/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

bump

bump and also get rid of the faggot e-celeb spam

This got posted on .org earlier today. I didn't know there was an entire movement around being a sexless bum tbh

>>2028
These people should be put into a gulag. Let them rot while doing labor

>>538
So the Haz-thot is just the same stalinism. Good to know, I guess.

>>2028
>movement

>>1981
<Nah bro. Capitalism evolved after Marx.

Lenin summarized this development in 'Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.'

Since then, it hasn't evolved at all.

Hence, that's the final word on political economy.

>>1978
The gambling industry isn't selling a commodity faggot wtf are you dumb?
That's the whole point. It's called fictional capital or in modern economics: Speculation. Everything Marx said is still applicable today and you aren't witty or edgy for thinking otherwise.

>>1991
>Everything Marx said is applicable today, except a huge chunk of the modern economy doesn't fit into his description of capitalism as a system based on the production of commodities
Makes sense

>>2007
>Gambling is a huge chunk of the modern economy.
You have to go back.

>>2007
He does gambling not 'fit' into what he said? Lmao.

Keep the incel posting in the containment thread, faggot

>>1849
This is an incel board cock monger.

> is this probably overblown?
Likely
> is this some bourgie pedos winking at each other?
Nah. Prob just an intern trying to mess with anyone that tried to look into it for the lolz
> will I defend a megacorpo for this shit?
XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA

>>1816
Who's defending Balenciaga?

>>1179
>what do u think?
I think "what an ugly little goblin"

I hate kids.

>>1828
Based

>>1828
Spiteful mutants have an intuitive hate for children because deep down they know that they themselves are defunct and could only produce more defunct people. It's an evolutionary adaption that helps inhibit harmful mutations from being rapidly proliferated.

>>1782
>then why shouldn't men fight against that?
Even if we assume that what women are attractive to is somehow objectively wrong, there isn't really a unified collective of men capable of mounting some united effort to change things, especially in the context of contemporary western society [the very notion of divine moral objectivity has been replaced with post modern values faggotry.]

>Like suppose that women find it attractive for men to always be subservient to their bosses. In that context, being a socialist don't think it's unreasonable for men to be upset about it.
This is such on unreal claim (women attracted to subservient men) that is doesn't even warrant a response.

>Generally speaking I think what women find attractive in men and vice versa is partially shaped by bourgeois values but also by the necessities of life and to some extent biology, so it's more often than not plastic to whatever social situation they're in.

Women are generally attracted to 3 things: status, preselection, and genetic fitness/superiority. Those three things are conditioned by society (i.e., what is given status or how genetic fitness presents itself is conditioned according to social context), but the underlying basis for female attraction remains constant. Women don't recognize the underlying thing that they are attracted to. It doesn't register for them. Instead, they tend to register the emotions of fun and security. Hence, they believe that they are attracted to guys they have fun and feel secure with.

>In the perfect ideal world in my head, both sexes would have a shared responsibility to figure out what ought to be to them by engaging the topic together in civil society organizations rather than simply allowing their values to be the result of social conditioning or biology.
You frequently make the mistake of reification. Taking some abstract concept (i.e., the collective of men and the collective of women) and mistakenly assuming it's a real thing that acts in the real world. It's not. People are largely individuals, pursuing individual interests, which in turn are shaped and conditioned by society.

Obviously, society will change over time. But dedicating yourself to changing society is a fool'sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1783
In b4 some faggot's gotcha hot take
>This is such on unreal claim (women attracted to subservient men) that is doesn't even warrant a response.
As I said, women are attracted to a few fundamental things (status, pre selection, genetic health/fitness). What they don't particularly care about, aren't aware of, and aren't moistened by is the work and effort that might go into these things.

In fact, it's much more attractive to women when they aren't aware of the work (or subservience) which might go into these things. They want status, pre selection, and fitness that seems to come naturally, as if it's a gift from god, not something which had to be created through discipline and practice.

This is why things like self help, work out pictures posted on social media, or even consciously trying to improve one's social skills and experience with women (i.e., learning game) comes across as cringy. It violates this idealized principal that things should just sort of happen naturally for high quality men.

But, when it comes to women as well, they are acting based on their perception rather than any sort of objective reality. Hence, in many cases, presentation is more important than fact or reality. This can cut both ways. Thus, presenting yourself in the right light is crucial and will help determine which zone you end up in.

