[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/R9K/ Robot - 9000

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble
[Return /Go to bottom]

 No.5139[Last 50 Posts]

Here's the killshot, single mothers predict how bad crime is in an area NOT POVERTY!
>The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.”
This alone should repudiate feminism in the minds of anyone, left or right. And the high single motherhood rate is the direct result of feminists' sexual revolution that encourages women to be promiscuous which inevitably leads to bastards.
Anyone that's traveled outside of the US can attest to this finding. While no poor area of a city or town is safe. They are not these Falluja style war zones that say Baltimore is.
Eliminating single mothers goes a long long way to eliminating poverty for workers. And it's in the best interest of children, which feminists and women pretend to care about.
These studies were aggregated on https://www.fixfamilycourts.com/single-mother-home-statistics. Here are a few other highlights
>“After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.” Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, quoted by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996, p.31
>Effects of Fatherlessness – Teenage Statistics
>63% of all youth suicides,
>70% of all teen pregnancies,
>71% of all adolescent chemical/substance abusers,
>80% of all prison inmates, and
>90% of all homeless and runaway children, came from single mother homes.
>Bob Ray Sanders, “Hey Y’all, Let’s Fill The Hall (Of Fame), Ft. Worth Star Telegram, Oct.28,2007
>Mona Charen, “More Good News Than Bad?”, Washington Times, Mar.16, 2001 (citing Bill Bennett, “The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American society at the end of the 20th Century., New York, Broadway Books, 1994)
How does the left, which claims to care about workers, answer for this. This complete lack of accountability for women throughout every sect of anti capitalist ideology.
Every single critic of women's sexual liberation is pilloried as a bitter loser or incel.
All while this same behavior has had a devastating effect on children and communities. Something that would have been blatantly obvious to anyone not brainwashed but none the less we've had scientific proof of for centuries. these studies go back to the 1930's
And yet in every supposed left wing circle if the idea that maybe we should pressure women not to have children out of wedlock because of the obvious downsides, you'll have leftist quote Engels and other feminist toadies on how regressive women not being able to sleep with whoever they wanted would be just like a handmaids tale. And how this is really the fault of the patriarchy somehow.
Since when in your cucked anticapitalists' did women's whoring around become more sacrosanct then children's welfare?
And before someone strawman's me as some CHUD that wants women to go back to the kitchen, I'll say that there's a dozen fucking forms of female birth control now. There's NOTHING to keep women from planning every single one of their pregnancies. Using a pill does not require you to give up your career.
If the left wants any sort of legitimacy they'd openly admonish women that willingly become single mothers. It is not some terrible circumstance that befalls them, it's something completely in their control.
And before someone brings up the recent abortion bans, abortion in the country is no where near abolished, you can still get one and the left should be all in on facilitating it.
The problem is there's not even social pressure to stop these tragic outcomes.
The left needs to answer to this now.
>>

 No.5141

>>5139
>If the left wants any sort of legitimacy they'd openly admonish women that willingly become single mothers.
Instead of that retardation, why doesn't the left[ist government] provide support for single-parent families, fund day-care and such, and focus on early childhood education so the kids don't come out abandoned and dumb as fuck?

A socialist society would presumably have more human interaction than now, if kids are more socialized they probably won't turn to drugs so easily. Idk that sounds better than what you're proposing, which would probably do more harm for everyone involved.
>>

 No.5147

Single motherhood is an overused pathology
>>

 No.5156

File: 1709878944375.webm ( 2.7 MB , 853x480 , airlinedrift2.webm )

>>5147
>70 years of data shows that it causes crime further compounding the challenges of children in poverty.
>overused pathology
Based pussy hat wearer.
>>

 No.5160

>>5156
Bruh. Alot of dysfunctional homes have asshole dads. Alot of "incompetent" males didnt grow up WITHOUT, they grew up WITH a dad.
>>

 No.5161

>>5141
Education is over invested.
Also, society is far too sy.oathetic to human breeders. We need to issue mandatory licensing for family planning.

Teenage girls get mandatory hysterectomy which will be undone if they undergo seven years of hospitality training.
>>

 No.5164

>>5160
No, a lot of homes don't have dysfunctional dads, that's just a feminist myth. Most father's go out of their way to raise their children as best as they can.
>>

 No.5167

>>5164
lol proofs?
>>

 No.5169

>>5164
uh yea. Dropping kids off at practice and school so you can go back to watching TV for the twelfth hour today and hrining tutors for thm because you lack the empathy to help them with homework is being emotionally invested.
>>

 No.5170

>>5167
Children have better out comes when custody is granted to the father.
>>

 No.5171

>>5169
Just going to pile on more misandry I see.
>>

 No.5172

>>5167
What proof do you have that most fathers are shitty. Your own LMAO
>>

 No.5187

>>5171
Except Im not misandrist.
I just think men whom are married and have kids get too much automatic undeserved merit for virrue of using their procreative juices on female volunteers.

Alot of dads are aloof and indifferent towards their kids' personal development. They only care if the kids start displaying "regressive" behaviors.

Alot of boys often learn more about masculinity from uncles, coaches, grandfathers, even bosses than their own dads.
>>

 No.5188

>>5170
You sure? Yea sure things are tough when it comes to sibgle moms but is it really better when it comes to single dads?
Why do conservatives talk about parental rights but only allude to fathers?

Conservatives seem strangely indifferent towards abusive/neglective dads.
>>

 No.5945

bump
>>

 No.5963

change the inheritance laws and the whole concept of family falls apart
>>

 No.5964

File: 1714911079295.jpg ( 103.9 KB , 767x411 , certified parent moment.jpg )

>Effects of Fatherlessness
Make a ropeflip uyghur. Forcing a kid under a fucking faggot-fatha while their cunt of a mutha is already enough of a constant mindrape is a sure way to murder them for good.
Communist society will raise children COLLECTIVELY you fucking cumwaste, just like it was done for the majority of our history. Who fucking knew that if you want to make childhood as productive & stable in its process as you can then you would want to introduce as many people (= social nodes) in a kid's "family" (= social network of support) as possible.
Now guess what fucking happens when you reduce this number of supporting nodes to 2, & then to 1 ‒ that's right, faggot, you get tyranny over your entire fucking existence & you will have to bend over all the demands of your adult owner, or as the politically correct functionaires say, "parent".

So no, you cunt. Fathas faggots should be sent into fucking mines along with their loose whores & the entire society should be turned responsible for all the kids it produces.
>why do muh fellow leftists not care about the crisis of the class society family unit
try harder feddo. u are lazy.


Dank fucking gott I grew f*thrlss. I can't even imagine what would that shitty fisheyed golem do to me if that abomination which he was dicking would have commanded him to do whenever I pissed her highest holiness off for 20st time a day. & thanks for the shitty interwebs for providing me other sources of data about the world so I wouldn't be dependent on this anticultural lumpen degenerate shithole
>>

 No.5967

File: 1714911831434.jpg ( 51.2 KB , 288x541 , 2890-abolish-the-family.jpg )

Read pic related, it really helped open my eyes and clarify the correct stance
>>

 No.5968

>>5964
But children don't fall into poverty when the father has sole custody statistics show.
>>

 No.5969

>>5967
Single mothers are an abolishment of the nuclear family. So your liberal feminist author is clearly wronf
>>

 No.6381

File: 1715880593485-0.jpg ( 269.61 KB , 1170x886 , IMG_5110.jpg )

File: 1715880593485-1.jpg ( 117.93 KB , 720x901 , Typical_roastie.jpg )

>>

 No.6384

>>6381
damn… damn
>>

 No.6385

>>6381
why do you post this? this is sad
>>

 No.6391

>>6385
Who are you sad for, the mom or the son?
>>

 No.6392

>>5139
>single mothers predict how bad crime is in an area NOT POVERTY!
It could be both, single mothers tend to be working class/low income. What were the material conditions that led to this dysfunction?
>>

 No.6393

>>6392
It's not both. They looked at poor areas where children had both parents and their poverty was not a predictor of crime.
>>

 No.7363

bumppity bump bump
>>

 No.7494

File: 1726583355426.jpg ( 49.07 KB , 720x892 , 20240917_072619.jpg )

This is why incels never join the left.
>>

 No.7495

Single motherhood and the extended/multi-generational family have been the norm for most of history.
>>

 No.7549

single mothers are proletarian, and children are the bourgeois
>>

 No.7551

>>7549
wrong.
Children shpuld not blamed for inconveniences.

Single moms chose that life.

