For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 380)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 463 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 151125413161.jpg - (109.84KB , 1280x720 , [aniKoi] Yuusha ni Narenakatta Ore wa Shibushibu S.jpg )
380 No. 380 [Edit]
What are some thing you believe that most people wouldn't agree with, or would possibly get upset about if you told them how you really feel about it?
192 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 1245 [Edit]
I don't know, modern man is fairly different from me as well.

>I wouldn't say they're any less driven by "base instinct"; I would say the opposite actually.

Well if you look at pretty much any metric they aren't. According to studies from both Japan and the west men are twice as likely to cheat as women are, men are also far more likely to end up in prison and the vast majority of people there are in it for base reason of one kind or another there is also a humongous industry built on the lust of men. The common response to the porn industry point is 'well of course women can do 'it' whenever they like' but this is part of the problem with the mentality of the imageboard folk, they are not actually comparing like to like. They are comparing attractive females to themselves when they should be comparing attractive females to attractive males and themselves to ugly and obese women. Could an obese woman walk up to a male model and get it from him? Hell no. There should be a porn industry as big or bigger for women than there is for men but this simply is not the case and even what porn is made for women is completely different than what is made for men, the most popular female pornography was a book.

Women think differently than men do and that is the other issue with imageboard folk, they assume that women think like they do and have the same desires. This is completely false.

I don't actually think it could be harmful to them, harmful to what about them exactly? You mentioned a special status but again, it's something that imageboard folk exaggerate. In fact if they have a special status it's because men like them are giving it to them in the first place.

Post edited on 28th Mar 2021, 7:59pm
>> No. 1246 [Edit]
Do me a favor and quote people in your first reply to them so I don't waste my time responding to you.
>> No. 1247 [Edit]
>with the difference being that women are less inclined to be driven by base impulse unlike men and that they on average swear less and do other revolting things less.
Is this a humor skit? Women may, arguably, be driven less by sex. But base impulses like emotional logic drive women to a much greater extent than men. I don't think I've met a woman who doesn't heavily weigh emotional reasons over logical reasons when making decisions, even practical decisions like where to work, rent, what living standards they can afford. Your description of women sounds like a fantasized and flanderized version of women based on old idealized versions of women that were never true in any era. If nothing else, women are fucking retarded more so than men, as stupid as men get women are able to surpass all expectations. t. 4 sisters
>> No. 1248 [Edit]
Companies should not be allowed to move labor overseas under any circumstances, or if they do they should be required to re-locate their legal basing to whatever countries they now use, and a heavy tariff should be imposed on companies that have left their home country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government punishing businesses that have chosen to become foreign entities to their nation. In fact, no government should be considered with the welfare of anyone but their own citizens. A company that is no longer of the country should be treated as an outside force to be dealt with as an outsider.
>> No. 1249 [Edit]
With the way the world works, these businesses would rather cut themselves off from the US than stay if they felt too much pressure. You'd have to physically restrict the travel of company heads to force them to stay.
>> No. 1250 [Edit]
It's fairly evident. I will agree they are more emotional on average though, they are more emotional yes but less driven by base impulse as weird as that sounds. Although maybes it's not so strange, being driven by base impulse does not necessarily imply that you are driven by emotion or vice versa. You could be cold and logical in your pursuit of s*x for example yet still have that be the driving force in your life, likewise you could be driven by emotion to find it repulsive and so actually avoid it.