<unlike spinning your wheels about muhcommunism online, you are able to test out theories of social interaction with women in real time, gaining direct feedback, and refining your practice into something which has the effective impact you desire. In essence, the art of seduction, relationship management, and virtually anything practical in the real world is more scientific than muhimmortal science of Marxism..

>>1783
>Even if we assume that what women are attractive to is somehow objectively wrong, there isn't really a unified collective of men capable of mounting some united effort to change things
Yeah that's true, ideally I'd want both men and women tome come together and consciously work this shit out.
>This is such on unreal claim
Don't be autistic just substitute the claim for a more realistic one and address the actual point
>Taking some abstract concept (i.e., the collective of men and the collective of women) and mistakenly assuming it's a real thing that acts in the real world. It's not.
>People are largely individual
I know this, the point is it doesn't have to be this way. What I want is to constitute men and women into a community and develop a form of group consciousness.
>dedicating yourself to changing society is a fool's errand - one which usually makes society worse
Capitalist realism? On MY leftychan?
I can get being skeptical of aocial movements but come on now

>>1776
>Is the friendzone really just a social construct.
It depends if you chase after barely socialized women with good looks, nice makeup an flashy attire, than yes. If you go for the plain looking ones with a good brain, then no.

It's a bit like those game character creation screens, you only got so many points and you can't max out all the character traits.

*to let men they know are courting them know that they're not interested?

>>1728
You roastie feminists are just moving the goalposts. The original pejorative just meant someone that doesn't have sex because that antithetical to women who pretty much universally can have sex with someone at anytime.
Also if it's pathetic to have sex with someone that doesn't desire you, what about all the women who are heartbroken when Chad pumps and dumps them? Are they as pathetic as incels too?

>>1732
This has been common blackpill knowledge for years. Many incels argue that a white man can never be a true incel, just someone too lazy to improve themselves.
Not sure why you posted this as some kind of clap back. It completely aligns with my beliefs.

>>1734
>Many incels argue that a white man can never be a true incel, just someone too lazy to improve themselves.
not everyone can afford to move to asia or india to play his white card tho, there is also a language barrier

>>1724
He thinks the low quality droppings whores offer nowadays is "sex". The joke that is commodification, lol.
The whole thing of whoring is a trap to laugh at those who are not in the club where sex is free and easy. If you're paying money for a pure lie and have the shame and trouble of being a whoremonger on top of it, you're an idiot. Don't pay those bitches a dime. The system will keep them up anyway - if there were no men buying whores, it would be necessary to support them like temple prostitutes, because it's part of the trap we live in. Intel ghouls will never give up prostitution and porn, because it's too useful for their purposes, and that's who proliferates porn as much as it has been. Sane countries know to stamp that shit out rather than let it take over everything.

Ugly truth is that most men are incel, but tell themselves their miserable existence is okay and don't want to be one of those people. No one likes a complainer, after all. There are many strategies for coping with this. The "golden age" where marriage was common was always a lie, and now the lie is being destroyed because it is no longer necessary. They're mandating orgies and artificial insemination and they're very aggressive about pushing it. They do not want us, and they never wanted us. If your only argument for yourself is that no one else will have you, that isn't a really good cause for fucking. Better for everyone to be alone.

Also Sparta got their shit kicked in by anyone who could beat a phalanx. which was eventually everyone. The Spartans were smart enough to know they were going to lose in the long term, but dumbasses like to take the name of the Spartans to justify their faggot versions of it, so they can get young men killed for horseshit. So, they're not a good example.
Bitches have always clamored for war though, and then claim to be the victims. It's all a great game to them, and if they suffer for it, it's just the way of the world and they keep going back to it. Few of them have any sustained principles to stop the war drive, and when they do it is almost always about an economic incentive since war is really fucking expensive. How can they have nice things for me me me if the money is all spent on weapons and paying off generals?
Sparta is not unique in exposing the unwanted children. That has always been the case. That's why abortion is Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1559
These are high-school students, anon. I wonder what the rate of suicide is for young male teens.

qbcd

>>15
>wanting a gf
only homos want that

>>1423
I have never seen a fat ninja before.

>>1353
>Not sure where you get the idea I'm a feminist lol. That's one thing I've never been accused of.
Because you parroted a feminist talking point. MGTOW isn't exactly obscure anymore if you're still taking that feminist critique at face value then you are a feminist. If it walks like a duck as they say.