>>7494
This, with some conditions.
The wife should not have a problem with the man having a roaming eye
>>

 No.7739

a parent can choose to leave, however the chimdren are always the victims. we need a active party for and by children. children rights 2024
>>

 No.7741

the reason chimdren arent takin seriously is because they are treated as though they are underage. people champion and sloganeer about democracy, but they dont include chindren's voices at all. childrem are seen as a nuisance and hindrance to dai to day life, when in fact it is chilrden woh grow up and do the same thing to chikren
>>

 No.7742

wwho should be allowed to vote? chikdren or single mohters?
>>

 No.7815

File: 1733875074927.jpg ( 73.2 KB , 470x657 , 876e86a2-f13f-474e-90a1-63….jpg )

this is what really think of childrem
>>

 No.7842

chikdrum are backbone the of society
>>

 No.7843

chikdren and the of scene whereas adults have power to instead
>>

 No.7858

witohut chikdrum there is no future
>>

 No.8010

Bump, why don't leftists speak out more against single mothers. Their neglect turns their children into easily exploited ignorant proles.
Leftists certainly don't have a problem talking about the patriarchy.
>>

 No.8254

Communists won't touch this.
>>

 No.8256

Absolutely insane to blame crime on single mothers and not the people who commit the crimes themselves or the men leaving these women by themselves. Feminism isn't forcing these women to raise their kids on their own, the men leaving their families are, but you lot love to blame a woman for a man's wrongdoings.
>>

 No.8257

>>5139
>abortion laws bad
>single mothers bad
>gender equality bad
>women's suffrage bad
>disobeying husbands bad
>reporting abuse bad
It's never enough for these people.
>>

 No.8258

>>8256
It's not insane, it's facts. You grow up in a household where you are not sheltered from violence, particularly from the mother, you will grow up to be a violent criminal. Simps like you like to pretend women aren't violent.
>>

 No.8259

>>8257
>abortion laws bad
>gender equality bad
>women's suffrage bad
>disobeying husbands bad
>reporting abuse bad

Never said any of this simp.
>>

 No.9402

>>

 No.9403

>>8256
I agree that single moms are too often blamed but that doesn’t mean women are blameless.

There are women whom willfully pursue male degenerates or live degenerately.

Female transgressions is given more sympathy except in the sexual department
>>

 No.9404

>>8256
Why is it insane? If you neglect children they will grow up maladapted. They'll have poor emotional regulation and commit crimes.
These stats show it's single moms that perpetuate the most neglect. Children where the father has sole custody have much better outcomes regardless of income.
Women have over a dozen forms of birth control available to them now. There's no reason anymore to not call out this endemic amount of child neglect.
>>

 No.9619

>>9404
Single moms have been more common in history than you think. A lot of our macho men were raised by single moms.

The whole “single moms make criminals” is due to atomization of society not “fatherlessness”. In the old days we had blue collar training available for male youths. We took those away.
>>

 No.9626

>>5139
Single mother families always lead to dictators or ruin children and make them psychopaths
>>

 No.9631

>>9626
That's usually more single father families
>>

 No.9956

single parenthood creates nihilism
>>

 No.10216

Tankies won't touch this
>>

 No.10222

>>5139
I was born to a single mother home and I really doubt I have any future.
>>

 No.10226

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
This guy did a mass shooting at a university and he was raised by both parents
>>

 No.10234

>>10226
Bet you his mom was a ball buster and his dad was a cuck. That's pretty much the same thing as being raised by a single mom.
>>

 No.10235

>>10234
No, Wikipedia said it was the dad who was beating his wife, kids, and pets.
>>

 No.10236

File: 1774553916153.png ( 1.17 MB , 1080x1526 , 3npczctfzk2f1.png )

Single parenthood is progressive. The next step is no parenthood. Children must be set loose in the wilderness to fend for themselves.
>>

 No.10237

>>10235
Read OP again. The nearly century long study shows single mothers are a predictor of crime, not poverty. And yes they did correct for poverty.
Tankies are such pathetic simps I swear to god.
>>

 No.10243

>>10237
Are you the one making posts like this:>>10234?
>>

 No.10244

>>10243
Si
>>

 No.11230

Y'all say you're materialist but stay silent on the endemic abuse wrought by single mothers. And no, it's not a function of poverty, there's countries even poorer that don't see these levels of single mothers.
>>

 No.11231

>>11230
The main problem with single moms is the smothering
>>

 No.11537

Tankies still refuse to remark on this systemic abuse of children, this assembly line of stunted children that become easily exploited adults. Tankies talk tough but won't even stand up to foids. You're all failures that kneel before cunt but expect us to believe you can bring revolution.
>>

 No.13676

Communists are such cucks. They'll come out of the wood word to admonish sub 8 male for complaining about women and dating. But will say absolutely nothing to single mothers that are abusing and neglecting children. You're all limp wristed cucks that jerk each other of to revolutionary LARPs.
>>

 No.13678

>>9956
true
>>

 No.13679

>>13678
>>9956
>>10216
>>13676

I beg to differ.
>>

 No.13681

>>13679
Speak then.
>>

 No.13687

>>13679
He just did.  Make your case for your own thesis.
>>

 No.13688

>>13679
elaborate pls
>>

 No.13690

File: 1792857011878.png ( 72.53 KB , 500x365 , Molymeme.png )

>>13688
You first.  It's your thesis.
>>

 No.13696

>>13690
I guess you can't read so here it is again. Tsnkies and the left are limp wristed faggots too cucked to stand up to single moms and feminists and their systemic abuse and neglect of children as the OP proves.
And then you "revolutionaries" think you could stand up to the booj state when you can't even stand up to Western foids.
>>

 No.13697

>>13690
The only thing I posted it was "true" in regards to nihilistic tendencies. Merely an observation. I've seen people grow out of it but it but not without difficulty on their part.
>>

 No.13699

>>13697
Again how true is this? Because nihilism seems to be a thing amongst people regardless of their parentage.

Also what's so bad about nihilism?

Idealism seems to be a much more pressing problem.


>>13696
And again, where do you get your thesis? Especially against tankies? What's with the hate against tankies?

Also, single mothers aren't all covert sociopaths. Single motherhood is due mainly to dads being incompetent, either behaviorally, financially, functionally, etc.

Single father households are also prone to neglect and abuse but people seem to wave it off.
>>

 No.13700

>>13687
>>13688
These are all strawmen based on some passive-aggressive misogyny.

Single moms aren't all shallow bitches whom were caught red handed with their lack of morale.

A lot of it is due to dads being abusive or dismissive.
>>

 No.13702

>>13700
Both parents are usually the problem, yes. No argument there. With unplanned pregnancies where the father is awol children were often raised by grandparents or given up for adoption, especially before the new deal. Then single motherhood was encouraged by the entertainment industry after the passage of no fault divorce. Kids tend to fare better when there's no divorce since the kids often blame themselves to some degree.
>>

 No.13703

>>13699
>And again, where do you get your thesis?
From the 50 year study posted in the OP. It found NO correlation between crime and poverty. It did find a HIGH correlation between single mothers and crime. And there's plenty of other studies that show the poorer outcomes of children from single mother homes in almost every avenue.
>Especially against tankies? What's with the hate against tankies?
Because tankies are the loudest ones always talking about standing up the booj (you know the ones with the fucking military) and how everyone needs to follow them to revolution. Nibba, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can't even talk to women.
>Also, single mothers aren't all covert sociopaths.
IDGAF what the cause it, it's empirically true that they neglect and abuse their children. So what nibba, we're supposed to let children suffer because it's not their mom's fault she's abusive?
>Single motherhood is due mainly to dads being incompetent
No nibba, most fathers are there for their children. Also men pay the majority of child support AND children in single father households have better outcomes. This problems is specifically a foid issue.
And who exactly is consenting to fucking and having this children with these "incompetent dads" hmmm?
There's a dozen forms of birth control for women now and abortion. There's no excuse, absolutely none, for this endemic levels of child abuse to happen at the hands of single moms.
>Single father households are also prone to neglect and abuse but people seem to wave it off.
No, wrong
>>

 No.13704

>>13699
>Single father households are also prone to neglect and abuse but people seem to wave it off.

3. Economic Stability and Reduced Emotional Stress
Single fathers often experience greater economic stability, and financial security plays a critical role in emotional regulation and parenting capacity. U.S. Census data show that single fathers earn, on average, approximately 40 percent more than single mothers, even when education level is controlled (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

Psychological research consistently links financial stress to elevated cortisol levels, emotional reactivity, and reduced patience in caregivers (Sapolsky, 2004). The American Psychological Association identifies chronic financial stress as one of the strongest predictors of parental burnout and dysregulated parenting behaviors (American Psychological Association, 2020).

With fewer financial stressors, single fathers are more likely to parent from a position of emotional calm and consistency-two foundational elements of emotional mastery.

Kek
>>

 No.13706

>>13703
>Because tankies are the loudest ones always talking about standing up the booj (you know the ones with the fucking military) and how everyone needs to follow them to revolution. Nibba, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can't even talk to women.

That sounds like leftists in general. There's a lot of hatred against tankies specifically in the leftist community, and I wanna know why.

>>13704
Maybe because of the societal expectations of fathers being the primary breadwinner?

>IDGAF what the cause it, it's empirically true that they neglect and abuse their children.

Some, not all.


>So what nibba, we're supposed to let children suffer because it's not their mom's fault she's abusive?

What we can do is take the kids away from the moms and put them in a extremely vetted foster care system or make a boarding school program that focuses primarily on technical skill training

And maybe just maybe, gatekeep parenthood with mandatory competency licensing.

>No nibba, most fathers are there for their children. Also men pay the majority of child support AND children in single father households have better outcomes.