I've got sisters too.
>> No. 1251 [Edit]
Automation is going to take many jobs anyway so even manufacturing internally won't help in the long run. Automation might bring manufacturing back to first world nations anyway(it is to a degree already, see Tesla and Lucid Motors), if the factory is running on a skeleton crew anyway then having it be in a first world nation doesn't change much.
>> No. 1252 [Edit]
I'm not talking strictly about the U.S. As for restricting company heads, that's definitely an option. Why shouldn't a country restrict the travel of people who are going to actively harm it? It's probably worse in the long run to let companies move overseas than it is to let, say, some international spy or criminal escape to asylum. If it's okay to detain military traitors, it should be more than okay to detain economic traitors too. International businesses shouldn't be tolerated by any sane nation until we're at a point where global cooperation and peace between nations is ensured. Don't take this as me being obsessed with hyper-nationalism or anything of the sort. I don't have any interest in hunting down anti-patriots or some silly shit. I just think that from a purely realpolitik point of view, letting businesses leave your country is worse than almost anything else. Because it takes away the most important part of sovereignty, your ability to have a self contained economy. The U.S. could not win a war of industrial attrition like WW2 again, no matter how advanced it's tech is.
>> No. 1253 [Edit]
Emotion itself is the basest of impulses. Women run on almost nothing but emotion. Also, while men may think and act about sex more, women have far less self control when they do confront it. Maybe you were lucky and had nice sisters and they all had nice friends, but I heard enough horror stories from my loose lipped siblings and their friends (that they bragged about too) to make me never want to even be acquaintances with a 3D woman. Men are base, crude, and usually lack much self control, but at least most of them from my experience have some level of self-awareness about their behavior. Women think their shit don't stink.
>> No. 1254 [Edit]
Why do people say that race "doesn't exist"? I see people say things like it has no genetic basis, but things like blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin, height, nose shape, jaw shape, skull shape, eye shape, general build, teeth health, toenail health, diet, etc. can all be predicted genetically and are genetically inheritable, making up distinct groups that can be readily told apart on both visual, and genetic levels. I will not get into intelligence, because it's hard to determine how much is culture and how much is genetic. Now, I admit I'm not a biologist, and I'm aware that simply producing fertile offspring is enough to conclusively determine that all humans are at least within the same species, most likely all very close to each other genetically as well. However, to say that race is not genetic or that it cannot be distinguished genetically is just a blatant flasehood. Sure, we might consider those distinctions surface level and superficial, but they are distinctions nonetheless. At the very least, you can define groups based on those superficial traits that can be told apart genetically, and in fact we can tell from DNA samples which specific part of a continent you came from. Race gets a little more muddy the further you go back, but within the last at least 2000 years or so, there can be made distinctions between several obvious races of human.

To say that "race" is unscientific, when the distinctions used by people to determine race are indeed genetic and have served well to make distinctions for the purposes of determining ethnic background, is just silly. Science is a tool to describe reality objectively and nothing less, and objectively, the distinctions we call races exist on a genetic level. To argue that it's not exactly the same as a breed or a sub-species is moving the goalpost. So why CAN'T we use the term race to describe those genetic differences and the different pools of people found within them?
>> No. 1255 [Edit]
File 161728655717.jpg - (555.21KB , 1000x709 , f7102edb53a8363974dbba4085a4a53c.jpg )
Firstly, species itself isn't actually "real" in that it's a taxonomical concept we invented for our own convenience. What divides one species from another, is a list of arbitrary criteria with lots of edge cases. It works well enough, but the difference between living organisms is more like a gradient than sharply divided lines. The same goes for race, even more so since we're the same "species". It's easier to categorize people by race geographically than genetically.

Race is the idea that humans can be categorized, which was usually done using the most obvious phenotypical differences. If you wanted to do it genetically, it's hard to pick actual criteria for dividing races. People would have to come up with something and agree upon it. Genetically, people lie on a gradient of variations of genes/traits, number of copies of specific genes, gene regulation, epigentics, and other stuff I can't list since I'm not an expert by any means.

If you were to just look at Africa, you could say there's hundreds of different races living there, and nobody would be able to correct you since the criteria separating races hasn't been formalized.
>> No. 1256 [Edit]
While you're correct that there are a lot of border cases, and I would have mentioned the gradient nature of it if I was writing a longer post, there are still more of people in a definable category than not. Genetically defining race would certainly be a challenge, but I'm sure if you took a sample of every group in the world from, say, 400 years ago, you would see definable gradient "edges" where it shifts from one to another very rapidly, which would serve as a useful distinction of "race". Besides, even the edge cases as they exist today are more of a trick of the logical part of the mind that desires "perfect" truth, or distinction, or division or whatever. The reality is that the fact that most people can be classed into one broad race is good enough. There are also natural land barriers that separate a lot of populations on more definite grounds, like for example the Sahara, or the Mediterranean, or the Caucasus. Edge cases tend to be the exception rather than the rule. It feels like saying that definable colors don't exist because the color wheel is really a gradient, but specific "strong" zones have been picked out because it's convenient for determining and describing color. We do the same for most species anyway considering that if you go back 100million years out ancestors were all rodents or something like that, you have to choose a border somewhere. Usually that border was chosen as regions where language shifts quickly, as that indicates a cultural border and thus, before the age of mass transport, most likely a racial one.
>> No. 1257 [Edit]
The economies of most nations benefit heavily from global trade and doing that kind of thing is a sure way to stop that. Foreighn investment in the US would quickly dry up and it would only encourage companies to leave or never set up there to begin with. Nobody is going to want to do business in a country that is liable to arrest them if they try to move overseas and people won't invest in a company that is forced to pay more for labour and is thus less competitive.

