change anything. Who is the "nobody" in this situation? Who exactly do you expect to change things? A throng of millions who cannot agree on the most basic of things? By what mechanism do they change things? What precisely are they changing? >OP you think social justice and equality are the big enemy There is no big enemy, it's a distributed conspiracy. Read Moldbug. >You're just getting played. In what way?

>>7716 >The other half comes from... In your original post you claim this is the fault of "power structures" and now you claim that actually no, it's the people's fault! Which is it? Well, not that it really matters. > can close a tab the instant they encounter an idea they don't like and only chase content which avoids triggering cognitive dissonance. Sure they can, but they also can choose not to do that. What exactly is your point? You went from "the elites are keeping us in bubbles!" to "well it's easy to not hear opinions you don't want to on the internet!" yeah, no soykaf? How does that relate to anything? >but in reality they're not compromising profit for anything. Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Can you demonstrate that companies that advocate for diversity are not doing so in spite of poorer performance? >In what way? Immigrant groups have higher crime rates than the native population. By displacing the native population with these immigrant groups you are increasing crime. Certain immigrant groups such as Muslims are quite literally a fifth column that work towards their own interests. >we've gone from planes smashing into buildings and bombs on the tube to random idiots running one or two people Uh, not only are you wrong: http://www.datagraver.com/case/worldwide-terrorism-1970-2015 you're also cherrypicking. Do I need remind you of the Bataclan massacre? 130 people brutally murdered in a public area? Oh let's not forget, stopping 9/11 tier events has put incredible strain on our national security infrastructure, and has impeded on our personal lives in many ways. Not to mention that stopping those random car murders is nigh impossible. >Objectively speaking life in the west is much safer now than in the past. No, not really? Just how far back does your definition of past go? Take this excerpt from https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=1iEiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA480&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false >Meanwhile, it may with little fear of contradiction be asserted that there never was, in any nation of which we have a history, a time in which life and property were so secure as they are at present in England. The sense of security is almost everywhere diffused, in town and country alike, and it is in marked contrast to the sense of insecurity which prevailed even at the beginning of the present century. There are, of course, in most great cities, some quarters of evil repute in which assault and robbery are now and again committed. There is perhaps to be found a lingering and flickering tradition of the old sanctuaries and similar resorts. But any man of average stature and strength may wander about on foot and alone, at any hour of the day or the night, through the greatest of all cities and its suburbs, along the high roads, and through unfrequented country lanes, and never have so much as the thought of danger thrust upon him, unless he goes out of his way to court it. The past is a first world country. >Because of the bubble you're inside these problems appear much bigger and numerous than they actually are. That's why people outside your bubble don't seem to care when you bring it up. The only one in the bubble here is you.

>>7839 I'm going to say this very slowly because you types seem to have a great deal of trouble with reading comprehension. You. Have. Absolutely. No. Proof. Whatsoever. Of. Any. Developmental. Difference. Between. Teenagers. And. Adults. >If you've failed to follow the standard growth pattern of your society >CONFORM TO SOCIETY, DO EVERYTHING YOU'RE TOLD! Normalcunts don't belong on imageboards. fuarrrk you and fuarrrk society. Failure would be conforming to your soykafty standards.

>>7867 Hey, let's take a breather here, this is just going to make this discussion more hostile then it needs to be. I read that post several times, I didn't get "do as your told" from the post. What I got was that kids (and I guess teens) would be harmed by a relationship with an adult who may have some mental or emotional issues. Can't say I disagree with that. You still have to show everyone how abuse would be prevented, since that's is on the forefront of a lot of people's minds when AOC is brought up.

>>7867 You can be as weird as you like. Society just isn't into you sleeping with children. It's not hard to conceive of why. Also, yes there is development differences between teens and adults. You know people's brains and muscles continue to develop into their 20's? Actually the process of development never stops, it just changes moods. To make this easier for you: Do you think there was a difference between Einstein at 18 and Einstein at 40? Which would be the wiser man? Which would you pick to represent you in court?

>>7871 >Do you think there was a difference between Einstein at 18 and Einstein at 40 I know you are talking to Teen-anon, but what kind of question is this? Of course there would be a massive difference between a 40 year old and an 18 year old Einstein. At forty years old you would have over 20 years more of experience in any given field, and that is not even counting just general life experience.

>>7872 Right. And that life experience might be the difference between someone taking advantage of you sexually.

>>7873 Or just in general, really.