Those are not as common as you think. In dysfunctional households, fathers are often negligent if not abusive.
I'm amused at how people whom are vitriolic towards single moms turn a blind eye to abusive/neglectful dads.

>This problems is specifically a foid issue.

Not exclusively.

>And who exactly is consenting to fucking and having this children with these "incompetent dads" hmmm?
>There's a dozen forms of birth control for women now and abortion. There's no excuse, >absolutely none, for this endemic levels of child abuse to happen at the hands of single moms.

And it's not exclusively single moms. Your idea of a single mom is some washed-up has been prom queen with no empathetic drive. And that's not always true.
>>

 No.13707

>>13706
>What we can do is take the kids away from the moms and put them in a extremely vetted foster care system or make a boarding school program that focuses primarily on technical skill training
And you lost me.  The foster system is graft, and old Brits remember that boarding school program all too well.
>>

 No.13710

>>13707
In familiar with British boarding schools being intentionally cruel. The kind of boarding schools I'm talking about are mainly technical skill training. There won't be any of that brutalization in the boarding schools I'm wanting.
>>

 No.13711

>>13707
I'm also well aware of foster parent industry being grafty.
But what else do you want? Make them remain to suffer?
>>

 No.13716

>>13711
As far as the left is concerned I want them to speak up against this and the single mothers perpetuating it.
If you can't stand up for children, the most sympathetic group ever, you can't stand up for anyone.
>>

 No.13722

>>13710
Brits are not the only ones either.  Speaking of which…
>>13708
Yeah, real rez-born native women–especially those from older generations–are usually some HARD bitches.  They have that thousand-yard PTSD stare and display that total lack of fear that only people who have to fight have.  If you ain't family, you ain't nothing to them.  Not exactly the most emotionally supportive people.  Shit, they wouldn't even know what emotional support looks like.
>>13711
I want emancipation.  No guardian at all is better than a foster home or a boarding school.
>>13716
Oh look, another liberal who things that the voice of the subaltern must be heard.
>>

 No.13729

>>13722
>Oh look, another liberal who things that the voice of the subaltern must be heard.
Haha you are such a cuck that you won't even speak out against a woman even of she's abusing children.
>>

 No.13731

>>13729
>be dumb bitch with no praxis beyond posting angry memes
>get called on it
>cuck cuck cuck cuck
Get gud, faggot.
>>

 No.13732

>>13722
>Oh look, another liberal who things that the voice of the subaltern must be heard.
Okay then what's the point of being on the left if you can't have a platform unless you have the political power to enact it?
And how is advocating for children liberal? The only thing liberal is your disgusting deflection for foids. You don't want any accountability for women because then women wouldn't keep having traumatized children that you can exploit as adults. Only lib around here is you.
>>

 No.13733

>>13731
Cope feminist bottom cuckold. I do have praxis, but praxis starts with identifying the fucking problem.
Often I'm able to help people just by validating the abuse they're experiencing by their single moms because legions of reddit cucks like you relentlessly gaslight them.
>>

 No.13734

>>13731
>Get gud,
This is how evil male feminists are. They'll literally tell abused children and their advocates to "get gud" before even once considering to hold female child abusers accountable. It's why you have millions of women defending child murderers like Lindsey Clansey.
>>

 No.13740

>>13716
>If you can't stand up for children, the most sympathetic group ever, you can't stand up for anyone.


The truth is, nobody wants to stand up for children. Adults only see children as pets. "Think of the children" is only used to further adult convenience, not childrens welfare.
>>

 No.13748

>>13734
Conswrvatives do the same when it comes to abusive fathers.
>>

 No.13758

File: 1793013526481.jpg ( 63.98 KB , 580x480 , helen-lovejoy.jpg )

>>13732
>>13733
>>13734
>why you no cry about children on the internet more?
lel
>>

 No.13760

>>13758
Yet if this were about monuments in leftist history, you wouldn't be acting like this.
>>

 No.13761

>>13758
>I have no argument but I must scream.
>>

 No.13767

>>13722
Emancipation is probably better. But the problem is, society doesn't want children as individuals. Irony is, I think it's better for kids to be introduced to work by their pubertal stage so that they can support themselves.

People think making kids being dependent on adults after their toddling stage is good. It really isn't. Our society willfully neglects life skill training for the young.
>>

 No.13770

File: 1793031240718.jpg ( 817.93 KB , 1776x1995 , FremontLenin.jpg )

>>13760
>if this were about monuments in leftist history
All orphaned Lenin statues should be fostered in Germany until they reach the age of majority for statuary and can be admitted into a revolutionary society.
>>13761
>argue against my non-argument!
kek
>>13767
Indeed, but it would be quite the trick to avoid falling into the old trap of having work gangs of children that are led about by unscrupulous adult overseers.  Also, given how little actual skilled labor is present in the workforce anymore, there would be the problem of children who make a fraction of what an adult makes becoming the only employees that employers will hire.  Child emancipation is a great idea but for the problem that wage labor is not emancipatory.  There would need to be some manner of institution to which children must belong that is powerful enough to guarantee workplace safety and living wages–say an all-encompasing union.
>>

 No.13773

>>13770
>Indeed, but it would be quite the trick to avoid falling into the old trap of having work gangs of children that are led about by unscrupulous adult overseers.

That's only a problem due to children not being given any sociolegal individuality.


>Also, given how little actual skilled labor is present in the workforce anymore, there would be the problem of children who make a fraction of what an adult makes becoming the only employees that employers will hire.

That's due to customer service jobs making up the bulk of post-Cold War labor market. People began to look down on trades as beneath them.  

>Child emancipation is a great idea but for the problem that wage labor is not emancipatory.  There would need to be some manner of institution to which children must belong that is powerful enough to guarantee workplace safety and living wages-say an all-encompasing union.

Children are currently more in danger from public schooling. Bullying, drug abuse, grooming, school shootings, etc.
Yet, I never hear anyone showing hesitation when it comes to that.

Also ironically, the average workplace is far more safe than it was fifteen decades ago.
You say wage labor isn't freeing?

Neither is compulsory schooling.

Also why do you want children to be institutionalized for their safety? If anything, children are institutionalized enough and that's the problem.
Institutionalization makes children vulnerable.

We need emancipation.
>>

 No.13783

>>13770
> Also, given how little actual skilled labor is present in the workforce anymore, there would be the problem of children who make a fraction of what an adult makes becoming the only employees that employers will hire.

That's the fault of adults for looking down on skilled labor training.
It's irritating and sad that the the average fast food worker is early-mid twenties at minimum.
Teen workers in fast food are now seen as outliers/novelties.

It's become common to spend your youth in unskilled low-prospect work. So much so, that people even wanna sociolegally extend adolescence to the mid-thirties.
>>

 No.13785

>>13770
>>argue against my non-argument!
My argument is that the left are cowardly cucks for not speaking out against the empirical evidence that show single moms are systematically abusing children across generations.
All you've don't is retort with "nanny nanny poo poo" to that.
>>

 No.13790

File: 1793048004432.jpg ( 198.02 KB , 739x1024 , IndustrialChildhood.jpg )

>>13773
>People began to look down on trades as beneath them.
Popular opinion doesn't enter into it.  People don't do trades, because they require apprenticeships.  Usually trade apprenticeships are just doing all the shit work that the master does not want to do for years, which winds up meaning that most apprentices drop out as their patience wears thin at being taken advantage of.  Also, masters like to delay the actual training for as long as possible not only to keep getting undesirable work done for them for cheap but also to avoid putting too many potential competitors into the market.
>You say wage labor isn't freeing?
It 100% is not, definitively so.  Even school is better than a shit job.
>Also why do you want children to be institutionalized for their safety?
Because absent that child workers get slaved to market forces.  Man, you need to read up on historical child labor.  In fact, Capital Vol. 1 has a chapter on it if I remember right.
>>13783
>It's irritating and sad that the the average fast food worker is early-mid twenties at minimum.
That average is deceiving.  If you actually visit a fast food joint, you see teenagers alright but also a bunch of thirty and forty-somethings.  Fast food is not only a first–and completely useless–job for teenagers; it is also the last stop for old proles who have either been to prison or who are trapped in suburban shitholes with no prospects.
>>13785
>My argument is that the left are cowardly cucks for not speaking out against the empirical evidence that show single moms are systematically abusing children across generations.
That's not an argument you dumb fuck; it's not even a coherant thesis.
>All you've don't is retort with "nanny nanny poo poo" to that.
That's all it warrants.
>>

 No.13791

>>13790
>That's not an argument you dumb fuck; it's not even a coherant thesis.
Yes it is. You are all feminist liberal cuckolds. That's why you won't demand accountability for child abusers if they have a pussy. How can you say you are materialists when even the most elementary exploitation and abuse escapes your notice.
You are all just liberal LARPs going through a rebellious phase.
You'll all marry some ball buster that will stop sleeping with you after a few years and you'll happily vote Democrat and reformist capitalism like the good little cucks you are.
The left cannot claim to be materialist if they refuse to address the issue of single mothers and their rank abuse of children.
>>

 No.13792

File: 1793048954538.jpg ( 60.02 KB , 294x361 , AH_HAHAHA_FAGGOT.jpg )

>>13791
>Yes it is.
Nuh-uh.  Nanna-nanna boo-boo.
>>

 No.13793

>>13792
I'd rather be a faggot than someone who defends child abusers because I hope it'll get me some pussy.
>>

 No.13800

>>13793
Don't sell yourself short, /pol/tard.  I'm sure you can be both.  How many Epsteine Islanders have you voted for?  That counts!
>>

 No.13802

>>13800
Pure projection beta cuck. I want women that abuse children to be held accountable. If Epstein had tits you'd be defending him too.
>>

 No.13807

>>13790
> It 100% is not, definitively so.  Even school is better than a shit job.