Maybe. Though I would not say they have less control, men are famous for not having self control in that way and also most women actually don't get much enjoyment if any from s*x.

You are relying on anecdotes. Even so, do you have 4 brothers as well and do they bring their friends over? You would find they talk about the same if not worse only you probably have a bias in that you are dealing more with women and not men(and a small and related group at that, background would play a lot in this and as they are all related and all have the same upbringing they would all act in a similar manner and associate with like-minded people).

It wouldn't be that hard, we already have haplotypes and we already do use them to categorise.
>> No. 1258 [Edit]
File 161729392655.jpg - (98.47KB , 850x961 , sample_4e7b03892b3c97a272b25c7b5b09dd02.jpg )
>there are still more of people in a definable category than not
No, because the categories themselves haven't been defined yet. People can't belong to nonexistent categories. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you're putting the cart in front of the horse. There also has to be a clear purpose to categorization in the first place, like there is with species, sex and the color wheel. That purpose plays a role in defining the categories to begin with. The only purpose in formalizing race is political, which nobody agrees upon. Even in medicine, if you want to take genetics into account when giving a person tailored drugs or something, it's better to be as specific to the individual as possible than take their "race" into account.

Post edited on 1st Apr 2021, 9:20am
>> No. 1266 [Edit]
File 161955012836.png - (29.04KB , 1031x756 , pole.png )
I think this is how it works.
>> No. 1267 [Edit]
Mostly, not to say that there are no rich women. Some CEOs are women and Gina Rinehart is the richest person in Australia, the richest person in the Netherlands is also a woman.
>> No. 1311 [Edit]
Make sure not to out yourself as a filthy white person, especially not as one of those disgusting Irish. They're all evil, murderous imperialists. There's very good and legitimate reason to hate white people and white stuff. Totally reasonable, can't blame anybody for it. In fact, they should think that. So if you're white, never talk about it, imply you're white or get offended when somebody rightfully mentions how evil the white scum are.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post edited on 4th May 2021, 7:01pm
>> No. 1312 [Edit]
Rather unpopular indeed.
Most would understand what you mean when you say someone is jewing you or that someone is acting like a nigger.
What would "acting like a white person" imply?
I'll concede that acting irish does sound a bit offensive.
>> No. 1313 [Edit]
>What would "acting like a white person" imply?
Lots of things now. Self-centered, hypocritical, self-righteous, entitled, uptight, self-aggrandizing, fanatical, impotent, dorky. Plenty of leftists use white as an insult, or synonym for bad things now too.
Numberchan pigs and stormfags treat jews like leftists treat whites, and they can't even see that.
>> No. 1314 [Edit]
Oh you are right, those circles do exist.
>Numberchan pigs and stormfags treat jews like leftists treat whites
I don't know about otherchanners and stormfags specifically, but I'd assume racist groups are exclusionary unlike the leftists that claim to be for inclusion, so it's not really an incosistent position.
>> No. 1322 [Edit]
It doesn't matter if people understand it or not. It's still quite rude and doesn't need to be said. I don;t even know why people do it so often, it only leaves a negative impression on the average person.

And so is swearing at people like you did.

You are both idiots.
>> No. 1325 [Edit]
Well your post was also quite rude and definitely didn't need to be said.
But more relevantly, the average person wouldn't have a negative impression on it if it wasn't for a couple centuries worth of propaganda towards a global citizenry, which I find to be far more disgusting than any slur.