>>7870 >What I got was that kids (and I guess teens) would be harmed by a relationship with an adult who may have some mental or emotional issues. This is true of anyone, and society causes most of these issues to begin with. The solution to these problems is to fix society. Good luck with that though. >You still have to show everyone how abuse would be prevented, since that's is on the forefront of a lot of people's minds when AOC is brought up. We talked about this in the other thread. The way to prevent abuse, not only in this situation but in all situations, is to empower the individual. This means giving teenagers not only more sexual freedom but more adult freedoms in general, like voting and gun ownership. Not that voting really matters though. No matter who you vote for, you're voting for censorship, corporate lobbyists and drone strikes. >>7871 >You know people's brains and muscles continue to develop into their 20's? The evidence for this claim is questionable at best. Even if it were true, you only have to be at the level of brain development necessary to comprehend sex in order to give consent to it. >Do you think there was a difference between Einstein at 18 and Einstein at 40? In terms of ability to give sexual consent, none. >Which would be the wiser man? Irrelevant because most people don't display a hint of additional wisdom at 40 over their 18-year-old selves, and many times are less mature at 40 than 18-year-olds around them. >Which would you pick to represent you in court? Irrelevant both on the grounds that it's unrelated to sex and because Einstein wasn't a lawyer. >Actually the process of development never stops This "muh life experience" meme modern society holds so dear is a bunch of crap. All life experience is not created equal. A teenager who uses facts and logic to construct their opinions has more valid life experience than an 80-year-old who adopts the popular strategy of adopting opinions based on what they think will make people approve of them.

>>7864 > I don't see why natives are inherently a priority Muslims can go back to whichever nigger-stan they came from but white people only have the countries they have and they are all being destroyed by twisted liberal morality. >unless maybe you're taking the sort of anti-imperialist point of view in which case I guess white folks need to go back to their own countries and give america and australia back to the natives right? I don't see how this follows. It would be consistent to say American/Australian natives shouldn't elect white rulers. I don't think they did. Actually nobody appoints foreign rulers except white people, which was my first point. >Oh no wait it only counts when it's brown people doing it, it's fine when we do it. If your civilization gets stomped on by a superior one then that's kind of a different issue. But that's not what's happening in the West. We are destroying ourselves through this pursuit of "equality".

>>7878 >The solution to these problems is to fix society. Good luck with that though. Yeah but we don't have to fix society. The law is concerned with minimizing harm for the majority of people, and the majority of teenagers are not mature enough to make those decisions. > like voting and gun ownership You can't think of a single reason this would be a bad idea? >comprehend sex in order to give consent to it. It's not about comprehending the act of sex, it's the ramifications of sex, and yes someone who has barely lived as an independent human generally isn't qualified to make those decisions. >most people don't display a hint of additional wisdom at 40 over their 18-year-old selve Says who? What planet do you live on lain? There's a reason why we conflate wisdom with age. > it's unrelated to sex and because Einstein wasn't a lawyer You miss the point entirely. Your judgement in general improves with experience, experience takes time, and with time you age. >All life experience is not created equal But some is better than none, and the older you are the more you have. >80-year-old who adopts the popular strategy of adopting opinions based on what they think will make people approve of them. You clearly haven't met many 80 year olds. You don't characterize their cranky ways very well at all.

>>7882 >The law is concerned with minimizing harm for the majority of people Jesus God, I didn't think anyone in 2018 could be this naive. The law is concerned with maintaining the power of the powerful and nothing else. Maybe you missed that discussion above about the government bombing children with drone strikes. If the law or the government were concerned with helping anyone but themselves, that wouldn't happen. Pull your head out of your ass. >the majority of teenagers are not mature enough to make those decisions. You have yet to show that you're any more capable than they are of making those decisions, let alone choosing who else is, especially in light of what's written above. I distrusted the government from a very young age, while you, who are presumably an adult, believe all their crap about how the law is supposedly written to protect people. You're a fuarrrking moron and if anything it's you who should be denied the right to have sex because you're obviously not capable of making decisions. >ramifications of sex The ramifications of sex are completely different for each person and this is a vague bullsoykaf line that only pseudointellectual liberal twats use. None of you have ever given any specifics about what any of these "ramifications" are. >There's a reason why we conflate wisdom with age. That reason is because older people tend to have more financial and political power. They're not any smarter than young people on the whole. They just have the power to enforce their views, which means those views get treated as wisdom. >Your judgement in general improves with experience So according to you, a 20-year-old who spends all his spare time learning science and history has less wisdom than a 40-year-old who's spent all his spare time memorizing the phone book. If you're so fuarrrking retarded that you actually believe this, there's nothing that can make you see the truth. You're too egotistical to admit that someone younger than you might be just as competent as you or more, and nothing anyone says will dissuade you from this. You're also incredibly dumb on top of your egotism, making you a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This combination of arrogance and stupidity can only be the result of being indoctrinated by the American mainstream media.