If you think school is better than a shit job, I have a bridge to sell you. Schooling is only good for teaching technical skills. By itself, schooling is no less enslavement than work.
In fact, I would argue that school has less freedom than work.

Schools don't allow kids to go off campus for lunch breaks.
They don't allow dating.
They don't allow covered canteens.
They do random drug testing.
Bullying goes unpunished.

The only reason why people think school is better than work is because of pop culture promoting school as a juvenile social club.

> Because absent that child workers get slaved to market forces.  Man, you need to read up on historical child labor.  In fact, Capital Vol. 1 has a chapter on it if I remember right.

If anything, abusive child labor is because of institutionalization of children, not the abscence of it.

> That average is deceiving.  If you actually visit a fast food joint, you see teenagers alright but also a bunch of thirty and forty-somethings.  Fast food is not only a first-and completely useless-job for teenagers; it is also the last stop for old proles who have either been to prison or who are trapped in suburban shitholes with no prospects.

The amount of teens working fast food work has been declining since the 2000s.
Especially since schools are promoting more extracurricular  activities.


> Popular opinion doesn't enter into it.  People don't do trades, because they require apprenticeships.  Usually trade apprenticeships are just doing all the shit work that the master does not want to do for years, which winds up meaning that most apprentices drop out as their patience wears thin at being taken advantage of.  Also, masters like to delay the actual training for as long as possible not only to keep getting undesirable work done for them for cheap but also to avoid putting too many potential competitors into the market.

Fair point. However, trades are still essential and are now being neglected. Most people are being sent off to college without much personal thought.
Colleges also seem to wanna drag on students prime years by forcing them to take liberal arts classes to complete a degree.

Also, college has become more a nanny state pen. College students are being infantilised, having their emails being surveillances by faculty and staff for "safety".

And then there's the academic levels of classes being middle-school level due to more people entering college without adequate credentials.

College is being promoted as some yellow brick road for absolute prosperity
And yet, more people are ending up in loan debt with no employment prospects in sight.
>>

 No.13813

>>13800
>Only the right wing criticizes women.
Sadly this child abuser apologist isn't wrong. This is the reputation the left has, it's it's a big reason why men on the left have this reputation for being Betas.
>Ib4 Hazan
Can you name some beside that that is at all masculine, but also not an unhinged crank?
>>

 No.13824

>>13813
Right wingers don't really criticize women. They just condemn patronize them.
If anything, right wingers are just as big simps for women as the left.
>>

 No.13831

>>13802
>I want women that abuse children to be held accountable.
No, you want to whine on the internet, because that's all you know how to do.
>>13807
>In fact, I would argue that school has less freedom than work.
By all means, do so, because absent a compelling argument that sounds like a crock of shit.
>Schools don't allow kids to go off campus for lunch breaks.
>They don't allow dating.
>They don't allow covered canteens.
>They do random drug testing.
>Bullying goes unpunished.
LOL, WTF kind of basic military training school did you attend?
>The only reason why people think school is better than work is because of pop culture promoting school as a juvenile social club.
Nah, it's because people who have been to school and been to a job largely prefer the former or at least hate it less.
>The amount of teens working fast food work has been declining since the 2000s.
You may be right.  It has been a while since I have gone to a fast food joint.  Fast food sucks.
>Colleges also seem to wanna drag on students prime years by forcing them to take liberal arts classes to complete a degree.
Well, yeah, they are businesses.
>Also, college has become more a nanny state pen.
Okay, it hasn't been that long since I have last attended university.  I call bullshit.  College is just a place where you sit in a room with other students for four hours per day and listen to some part-time instructor with a Masters Degree tell you in a round about way what material will be on the next test.  At higher levels, it's just going to a room most days to get research assignments from a doctor before doing most of your work elsewhere.
>College students are being infantilised, having their emails being surveillances by faculty and staff for "safety".
Why would you use a university email account for anything other than school shit?
>And then there's the academic levels of classes being middle-school level due to more people entering college without adequate credentials.
Now THAT is fucking true.  Holy shitballs, highschool kids in this century don't know fuck all from an academic perspective, so the first two years at university are embarrassingly remedial.  The higher degrees are better, but they are crazy expensive.
>College is being promoted as some yellow brick road for absolute prosperity
>And yet, more people are ending up in loan debt with no employment prospects in sight.
Yeah, it is honestly pretty pointless now.  A person can get just as well-paying a job by spending those three-or-so years at a job with promotion opportunities as they can by pouring money into the pit of debt that is an undergraduate degree.  Unless someone else is paying for you to go to university, don't go.  It's bad business.
>>

 No.13833

>>13831
> By all means, do so, because absent a compelling argument that sounds like a crock of shit.

How is what I'm saying wrong?

> Now THAT is fucking true.  Holy shitballs, highschool kids in this century don't know fuck all from an academic perspective, so the first two years at university are embarrassingly remedial.

Actually it's the opposite. High school kids these days are imposed with more subject material compared to those from last century. If anything, kids nowadays are inundated with more tests and assignments than previous generations. You'd find that high school kids from previous generations were less academically endowed.
Or rather, high school was only for the best and brightest back then.


>The higher degrees are better, but they are crazy expensive.

In theory.

> Nah, it's because people who have been to school and been to a job largely prefer the former or at least hate it less.

And why do they hate it less? Ask the average adult what they remember about school. All they can tell me is the dumb shenanigans they did.
People think school is better because of pop culture distorting their sentiments about it.
There's more freedom in working than in school.

> Yeah, it is honestly pretty pointless now.  A person can get just as well-paying a job by spending those three-or-so years at a job with promotion opportunities as they can by pouring money into the pit of debt that is an undergraduate degree.  Unless someone else is paying for you to go to university, don't go.  It's bad business.

And the irony is? Most people don't need to go to university anyway. It's being promoted to milk money off of young people as the new form of credit card debt.


> Well, yeah, they are businesses.

That's a problem. Forcing college kids to learn about Shakespeare or Van Gogh just so they can get a degree in engineering is not proper education.
>>

 No.13834

>>13831
> Now THAT is fucking true.  Holy shitballs, highschool kids in this century don't know fuck all from an academic perspective, so the first two years at university are embarrassingly remedial.

Actually it's the opposite. High schoolers these days are endowed with more academic stuff than previous generations.
The real problem is that society assumes academic prowess is individually monolithic in all subjects.

People assume that if you're exceptionally good at a few subjects, you're good at every other academic subject as well.

Another thing is that back then, less people attended college and/or high school. It wasn't until compulsory law was strictly enforced in the late 1980s along with benchmark tests that high school and college became culturally universalized for all students' prospects

Another problem is that society reduces students value to academic prowess alone.

People think students only need to learn academic subjects and nothing else.

And we are seeing how well that turns out.

The most successful people aren't always the ones whom relied on their academic skills.
Most kids whom were academically gifted are often burned out and often flop out hard in the adult life.
>>

 No.13835

>>13831
> LOL, WTF kind of basic military training school did you attend?

It's become standard for a lot schools since the 2000s

Drinking canteens have to be transparent because they think you're sneaking booze.

Some schools ban dating because of the stigma of youth sexuality

Schools also do random drug testing.

It's not military school, it's a common place thing in schools.
>>

 No.13836

>>13831
>No, you want to whine on the internet, because that's all you know how to do.
>Trying to stop child abuse is whining.
Good cuck
>>

 No.13837

>>13831
> You may be right.  It has been a while since I have gone to a fast food joint.  Fast food sucks.

The real reason why fast food sucks isn't because of customers, as shitty as they can be.

It's the coworkers. Mostly failed adults whom act like the world owes them something for losing their youthful spark. Bunch of obnoxious lazy-ass hens whom don't wanna do any cleaning.

Mind you these hens are all single moms whom wanna play on their phone and flirt with customers all day.

Then you have the former delinquents whom cannot be bothered to wash the dishes or take out the trash.

Fast food is mainly failed adults working there whom don't wanna put in the effort.

Irony is, it would've been better if it were school kids who wanted to earn some pocket money.
>>

 No.13846

>>13836
If you wanna stop child abuse, start by making bullying a criminal offense. Name-calling, punching, harassing, assaulting schoolmates should earn you a week in jail.

If adults were to treat each other the way school bullies did, they'd be arrested. So why not do it for kids who bully their peers?

Secondly, abolish compulsory law for public schools.
And make classes be segregated based on academic competency rather than age.
Not all kids of the same calendar age are gonna have the same skill sets nor the same levels of skill sets.