Post edited on 6th May 2021, 8:50am
>> No. 1326 [Edit]
It did need to be said to say that you are both being idiots.

Of course it's going to it's racist. Whether or not it's even based on truth does not mater and I think that is where the right stumbles often.

The right is supposed to be logic based. Supposed to. But attacks based on race like that are not logical but emotional. Logically even if a race was clinically proven to be inferior you would view it in a humane way. It would not be their fault and you have to accept it and actually work with them and be understanding of them. There should not be slurs based on race even if it was based in truth. The best way to actually put forth a race based ideology would be to devoid yourself from emotion as much as possible and never resort to insults or anything that could be seen as coming from hate. Then instead of somebody thinking 'oh, he's bulling them and belittling them, he really hates them' they may think 'oh he actually cares for them and what he is saying is done in the hope of benefiting society as a whole including them'.
>> No. 1327 [Edit]
Imperialism was an early form of globalism. Is it reasonable for those "affected" to be mad about that and hate anybody remotely related to its instigators? Should said vaguely related people feel guilty about it and be apologetic too? High horses need their legs cut off.
>> No. 1328 [Edit]
What's to feel guilty about? We never should have left or at least we left far too soon.
>> No. 1329 [Edit]
Forcing people in a foreign land to work for you is considered a morally bad thing to do. Those on the receiving end sure seemed to get upset about it too. People tend to like their freedom and independence. Globalism and imperialism both take that away from people, so saying one is disgusting and the other isn't is a double standard.
>> No. 1330 [Edit]
Being anti-white should be a death sentence. Lawfully or otherwise.
>> No. 1331 [Edit]
It's good to know that you think you have an authority on what needs to be said, that's a particularly bad type of insanity.
Slurs don't generally come out of hate, animosity or any desire to attack anyone, not before different peoples are forced to interact together, they come out of a difference and healthy discernment. Something like "I got gypped" is not to insult the romani, it's more of a warning towards your own people, that yes you are likely to be swindled if you interact with that specific culture, and making this language taboo maye even be straight up dangerous
>they may think 'oh he actually cares for them and what he is saying is done in the hope of benefiting society as a whole including them'.
Would never happen. People wouldn't believe "Hey I wish you the best but we need to live separately", specially not people that would fare far worse on their own.
Yes, globalism is a hideous evolution of imperialism which was already pretty bad.
>anybody remotely related to its instigators?
You'd have to define remotely related, obviously the more specific the better. But I wouldn't blame anyone on a previous colony saying "fuck the british", specially if said group continues to push for the mega-imperialism that is globalism.
>> No. 1332 [Edit]
>Something like "I got gypped" is not to insult the romani
Even if the person who "gypped" you isn't romani?
>I wouldn't blame anyone on a previous colony saying "fuck the british"
Should the british feel guilty? Should they be apologetic and "understanding" of others' irrational hatred for all of them?

Post edited on 6th May 2021, 11:08am
>> No. 1333 [Edit]
>Even if the person who "gypped" you isn't romani?
>Should the british feel guilty? Should they be apologetic and "understanding" of others' irrational hatred for all of them?
No. Well, understanding yes, but not guilty or apologetic. No one wants to insult the random brit with that, it's just pointing out those that have caused the issue. Of course, without technology the only people you could point out are those brits that are affecting you, since you are not interacting with the random brit in britain.
Taking into account technology though, a random brit would have to be fairly stupid and self-centered to feel offended at a native american saying "fuck the brits", knowing well why it is that he is saying it.
>> No. 1334 [Edit]
>it's just pointing out those that have caused the issue
For what purpose? Venting? "Warning their people" so they'll also dislike said group?
>knowing well why it is that he is saying it
Because they're unfair and angry? Why else randomly bring it up?