>>7882 >You can't think of a single reason this would be a bad idea? Not any more than it is for anyone else. For anyone in the thread who believes in Chris Hansen retardation, I want to hear what you think about gun control. I'm betting we have a ton of Reddit lackwits who want to take all the guns away "to protect people". Every single time anyone says that, the only ones they want to protect are themselves. It doesn't matter what issue it's about, whether it's sex or guns or drugs. It's all the same bullsoykaf.

So we got rid of most of the alt-retards here but now every thread about politics becomes an excuse for pedos to cry about how oppressed they are. >>7885 Give guns to all the children and train them to defend themselves against people like you.

>>7890 It's hilarious that you think that's how it would go. It'd be more like this: >Teenagers get guns, drinking rights and every other right an adult has >Teenage girls start doing what they do in any place that has freedom and dating any guy they think is hot no matter how old he is, most often someone college aged or in his 20s >Retards like you bitch about it and try to beat up some 25-or-so-year-old guy up for dating a 14-year-old girl >His teenage girlfriend shoots you dead >The case gets on the news and I laugh about it for weeks on end

>>7890 I blame the relativists and nihilists from the anarcho socialist groups. They are the ones pushing for the "age doesn't matter, it's just the number" soykaf which makes no sense.

>>7892 That's how it goes in your fantasy world. In reality fuarrrking children is, and will continue be against the law in any civilized place. What exactly is your paradise again? Thailand? Romania? You still haven't told us.

>>7894 We're less relativist than you because we judge people by their competence. >>7895 Most of the world doesn't share your definition of children, so I guess you're calling most of the world savages.

>>7892 Okay, man, you are really hurting your own cause here. I can agree that a lot of laws are worthless and all but insulting those you disagree with is never going to get you anywhere. Since I think I understand your position, I'll try to refute some points you've made. >>7884 >The ramifications of sex are completely different for each person and this is a vague bullsoykaf line that only pseudointellectual liberal twats use. None of you have ever given any specifics about what any of these "ramifications" are. I will. First and foremost, pregnancy. If a young teenage girl gets pregnant then that will affect her school performance and if she wanted a high paying career, it's basically shot because she now has kids. Unless her parents are cool with some 20 something who knocked up their daughter living with them or otherwise spend a ton of time with them, the newborn kid is going to basically live with a single mother since the father is likely going to be out of the picture for a while, assuming this guy wants to be a part of the kid's life. It's been very well documented that single mother households can be very harmful to children's development and happiness, especially for boys. This is an important topic for me, since I've lived through this, so please try to be empathetic. Ignoring some of the abuse that comes from single mother households (which I'm singling out because there are way more single mothers than single fathers) like spousification of children and potential sexual or physical abuse from non-paternal men who their mother is dating since these kids have no father figure and therefore easy prey for predators, we have the lowered earning potential from the mother since she has to work less hours to take care of her child. And this will create unstable environments for the kid, who will grow up to either continue the cycle (maybe). If we allow teens to sleep with and have relationships with adults, we may not feel the results overnight because we would have to see how the children of these relationships do, but if it causes a rise in single motherhood from horny 20/30 somethings just pumping and dumping naive 14/15 year old girls or predatory women using young horny teenage boys for sperm to produce a kid, then the end results can't be good. And we won't feel the issues that come from this until a majority of them are at employable ages. It needs to be said that maybe if we allowed relationships between teens and adults, that you, as in as an individual would take care of any of your kids you have conceived with your 14 year old wife and provide a very stable childhood for said kid so he or she can become a productive member of society and hell you might even have the resources to provide your 14 year old wife a great education and a career to have in the case you die or whatever, but in the situation where the AOC is lowered I'm not really talking about these situations since will be very different from couple to couple. And it might just be my own biases but I'm most concerned for the kids who will be raised in single mother households below the poverty line because a teenager who has limited working and earning potential due to her age is now further hampered from a kid with no guarantee that the father will even care after he's busted his nut. Or the poor kid whose mother just wanted a kid so much she used some another dumb kid to get knocked up and may never have any father figure plus I'd feel really bad for the young father too if they really wanted to be with the child he fathered. Children's development is important, I know I said I dislike TOTC arguments but this is the rare case where it applies.