Lastly, schools need to stop doing collective punishment.
Kids should be treated as individuals. That means they need to be held responsible for their own transgressions, not punished for the misconduct of their peers or siblings.
>>

 No.13849

>>13835
>>13834
>Two anons trying to bury the thread by talking off topic.
NOTICED
>>

 No.13850

>>13846
>A 50 year study shows single moms cause crime.
>Uh, why don't you outlaw bullying. That's the real problem.
I'd say you're retarded but I know you're just a burger.
>>

 No.13851

>>13850
Where did you come to this conclusion where I said bullying causes crime?

All I said is that bullying should be treated like a criminal offense.

Also, what does being a burger have to do with what I said?

Methinks the schizo here is you.

Also, bullying can cause criminality via disaffection.
>>

 No.13852

>>13849
>schizo cannot stop his persecution complex
>>

 No.13856

>>13852
You know you can get pussy without defending child abusers right?
>>

 No.13857

>>13852
>Don't notice me!
NOTICED
again
>>

 No.13858

>>13833
>How is what I'm saying wrong?
Factually.
>Actually it's the opposite. High school kids these days are imposed with more subject material compared to those from last century. If anything, kids nowadays are inundated with more tests and assignments than previous generations. You'd find that high school kids from previous generations were less academically endowed.
>Or rather, high school was only for the best and brightest back then.
Man, you're trying to sell fake history to someone who was both there back in the day AND who went back to uni for more degrees in this century.  I don't know where you are getting that bullshit, but I can assure you that is not how things happend.  First off, high school hasn't been for "the best and the brightest" since the Boomers were little.  It was a general expectation by the mid-to-late twentieth century.  Then the only teenagers who didn't go to high school got GEDs and from there proceeded to clean up on Aisle 3.

And younger folks get jack shit for acedemic instruction if the freshmen who I met are any indication.  In contrast, public schools that the Boomers and Gen-Xers attended were trying to teach them to be scientists to keep up with the Soviets, because that was still a thing.  The shit they learned in high school you have to go to colleges for now.  Academics in public schools have been getting progressively less investment since the space race officially ended.  Then there was that "No Child Left Behind" idiocy that just stalled every kid equally.  They don't even teach you things like logic or good research practices anymore, which is painfully apparant on the internet, but it is a real problem for the college freshmen who suddenly find that they need that at uni.
>In theory.
And in practice.
>And why do they hate it less?
Because work fucking sucks.
>Most kids whom were academically gifted are often burned out and often flop out hard in the adult life.
No, I remember going home a decade later and seeing all the people in the neighborhood who hadn't been able to keep up with me in school.  They were still doing the same shit, living in the same places, driving the same cars in some cases.  Being good with academics is no guarantee of any kind of success, but you had better believe that it is a helpful tool to have in your back pocket.  Even if academic skills do not translate to the work that you do, they make people trust your abilities.
>>13835
Okay, that all is fucking nuts.  No wonder nobody is learning anything in those places.
>>13836
>whining on the internet is trying!  If you don't whine on the internet like me then cuckcuckcuckcuck
gg, faggot
>>13837
>The real reason why fast food sucks isn't because of customers, as shitty as they can be.
I meant that fast food is disgusting food-like substances that I normally avoid consuming, but yeah, I would not want to work there either.  Even from the outside, the workplace looks like what you describe.
>>13846
>If you wanna stop child abuse, start by making bullying a criminal offense. Name-calling, punching, harassing, assaulting schoolmates should earn you a week in jail.
Cops and prisons are a good solution to no problem as far as the working class is concerned.
>And make classes be segregated based on academic competency rather than age.
>Not all kids of the same calendar age are gonna have the same skill sets nor the same levels of skill sets.
I am with you all the way on that.  "No Child Left Behind" needs to die.
>Lastly, schools need to stop doing collective punishment.
>Kids should be treated as individuals. That means they need to be held responsible for their own transgressions, not punished for the misconduct of their peers or siblings.
Collective punishment?  Again, WTF kind of basic military training school were you in?  Please tell me this is just some Deep South shithole Christian private school thing and not a common practice.
>>

 No.13861

>>13858
>>whining on the internet is trying! If you don't whine on the internet like me then cuckcuckcuckcuck
>Defend child abusers against critics because your mama brainwashed you into being a simp.
I mean, yes you're a cuck! Am I wrong here people?
>>

 No.13864

File: 1793079029240.jpg ( 314.34 KB , 1200x1000 , Cuck.jpg )

>>13861
>>

 No.13867

>>13864
>Now he's equating defending children from abuse with Nazism.
No, stopping your queen from neglecting her own children is not fascism.
But you're doing an excellent job of making the left look like the submissive bottoms to feminists that they are.
>>

 No.13868

>>13858
>Because work fucking sucks.

So does school. I say school sucks even more. At least with work you get paid to suffer and you can change workplaces when things get too rough. Cannot do that with school. If you go to a hellhole of a school, you stay stuck there.
Schooling is only essential for making industrially competent people.
There's been this whole sentiment where education is about philosophizing and idealized, not enough technical skills.




>Man, you're trying to sell fake history to someone who was both there back in the day AND who went back to uni for more degrees in this century.  I don't know where you are getting that bullshit, but I can assure you that is not how things happend.  First off, high school hasn't been for "the best and the brightest" since the Boomers were little.  It was a general expectation by the mid-to-late twentieth century.  Then the only teenagers who didn't go to high school got GEDs and from there proceeded to clean up on Aisle 3.

Why then did so many bomers drop out of school by ninth grade and get full time work in trades? And make good money? By contrast, most people who went to college got jobs and salaries subpar to their degree.

>And younger folks get jack shit for acedemic instruction if the freshmen who I met are any indication.  In contrast, public schools that the Boomers and Gen-Xers attended were trying to teach them to be scientists to keep up with the Soviets, because that was still a thing.  The shit they learned in high school you have to go to colleges for now.  Academics in public schools have been getting progressively less investment since the space race officially ended.  Then there was that "No Child Left Behind" idiocy that just stalled every kid equally.  They don't even teach you things like logic or good research practices anymore, which is painfully apparant on the internet, but it is a real problem for the college freshmen who suddenly find that they need that at uni.

That may have been true for schools up north and the Midwest. But another thing you're forgetting is that most schools back then had workshops. Technical skills were prized.

Also, not everyone was put in AP classes. And not everyone made it to high school.

Also, American education before the Cold War was even more subpar compared to afterwards.

>Collective punishment?  Again, WTF kind of basic military training school were you in?  Please tell me this is just some Deep South shithole Christian private school thing and not a common practice.

It's not strictly a religious thing. Schools treat kids with social/moral collectivism.
If one kid screws up royally, the whole class is punished.

Adults in general are incapable of seeing kids as individuals to begin with.
>>

 No.13869

>>13858
>In contrast, public schools that the Boomers and Gen-Xers attended were trying to teach them to be scientists to keep up with the Soviets, because that was still a thing.  The shit they learned in high school you have to go to colleges for now.  Academics in public schools have been getting progressively less investment since the space race officially ended.

Why then are so many Boomers and Gen Xers dumbfounded by the curriculum of post-Cold War curriculum? Most Boomers and Gen Xers, if I asked them what they learned in school, they cannot remember.

Most are dumbstruck at algebra. They even admit that most of the stuff that post-1990s kids are expected to learn wasn't a thing back in their day
>>

 No.13874

>>13869
>>13868
>The anons went back to trying to bury the thread with long off topic posts.
Mmmmm hmmmmmm
>>

 No.13875

>>13869
>>13868
You two reddit cucks are butt mad that we're bringing serious criticisms to women and you're spamming both this thread and the predatory tiddy streamers thread with bullshit about Gen X and Boomers.
Y'all are trying to bury the threads. Any future off topic posts in these threads will be reported.
>>

 No.13876

>>13875
>>13874
>butthurt schizo who wants to make his moral crusade about some e-girls "scamming" money from horny boys and thinks anyone naysayers are cucks

The absolute of LeftyChan.
We have become no better than LeftyPol and Reddit.
>>

 No.13879

File: 1793119428610.gif ( 73.14 KB , 570x537 , PoljakRage.gif )

