/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

>>1881
What do you mean?

People tend to focus on that which they don't have.

It's also part and parcel of the immense faggotry of modern youth generations. In there mad dash to 'normalize' and 'destigmatize' everything, they've turned themselves to lechers of the spoken word and prudes of the deed. Never before has sex been to out in the open and accepted. Meanwhile, never before has a generation been so chaste and unable to perform the most basic function of life.

It's pathetic and one of the reasons why millennials should be stripped of all rights. They're simply not qualified to be trusted to act like functioning adults.

>>1880
We don't know how much of that was actually organic, or how much is it an artifact of communicative capitalism branding people according to marketing categories.

>>1882
Gender bullshit and identity politics is actually what we are left with when our political leaders have nothing to give us. It's really a form of pseudo-politics since it's not a serious struggle for political power.
1. Capitalist postmodernity erodes traditional cultural sensibilities
2. New and/or previously suppressed behaviors emerge while social structures collapse
3. The servants of capital attempt to manage this while capital forces market forces upon the social void
Identity politics is a term that refers to a constellation of such management regimes. Every mainstream party in most of the world makes use of some form of identity politics.
For example, the more that civil society break down, the more that we see the violent reassertion of racial, national, and sexual identity. Gender is just another one of these.
This creates a paradox where what seems like the critical destruction of gender norms is also an affirmation of gender, in the form of a bajillion new genders and so on.
TL;DR: millenials and zoomers are living in an aggressively "marketed" gender gold rush

>>1880
because the cia is gay

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.

>>1613
>I think this is about people not having children in order to accumulate capital, and restart an economic cycle that could lead back to capitalism.
By not having children they can't pass on their accumulated capital.

>In one of his vids Cockshott proposed a tax on childless males because they don't contribute to the reproduction of the labor power of society.
Holy shit. Now I want to read this guy
>You don't tax paralyzed cripples for not contributing to the reproduction of labor either
Cels are invalids, confirmed

>>1620
>Cels are invalids
Yes, sexual invalids.
Incels should get benefits, not be taxed for their disability.

Tax the women who prefer to ride a Chad cock carousel until their eggs shrink - they are the true gatekeepers of the population growth.

Cockshott just took the feminist pill. He doesn't understand that women are no longer a disenfranchised part of the population. They surpass males in higher education degrees and home ownership now.
He should update his theory according to the objective conditions, not keep droning about "muh whomen" like he did when he was still a student.

>>1615
>By not having children they can't pass on their accumulated capital.
Well they still can have other extended family outside of a household. There are hardcore people who will fully submit to the brutal rationale of capital and task one part of the family to produce heirs while all the rest gets tasked with accumulating capital. These capital "accumulator-men" could theoretically also donate sperm to a cryogenic sperm bank, and have offspring after the family-clan has gained enough capital to become able to extract wealth from society, even if that's after they passed away.

Cockshott lives in the UK where a lot of really old and very ruthless family clans still hold considerable power. He's probably able to analyze those kinds of strategies from real world examples.

At the very least it is worth considering that this kind of stuff could become a stumbling block for socialism. You could try to find another solution if you don't like the one that Cockshott has offered.

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

I went the 'be a skittles man' route and got my gf very cheap convenience store candy. She loved it.

>>1578
>my gf
Why are you here?

>>1581
dont be like this anon

>>1582
sorry.

>>1581
This isn't r9k the website.