>>1354
No one but permaonline faggots, both men and women, know or care what mgtow is.

>>1351
*When you have social value

>person who everyone is mocking makes the mainstream
christchurch shooter-tier nothingburger. everyone laughs at retard

>>1380
>Yeah bro I know they literally controlled an entire economy democratically and unionized millions of workers into syndicates but this just isn't "successful" base don my arbitrary metrics.

>Muh millions were lifted out of poverty

So what you are saying is that the end justify the means?
I am a socialist and my metrics for success as a socialist include a raise in the standards of living and more freedom for the people who live in that society. That is and always was the point of socialism until retards like stalin and Mao revised the words of Marx to include violating human rights and pogroms.

>Freedom doesn't mean shit when you're living on a diet of rats and get shelled every morning.

I can literally smell the vanilla late coming from your iced coffe while you type this on a macbook pro and your local starbucks. What do you do for a living?

People would rather have less economic freedom under capitalism and eat the soylent than have less freedom under socialism and a higher standard of living because of retards like you. Socialism is about a better life in totality for the proletariat of which you are not part of I am willing to be. I am certain I have pegged your typing habits on the board too and I am familiar with your posts. You are literally the biggest far huffing retard on the board and you need to fuck off and pull your head out of your own ass.

>>1381
>I am a socialist and my metrics for success as a socialist include a raise in the standards of living and more freedom for the people who live in that society
The latter is impossible without the former. In Stalin's words:
<"We did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment."

<"Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible."

>That is and always was the point of socialism until retards like stalin and Mao revised the words of Marx to include violating human rights and pogroms.
Socialism is about ending the class oppression of proletariat by the bourgeoisie. It is impossible to carry out a revolution in full, and defend it from outside reactionary forces, while playing by the rules of the bourgeoisie. What do you envision your politically correct revolution to look like, you vote in AOC and she expropriates the capitalists wealth with no resistance? Marx and Engles absolutely condoned the use of authoritarian by the proletariat during a revolution, it's called a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' for a reason!
>I can literally smell the vanilla late coming from your iced coffe while you type this on a macbook pro and your local starbucks. What do you do for a living?
I make minimum wage, hate coffee and Mac OS is shit. Stop strawmanning because you're losing the arguement.
>People would rather have less economic freedom under capitalism and eat the soylent than have less freedom under socialism and a higher standard of living because of retards like you.
Unfortunately my leftychan posts don't hav what much influence anon, I wish theyPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1382
I know what Stalin said. Again, you are not as smart as you think you are. Stalin was a revisionist megalomaniac. Nore do I really see why this is relevant because the two are not mutually exclusive. You are sitting there acting like you just can't hve freedom while you raise people standards of living when you absolutely can. Even if the USSR did good things it also failed in other ways and we should learn from them.
Ways like having centralized governmental bodies control the lives and choices of what ultimately belong to the will of the masses themselves. Unless your "socialist" movement involves that I do not want to be a part of it.

>Socialism is about ending the class oppression of proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

You're saying the exact same thing I am just in a different way. Obviously that is what it is about and what that is about itself is better lives for the people exploited by the hand of capitalism. Nore does democratic association mean "politically correct" you have to resort to these rhetorical tricks because you know you are on the loosing end of this argument because no one in modern times is willing to subjugate themselves to pogroms and authoritarianism under socialist movments. They only way to gain relevancy is to appeal to peoples sense of freedom in the modern era. You've clearly never done any actual organizing which is why you probably cannot seem to understand how unions and syndicates function, or, even soviets.

>I make minimum wage, hate coffee and Mac OS is shit. Stop strawmanning because you're losing the arguement.

=Cope==

>Unfortunately my leftychan posts don't hav what much influence anon, I wish they did…
But it is the monopoly the capitalists have on media and academia which has tricked masses into thinking that "freedom and democracy" is being able to choose from 800 brands of bottled water, and vote for one of two identical parties which despise them every 5 years. The reason the ruling class don't demonise Catalonia and Paris is not because they were perfect revolutions, but because they're so irrelevant. In fact, at the time the bourgeois media did point to the mass executions of priests and forced labour camps in Catalonia as proof of their evil. The difference is that socialistsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1371
>Yeah dude. The Paris commune is what right wingers point to all the time when they want to complain about how much of a failure socialism has been.
Tankies eternally BTFO'd.