>>13868
>Why then did so many bomers drop out of school by ninth grade and get full time work in trades? And make good money?
For a couple reasons.  Many were froom poor households that needed more breadwinners.  It will be difficult for someone from the younger generations to comprehend what life with nine siblings was like, but even in the day when folks got paid good money that was a lot more mouthes than one income could feed.  The older kids in poor families often needed to work to pay the family's way.  Another reason harkens back to my point about the level of academic difficulty in schools during the Boomers' youth.  High school was some high-end shit by today's standards.  They were training scientists, and a lot of kids just couldn't cut it so off they went to the trades.
>By contrast, most people who went to college got jobs and salaries subpar to their degree.
Now that is the case.  Back then guys with degrees got fucking paid.  Even a bachelor's degree back in the day meant that a person was some kind of gentleman.  That's where the notion that a university degree is a path to success came from:  it worked for the Boomers and for the WWII vets who came home and took advantage of the GI Bill.
>That may have been true for schools up north and the Midwest. But another thing you're forgetting is that most schools back then had workshops. Technical skills were prized.
They were necessary, because a lot of kids were going to flunk.
>Also, American education before the Cold War was even more subpar compared to afterwards.
Before the Cold War?  Like the World Wars?  I can't give you any personal account of that era.
>It's not strictly a religious thing.
Okay, so it was a Southern religious private school.  That figures.  Goddamn, that place is ass-backwards.  I've lived there; I know.
>Adults in general are incapable of seeing kids as individuals to begin with.
I would say that is more learned behavior than anything inherant to adulthood.  Older generations certainly regarded them differently.
>>13869
>Why then are so many Boomers and Gen Xers dumbfounded by the curriculum of post-Cold War curriculum? Most Boomers and Gen Xers, if I asked them what they learned in school, they cannot remember.
The big reason they forget stuff is that they don't use it.  The real high-skill jobs are gone.  As I said, school used to be about training specialists to win the Cold War.
>Most are dumbstruck at algebra.
I learned algebra in the fifth grade.
>They even admit that most of the stuff that post-1990s kids are expected to learn wasn't a thing back in their day
Was the South actually that ignorant back in the nineties?  I mean, I always knew they lagged behind the rest of the world in education, but, good god, that's insane.
>>13875
>/pol/tard comes to /leftychan/ to pwn the libs
>whines about single moms and cucks and supports his non-argument with a bunch of statistics compiled by some shitty political think tank because that passes for an argument on /pol/
>everyone ignores him and talks about more interesting things
>gets mad and calls everyone cucks
>/leftychan/ laughs at him and calls him a faggot
>runs off crying to the /leftychan/ mods
Top lel
>>

 No.13881

>>13879
Reported.
And nothing is stopping you from opening up another thread about Boomers and Gen X.
You can't defend single mother child abuse so you want to bury all the good points in this thread with your fake conversation about a completely unrelated topic.
>>

 No.13884

File: 1793126234607.jpg ( 25.32 KB , 287x387 , bawwww.jpg )

>>13881
It looks like somebody nees a single mommy to change his diaper.
>>

 No.13886

>>13879
>For a couple reasons.  Many were froom poor households that needed more breadwinners.  It will be difficult for someone from the younger generations to comprehend what life with nine siblings was like, but even in the day when folks got paid good money that was a lot more mouthes than one income could feed.

That's a thing that still happens although not as much. The problem is though, the older kids are only allowed customer service jobs and promises of cheap costs for college, not trades.

Also, even in households where there isn't excessive mouths to feed, in the pre-Internet era, kids still dropped out of school to pursue trades.

>Another reason harkens back to my point about the level of academic difficulty in schools during the Boomers' youth.  High school was some high-end shit by today's standards.  They were training scientists, and a lot of kids just couldn't cut it so off they went to the trades.

That's what I said in an earlier post and you said I was fibbing.
High school and college had less enrollment back then compared to now.
If the average boomer student were to enroll in high school and college en masse back then, academic scores would plummet.
There would've been remedial classes being commonplace then as it was now.

>Now that is the case.  Back then guys with degrees got fucking paid.  Even a bachelor's degree back in the day meant that a person was some kind of gentleman.  That's where the notion that a university degree is a path to success came from:  it worked for the Boomers and for the WWII vets who came home and took advantage of the GI Bill.

College degrees were golden back then because less people enrolled in college.

>They were necessary, because a lot of kids were going to flunk

That's how schools in general worldwide operated. And to be honest, academic skills are secondary to technical skills. In fact, the origins of most academic fields were due to tradesmen needing refinement  to their methods.

The history of academia is tied to intellectuals needing to inquire the ways of tradesmen to solve burning questions.

>The big reason they forget stuff is that they don't use it.  The real high-skill jobs are gone.  As I said, school used to be about training specialists to win the Cold War.

Schooling in general started out as technical training. The problem started when schools started prioritizing socialization and decorum skills over technical skills.


>Before the Cold War?  Like the World Wars?  I can't give you any personal account of that era.

Go research the American educational system before the Cold War. In fact, the motive for American education in the first place was to teach children to read the Bible. (Look up the "Old Deluder Satan Act") Secular subjects were viewed with contempt.

>Okay, so it was a Southern religious private school.  That figures.  Goddamn, that place is ass-backwards.  I've lived there; I know.

It's not just private schools nor is it limited to the South,although the South is an educational shithole compared to the rest of the nation.

>Was the South actually that ignorant back in the nineties?  I mean, I always knew they lagged behind the rest of the world in education, but, good god, that's insane.

That's not what I mean. I mean to say, regardless of the ethnogeographic region a boomer was raised, if you were to have them recite any sample of curriculum of post-1980s academia, their heads will spin. It's not that they're dumb. But the curriculum since 1990s/2000s is more tedious than back then.

If any boomer or Gen X kid were to enroll in post-1980s grade school, they'd drop out by the seventh grade.

>I would say that is more learned behavior than anything inherant to adulthood.  Older generations certainly regarded them differently.

I'm not sure how true that is. Adults like to stereotype/ generalize kids.
<Kids these days…
<When I was your age…

Adults see children as living breathing archetypes by virtue of their age.
Kids are judged solely by their age, not their talents or behavioral patterns.

>The big reason they forget stuff is that they don't use it.  The real high-skill jobs are gone.  As I said, school used to be about training specialists to win the Cold War.

That's the problem. Education has become about reciting a bunch of random trivia to pass tests and show off how "smart" you are.

Adults judge childrens intelligence solely by how much trivia they can recite.

I don't think it's correct. It just shows that adults view kids as showmanship animals.

I also find it funny how adults want kids to be good at all academic subjects yet they build pedagogy to be centered around socialisation.
>>

 No.13887

>>13879
>/pol/tard comes to /leftychan/ to pwn the libs
>whines about single moms and cucks and supports his non-argument with a bunch of statistics compiled by some shitty political think tank because that passes for an argument on /pol/
>everyone ignores him and talks about more interesting things
>gets mad and calls everyone cucks
>/leftychan/ laughs at him and calls him a faggot
>runs off crying to the /leftychan/ mods
<Top lel

Tbh I don't think they're /pol/ yard. But then again, a lot of LeftyPol and LeftyChan patrons hail from 4chan

It doesn't matter how "leftist" this place and Ogre are, image boards are image boards. And they always attract the most vindictive asocial romantically-deprived assholes.

These guys are meek passive mice in meatspace however.

All the crying about "normies" these guys do, their preferences are the more "normie" than the anti-normie. They look down on actual anti-normies.
>>

 No.13888

File: 1793130236746.jpeg ( 141.62 KB , 1331x1181 , Duck-ai-image-2026-10-08-….jpeg )

>>13884
That crying rabbit is kinda cute NGL. I wanna cuddle him.

>Don't worry little one, I won't hurt you.
>>

 No.13890

>>13886
>More off topic nonsense.
Reported
What exactly is keeping you from opening up another thread? Are you really that desperate to defend single moms, and by extension your own mom, from accountability.
This is why this problem is so pervasive. These men don't even understand how brainwashed they are.
>>

 No.13892

>>13890
Anon, are you okay?
Do you need another tampon for your bleeding, hairy, smelly cunt?
Do you need your monthly shot of TRT?

Do you need Kratom?

Do you need cortisol detox?
>>

 No.13893

>>13887
>It doesn't matter how "leftist" this place and Ogre are, image boards are image boards. And they always attract the most vindictive asocial romantically-deprived
This really isn't true. I'm aware that people have taken to repeating this all the time, and you probably heard it stated very confidently, but there was a time when shit was nowhere near this bad. There's nothing fundamentally or inherently reactionary or even mean about imageboards, I remember a time before /pol/ when even /b/ culture leaking into other boards on 4chan was treated with hostility by users who were just on their little hobby boards to discuss anime and video games.