>>7897 >all this stuff about pregnancy There is some validity to this, but the guy who posted about ramifications is acting like the idea of pregnancy is something teenagers don't even know exists, which is ludicrous enough to warrant being called a few names. Given that these people constantly threaten to murder anyone who disagrees with them, trying to fault us for calling them stupid assholes is pretty misplaced. People probably shouldn't have kids in their teens for purely medical reasons though, because the smaller the girl's body is the less likely that she can handle giving birth.

>>7896 >judge people by their competence You mean all those illiterate syrian brain surgeons or Indians who have diplomas that mean jack soykaf? Ever wondered why software and engineering companies are all white?

>>7898 Well you are right about the medical aspects, but children are a potential consequence of heterosexual penetrative sex. Unless you want to go the Mohammad route and just stick your dick in between her thighs or the couple just uses sex toys on each other ensure zero sperm touches an egg, there is going to be a chance that female in the relationship gets pregnant and thus the potential of a child being brought into an unstable family life or maybe emotional issues that may stem from a young girl deciding to get an abortion, etc. While it's pointless to try to give your kid the "perfect childhood" because people aren't perfect but I do think the potential offspring of these relationships should be a major point of consideration for lowering AOC. If we end up with even more kids than we already have being raised by single mothers and the crime, welfare dependence, and depression/mental illness it often brings into societies from teen/adult relationships then personally as someone who has experienced some of these issues and seen others suffer, I'd would be in opposition to these kind of relationships, I'd be more open to homosexual adult/teenager relationships since two dicks or pussies don't lead to babies or a relationship where the adult has been sterilized but any heterosexual teen/adult relationship I would be wary about mostly due to the offspring more than anything else. But again, that's just my bias here.

>>7903 The entire pregnancy thing is a moot point because it doesn't discriminate by age. It doesn't take an adult male to make a teenage girl pregnant, so if pregnancy is your concern then stop teens from banging each other too.

>>7901 >illiterate syrian brain surgeons inb4 a massive discussion about Bashar al-Assad's medical qualifications

>>7905 Nope, just how people were saying that refugees are good for economy when it was well known that literacy rates amongst the refugees were soykaf. Not only that but mainstream media kept saying about illusive brain surgeons and engineers pouring into the countries that take in those refugees. Funny stuff

Holy soykaf, these pedos are fuarrrking everywhere these days, and nobody has the balls to kick them out.

>>7908 I want to believe he's a teenager. That would make his lack of empathy for children a little more understandable.

>>7892 Now it sounds like you're making a case FOR gun control. Whatever is convenient at any point in the discussion I guess.

>>7894 > relativists and nihilists > anarcho socialist ...but these groups are in opposition to each other. The anarchists that talk about nihilism and Stirner all reject socialism. Like seriously, what are you talking about?

>>7908 >Holy soykaf, these pedos are fuarrrking everywhere these days, and nobody has the balls to kick them out. It's only 1 guy. He derails every thread he can with the exact same soykaf. It always ends the same way too "wah wah moral panic wah wah nobody has logical arguments wah wah everyone is an idiot except me"

>>7916 I was writing an okay post in response to is last post to me and I decided to just stop. I get he might be mad about how he gets treated since he proudly says he wants a teenage girlfriend and all that but he still insults people. All this guy is doing is generating ill will, I thought in all the time since the last thread he'd sharpen his arguments like I had. I was able to say, "Here's a reason why we shouldn't allow adults and teens to date" without insulting him or putting words in his mouth. If he's a legit AOC activist, then he's hurting his cause. If he is just a troll, then I won't bother anymore. I had no clue he derailed a ton of threads, how many threads got derailed by him?

>>7917 >If he's a legit AOC activist, then he's hurting his cause. If he is just a troll, then I won't bother anymore. He's too passionate and consistent to be a troll but also too selfish and autistic to be a legit activist. I think he's just living in his own little echochamber with an ax to grind and Lainchan is too loose about keeping threads on topic. >I get he might be mad about how he gets treated He gets treated like soykaf because he treats others like soykaf. It's got nothing to do with sexual preferences. But it's always easier to assign the cause of all your problems to some external force you can't control and then cry about how unfair the world is. It's called persecution complex.

>>7705 This thread is locked for Rule 4 violation. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. >>7918 This thread is also locked due to the derail and Rule 3 and Rule 6 violations. Do not whine and cry about 8chan, lainchan.jp, "quality", "invasions", "new users", mods, bans, or kalyx outside of /q/.