Post edited on 6th May 2021, 11:49am
>> No. 1335 [Edit]
>Because they're unfair and angry?
Because of the colonization, I feel like you are not paying attention.
>Why else randomly bring it up?
Because language forms through experience and not through the methodical sterilization of vocabulary so that no one will get offended?
>> No. 1336 [Edit]
>Because of the colonization, I feel like you are not paying attention.
I think it's an arbitrary form of justice to blame varied groups of people instead of actions. "Fuck colonization", "fuck imperialists" or "fuck globalism" gets the point across more clearly and fairly than "fuck the british". Oh, by the way, fuck germans, they're the worst. Don't get mad though.
>> No. 1338 [Edit]
>I think it's an arbitrary form of justice to blame varied groups of people instead of actions
Again, I think you'd need to be fairly self centered to catch offense at anything thrown at a group you belong to.
>Fuck colonization", "fuck imperialists" or "fuck globalism" gets the point across more clearly and fairly than "fuck the british".
Yet it is sterile, unnatural, and generally ignores the elephant in the room. It is less clear.
>Oh, by the way, fuck germans, they're the worst. Don't get mad though.
I won't, who cares what a jew thinks, lol.
No, but seriously if someone was calling their job environment cold and humorless by calling it "too german" or something, what kind of idiot german would get offended at that?
>> No. 1339 [Edit]
>I think you'd need to be fairly self centered to catch offense at anything thrown at a group you belong to.
I think you'd need to be self-centered to throw something at a group without considering the alienating effect of that.
>who cares what a jew thinks
Apparently a lot of people if Jews control the whole world like one-dimensional pricks think.
>> No. 1340 [Edit]
>considering the alienating effect of that
You'd need to be working from a globalized mindset in order to care about alienation in the first place no?
>Jews control the whole world like one-dimensional pricks think.
Jews do have a disproportionate amount of influence in a whole lot of parts of the world.
That's another topic though, I'm sorry for the jab. I'm genuinely curious, are you also offended at something like hysteria? Because a male could present such typically female behaviours, do you think it's unfair to women since the word refers to the uterus?
>> No. 1341 [Edit]
>You'd need to be working from a globalized mindset in order to care about alienation in the first place no?
No, because I'm lonely and lack a sense of belonging in my life.
>I'm genuinely curious, are you also offended at something like hysteria?
I don't really care anymore. I shouldn't have reacted in the first place.
>> No. 1343 [Edit]
>and lack a sense of belonging in my life.
Well yeah, don't take flak for the jews if you don't even feel belonging to being jewish, definitely a bad idea.
Well it was fun.
>> No. 1345 [Edit]
There's not a single negative trait associated with being White.
There's not a single positive trait associated with being nonwhite.
13 do 52.
>> No. 1346 [Edit]
Asians don't exist.
>> No. 1347 [Edit]
I don't know how unpopular this is on an imageboard, but euthanasia for the mentally disabled should be legal and encouraged, if not mandatory.
>> No. 1348 [Edit]
How would you define a mental disability? A lot of people on imageboards have some mental abnormality or another.
>> No. 1349 [Edit]
I'm talking more along the lines of downs stuff, you know, non-verbal, unable to learn, deformed. That's not as much of a grey zone, I'm not talking about aspergers here.
>> No. 1350 [Edit]
It'd be better to screen for that during a pregnancy than euthanize somebody who's already been born. Somebody cares about them and I doubt they'd like your idea very much.
>> No. 1351 [Edit]
Sometimes it doesn't show up until later, but yeah abortion is better. I think the "people that care for them" thing is mostly cultural. A lot of people caring for them will say some dark stuff if you catch them in an honest moment.
>> No. 1352 [Edit]
>I think the "people that care for them" thing is mostly cultural. A lot of people caring for them will say some dark stuff if you catch them in an honest moment.
In such a moment, a caretaker might admit that their life would be better if such a crippled dependent weren't alive, but that would be merely stating a hypothetical: talking and doing are two very different things.
>> No. 1417 [Edit]
Circumcision is inhumane, barbaric, and should be outlawed. In a society where running water and soap are readily available, there is zero good reason for it to be performed.

We live in a society where cutting off part of a male infant's genitalia is completely normalized; many women will casually voice their approval with zero hesitation, and virtually nobody has a problem with that.

Absolutely maddening.
>> No. 1418 [Edit]
is that really so controversial in the US?
>> No. 1419 [Edit]
Anything that goes against the grain is controversial in the US.
>> No. 1427 [Edit]
It's impossible to live comfortably without exploiting others directly or indirectly.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]