Polite-ish sage.
>>

 No.13894

>>13892
I'll be fine once you triggered cucks open your own thread.
>>

 No.13896

File: 1793144249253.png ( 399.77 KB , 750x1330 , Nu4chan.png )

>>13886
>That's a thing that still happens although not as much.
Yeah, it happens a lot less, because big families are almost entirely a thing of the past.  Even the catholics don't make 'em like they used to.
>The problem is though, the older kids are only allowed customer service jobs and promises of cheap costs for college, not trades.
Trades are inaccessable.  Even someone who has had some schooling in a trade needs an apprenticeship, and those are built to run students off.
>That's what I said in an earlier post and you said I was fibbing.
I suspect I have realized our disconnect here.  There is a massive distinction to be made between high school when Boomers were kids and high school when Gen-X was kids.  In the Boomers' youth, high school was for those with significant academic ability, and completing it was not entirely common.  It was rigorous and brutal and designed to produce scientists and the like.  Boomers who failed high school went into the trades and became carpenters, truck drivers, plumbers, and the like, which was possible because there were plenty of masters taking on apprentices as well as trade unions that one could go through.  In Gen-X's youth, completing high school was almost a given, and the few who didn't complete it became grocery store clerks making minimum wage for the rest of their lives.  By then, the trades were already becoming inaccessable due to anti-union legislation during the Reagan Administration.  Boomer high school grads:  best and the brightest.  Gen-X high school grads:  nearly everyone who wasn't special ed.  Also, that "No Child Left Behind" shit was started by Bush the Elder and drove standards into the toilet thereafter.
>College degrees were golden back then because less people enrolled in college.
That is true, but a lot of GIs who had their tuitions paid by Uncle Sam also joined the ranks of the college educated.
>The history of academia is tied to intellectuals needing to inquire the ways of tradesmen to solve burning questions.
It seems to me to have been started by a bunch of idle lords with way too much time on their hands and some crazy ideas (eg. Isaac Newton).
>Go research the American educational system before the Cold War. In fact, the motive for American education in the first place was to teach children to read the Bible. (Look up the "Old Deluder Satan Act") Secular subjects were viewed with contempt.
Oh yeah, American education was shit before the Cold War, Sputnik, and all those GIs with money for college.  I have no experience with any of that, though.
>That's not what I mean. I mean to say, regardless of the ethnogeographic region a boomer was raised, if you were to have them recite any sample of curriculum of post-1980s academia, their heads will spin.
The youngest Boomers are septigenarians.  Of couse they don't remember maths they only briefly studied sixty years ago before going home to watch Howdy-Doody and Leave It to Beaver.  They learned it, but they never subsequently used it.  That is, unless they were doctors, engineers, or architects.
>Adults see children as living breathing archetypes by virtue of their age.
And here you are casting adults as an archetype by virtue of their age.  Essentialism is a sneaky bug you don't always realize you have.
>Adults judge childrens intelligence solely by how much trivia they can recite.
Now, intelligence is a whole other topic.
>>13887
>Tbh I don't think they're /pol/ yard. But then again, a lot of LeftyPol and LeftyChan patrons hail from 4chan
Hell, I was once from 4chan, but the 4chan I came from was very different from the bot-infested, e-crusading, /pol/tarded nu4chan OP hails from.
>It doesn't matter how "leftist" this place and Ogre are, image boards are image boards. And they always attract the most vindictive asocial romantically-deprived assholes.
The good chantards are the ones who have fun with being vindictive assholes.  The bad chantards are the ones who treat the internet like the all-important front of an idiotic culture war.
>>13888
Nice digits.  For more of the bunny and his padded friends:  https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/incontinent-student-bodies/ISB%20%2302_text.pdf
>>13893
Wish I could turn back time to the good old days.
>>

 No.13897

>>13893
I don't really disagree with you but at this point, I feel like this is an obnoxious rationalisation.

Not that you're wrong, but then, you will have to extend this same sympathy for TikTok, Roblox, Fortnite, etc.
Those platforms aren't inherently bad. But bad actors ruined them.
>>

 No.13898

>>13896
> Yeah, it happens a lot less, because big families are almost entirely a thing of the past.  Even the catholics don't make 'em like they used to.

Tbh that's a good thing. Procreation shouldn't be an automatic unlimited privilege of adulthood. Far too many adults feel entitled to treat their offspring and spouses like shit.
Most childrearing adults either abuse, neglect, smother, and/or coddle their kids. Either that or  a peculiar mix of all four actions.

There's a reason why we have the adage: It takes a village to raise a child. Parents by themselves are terrible life coaches.
Kids succeed more when they have third-party adults helping them navigate the troubles of school and puberty.
>>

 No.13899

>>13896
> It seems to me to have been started by a bunch of idle lords with way too much time on their hands and some crazy ideas (eg. Isaac Newton).

You're thinking of philosophy.
Science and mathematics at least have practical value.
Isaac Newton may have been an asocial nerd but at least he was concerned with the concrete world rather than obsessing over stupid sociological theories like what the Greek elders in the BC times were doing.

Again, academia should return to its roots of technical skills.

> Oh yeah, American education was shit before the Cold War, Sputnik, and all those GIs with money for college.  I have no experience with any of that, though.

I don't know if you know about the Monkey vs Scopes trial of 1925.
But in case you don't: a high school teacher in Tennessee was arrested for teaching evolution.

Another thing you may not know: graphic novels were considered "corruptible for the youth" back in seventeenth/eighteenth century America. And it wasn't limited to the South.

> Trades are inaccessable.  Even someone who has had some schooling in a trade needs an apprenticeship, and those are built to run students off.

I didn't know this. That's very sad. Those trademaster bastards need to understand that they're not posh enough to act like that and get away with it for long.
Trades are more essential to society than college educated careers (barring medicine, engineering, and science.)

> The youngest Boomers are septigenarians.  Of couse they don't remember maths they only briefly studied sixty years ago before going home to watch Howdy-Doody and Leave It to Beaver.  They learned it, but they never subsequently used it.  That is, unless they were doctors, engineers, or architects.

It was like this even before they hit their seventies.
>>

 No.13900

>>13896
> I suspect I have realized our disconnect here.  There is a massive distinction to be made between high school when Boomers were kids and high school when Gen-X was kids.  In the Boomers' youth, high school was for those with significant academic ability, and completing it was not entirely common.  
>It was rigorous and brutal and designed to produce scientists and the like.  Boomers who failed high school went into the trades and became carpenters, truck drivers, plumbers, and the like, which was possible because there were plenty of masters taking on apprentices as well as trade unions that one could go through.  
>In Gen-X's youth, completing high school was almost a given, and the few who didn't complete it became grocery store clerks making minimum wage for the rest of their lives.
> By then, the trades were already becoming inaccessable due to anti-union legislation during the Reagan Administration.  Boomer high school grads:  best and the brightest.  Gen-X high school grads:  nearly everyone who wasn't special ed.
> Also, that "No Child Left Behind" shit was started by Bush the Elder and drove standards into the toilet thereafter.

I think "No Child Left Behind" was the icing on the cake. I think postmodern-era American education went to shit around the late 1980s/early 90s. The introduction of benchmark tests and reduction of playtime.

Also, while the intellectual vitality of high school declined by the time of millennials, that doesn't mean that post-9/11 high school is a breeze. In fact in many ways it's much harder.

There's a lot less technical skill training but a lot more liberal arts bullshit and godawful group projects.
>>

 No.13903

File: 1793160304714.jpg ( 58.98 KB , 1014x330 , DoctorateInHumanities.jpg )

>>13898
>Tbh that's a good thing.
Agreed.  It is nice that the world still has some wild areas that are not overrun by humanity.
>Procreation shouldn't be an automatic unlimited privilege of adulthood.
On that, though, I do not want any kind of state-imposed restrictions on sex.  In my mind, the state should never get involved in sex.  Nobody should get involved apart from the people having it.
>There's a reason why we have the adage: It takes a village to raise a child.
The problem is that we ain't a village.  Ain't nobody got time for other people's kids.
>>13899
>You're thinking of philosophy.
>Science and mathematics at least have practical value.
Science and mathematics are philosophy.  Aristotle came up with the earliest version of the scientific method in The Organon.  Then it got refined by Rene "ITTIA" Descarte and Isaac Newton who was a theologian and an occultist.  The sciences are neither seperate nor distinct from philosophy, as any physicist will verify.
>I didn't know this. That's very sad. Those trademaster bastards need to understand that they're not posh enough to act like that and get away with it for long.
Trademasters are the biggest prima donnas you will ever meet aside from medical doctors and airplane pilots.  Oddly enough, actual opera singers are pretty cool.
>>13900
>There's a lot less technical skill training but a lot more liberal arts bullshit and godawful group projects.
Liberal arts bullshit is easy.  You only have to parrot back whatever pomo ideology the instructor is afflicted with.  I do hate group projects, though.  It always shakes out that one or two people do all the work while everyone else coasts.
>>

 No.13904

>>13903
> Science and mathematics are philosophy.  Aristotle came up with the earliest version of the scientific method in The Organon.  Then it got refined by Rene "ITTIA" Descarte and Isaac Newton who was a theologian and an occultist.  The sciences are neither seperate nor distinct from philosophy, as any physicist will verify.

Fair point. What I mean to say though is that at least in the early days of academia, it was more tied to concrete things rather than purely abstract things.

Astronomy came into its own as a separate academic field apart from astrology around the sixteenth century AD.

> Liberal arts bullshit is easy.  You only have to parrot back whatever pomo ideology the instructor is afflicted with.

That's the thing I hate. Whether it be in literature or language arts, I don't wanna waste my brain cells trying to figure out whatever impressions of some dead poet. Irony is, a lot of these dead poets/authors that schools force kids to learn about were mainly illiterate or were at odds with the academic rigor of their era.

>I do hate group projects, though.  It always shakes out that one or two people do all the work while everyone else coasts.

This. In fact, one of the main complaints I have with school is GROUP PROJECTS. Or mandatory "socialization" in general.
Why would I waste my precious youth coming to school just to simply learn how to be social?

That's what playgrounds are for.

School is meant for learning about letters and numbers, not about playing along with teachers' stupid whimsical peer-bonding games.

> On that, though, I do not want any kind of state-imposed restrictions on sex.  In my mind, the state should never get involved in sex.  Nobody should get involved apart from the people having it.

Then we should admit that it's wrong for adults to interfere with teens jacking off to vanilla porn.

> The problem is that we ain't a village.  Ain't nobody got time for other people's kids.

I find it funny that people treat kids as exclusive property belonging only to the parents.
Yet, when it comes to animals and elderly humans, everyone wants to come together for their welfare.
But, kids?
"MY KID, MY RULES"

Is it any wonder why modern pedagogy is so shitty?

Kids are objectified as personalized consanguinity trinkets.

> Trademasters are the biggest prima donnas you will ever meet aside from medical doctors and airplane pilots.  Oddly enough, actual opera singers are pretty cool.

That's ironic. But then again, irony is the main sociological law.
It's kinda like how people assume academics are colorblind and think that cosmeticians are judgemental fashion police.

It turns out that academics are the biggest patrons of lookism.
Most people either forget or don't know that a lot of our institutional racism and sexism were promoted by intellectuals or cosmopolitans.
You know that common morality fable that schools preach about?
"Crime is determined by low education"

Yet, most of our biggest heinous criminals or degenerates were people with modest or super-par education.

Ted Kascynski AKA Mad Bomber? He was a disgruntled university student with a high autism score

The 9/11 terrorists of Al-Quada? They were university-educated. Some even came from rich families.

Aliester Crowley?
L Ron Hubbard?

They were both educated people.

Even Donald Trump, despite his cartoonishly vulgar chauvinism, he came from an educated background.
He actually graduated from university.
>>

 No.13905

>>13903
>Calvin & Hobbes pic talking about writing

TBH, this is how I feel about literature class.
I was an avid reader as a child.
I loved reading. But I hated whenever we had to write essays or discuss about assumed sentiments of authors.

Or how about listening to sermons obsess over some cliche Bible quote as if though it was some newfound tech.
(Or even worse, being forced to participate in family prayer meetings)

Religious wording is very irritating to me. Especially when it starts doing their platitudes for God. It sounds so groveling. It irritates my soul like you wouldn't believe.

Like I wanna scream to the Bible authors "HAVE SOME SELF-RESPECT!!!"

Or listening to anyone quote some historical figure and listen to them ramble on about how said quote "changed their life" just because said quote was written in a flowery way.

It's all irritating to me.
>>

 No.13907

>>13905
>>13904
>>13903
Would the mods ban these thread derailing faggots already.
>>

 No.13914

>>13907
Anon, please calm down and take your medications.

Your cortisol is going into overdrive again.

Either that or go back to LeftyPol.

As much as I hate to say it, even Reddit patrons aren't as petulant you.
>>

 No.13917

>>13914
Anon, please seek help. Don't perpetuate the cycle of abuse you survived. Let discourse on roastie child abuse happen without reflexively censoring it. Don't let another child suffer at the hands of a single mother.
>>

 No.13919

>>13917
>>13918
You two should make out or something.
>>

 No.13920

>>13917
Anon, please seek help for your vindictiveness. Not everyone who disagrees with your hysteria is some childhood victim of female chauvinism.

Also, please understand that single motherhood isn't always due to harpies. Whether you like it or not, single motherhood is moe due to the incompetence of the husband.

A lot of instances of single mother hood are due to fathers/husbands being dismissive, abusive, disabled, or dead.

Contrary to popular belief, no dad is better than an abusive one.

In fact, Im always amazed (but not surprised) as to why critics against single moms are silent about abusive/negligent dads.
>>

 No.13921

>>13920
But you're not disagreeing. You're simply censoring discourse. I know talking about single mother abuse stirs up painful memories of your childhood. But you can't let that stop others from children that can be saved right now.
>Also, please understand that single motherhood isn't always due to harpies.
Again, your defecting criticism of your abuser. It's okay to be mad at your abusers, even if it's your mom.
>A lot of instances of single mother hood are due to fathers/husbands being dismissive, abusive, disabled, or dead.
Yes, but your mom CHOOSE to procreate with these types of men. She was an adult anon, and we hold adults responsible for their actions, even if they're your mommy.
>>

 No.13922

>>13921
*others from helping children
>>

 No.13923

File: 1793228006021.jpg ( 155.14 KB , 835x620 , leftychan R9K.jpg )

>>

 No.13925

>>13923
Why do child abusers get a pass from the left when they're poor and female. Shouldn't any child abuser be held accountable? Y'all don't feel this way about males and fathers. Curious!
>>

 No.13926

File: 1793237475083.jpg ( 8.52 KB , 266x189 , ConcernedCitizenSpidy.jpg )

>>13904
>Fair point. What I mean to say though is that at least in the early days of academia, it was more tied to concrete things rather than purely abstract things.
I get what you mean:  sciences require verification and repeatability and have established processes to determine whether or not a theory is credible.
>That's the thing I hate.
Yeah, it fucking sucks, and it makes you feel like whoever is paying for your degree is a sucker for ponying up for that hackery.  It gets you that magic piece of paper you need, though.
>Why would I waste my precious youth coming to school just to simply learn how to be social?
For real, that is the dumbest shit.  Kids don't need to be in a class to learn how to socialize.  They need to be away from class to learn how to socialize.  You learn to socialize on the playground, at the skate park, on the basketball court, in the woods beyond the housing development.  If they want kids to socialize, it's as easy as letting them leave.
>Then we should admit that it's wrong for adults to interfere with teens jacking off to vanilla porn.
Nobody should care about anyone else jacking off to anything ever.  I mean, unless they are nutting on your floor or something.
>I find it funny that people treat kids as exclusive property belonging only to the parents.
They just don't want to be responsible for dealing with them is all.  Dealing with kids is a pain in the ass, because they act like kids.  They act like kids, because that is how people treat them… to a degree.  There is also a biological component, like the late development of a sense of empathy and a crazy high metabolism.
>It turns out that academics are the biggest patrons of lookism.
Looks, yes, but more importantly eloquence.  If you are eloquent, instructors will bend over backwards for you.  It is academically en vogue to pretend that vulgar speech should not be a handicap, particularly when it is associated with an ethnic vernacular, but the reality is that a student who has spent his childhood reading books and thus commands an extensive vocabulary is at a colossal advantage over a student who learned to read and write on the internet.  And if that book-learner also uses proper diction during his oral presentations, he is going to be carried to his degree on a litter.  Even the instructors who like to bemoan that reality practice it.
>You know that common morality fable that schools preach about?
>"Crime is determined by low education"
I have heard that one as well.  It is like the poverty theory of crime with an unnecessary extra step added to it.

Every liberal stripe has a thoeory about what causes crime.  For example, dipshit OP thinks it's single moms because he saw some stats on a think tank's website.  The reality is that crime is definitively caused by one thing and one thing only:  the law.  The law defines crime.  It takes an activity that people were already performing and says, "stop doing that or I will have armed thugs beat you, throw you in a box, and ruin your life."  Thus that activity that was not crime before is crime now.  The more an activity is performed by people, the more crime there is when the law declares that activity to be illegal.  The law is not some force of nature that is inherently violated by certain behaviors, which is what the people who propose theories as to the cause of crime seem to believe.  It is entirely the definitive creation of a given state entity.
>>13905
>I loved reading. But I hated whenever we had to write essays or discuss about assumed sentiments of authors.
Same.  I have long disliked that tendency of art critics to care very much about what the artist intended.  It really does not matter.  What matters is what the person who consumes it takes from it.  As I see it, the author and the consumer create the message of art in concert, and only the consumer is privy to it.
>Religious wording is very irritating to me. Especially when it starts doing their platitudes for God. It sounds so groveling. It irritates my soul like you wouldn't believe.
Yeah, there is something I find off-putting about subservience as well.  I think that is a good tendency to have, as it seems to help with spotting and resisting cults of personality.
>>13920
>Whether you like it or not, single motherhood is moe due to the incompetence of the husband.
I don't know about that.  I am inclined to believe that a good number of single mothers are just women who decided to carry a fetus to term despite being fully aware of the fact that the father had no interest in being one.  There is no way to say how many for sure, but it is a scenario I have seen play out before.
>>13921
>You're simply censoring discourse.
You are not being censored, dumbass.  You have had your say, and you obviously have nothing else to add.
>>

 No.13928

File: 1793244401613.jpg ( Spoiler Image, 298.14 KB , 1820x1365 , culturalmarxist.jpg )

>>13925
>Why do child abusers get a pass from the left
Idk when did you stop eating babies?
Shouldn't you be held accountable for the series of babies you ate?
Ya'll don't feel this way about cannibalism of people 3 and older. Curious!
>>

 No.13930

>>13926
> They just don't want to be responsible for dealing with them is all.  Dealing with kids is a pain in the ass, because they act like kids.

What does this mean? A lot of the things we condemn kids for is ironically very common in the post-pubescent world.

Exuberance? It also exist in the post-pubescent world?

Petulance? Also a post-pubescent thing. Why else do war and legal court battles exist?

Insecurity? Whimsicality?
They all are post-pubescent traits as well.

The reason why dealing with kids is a pain in the ass is because humans are the only species to infantilize their young. If you look at the way other animal species, even within other mammalian classes raise their young, you'd see that they train them for survival.

In the animal kingdom, when babies start walking/swimming, parents take them along hunting/foraging.

Humans? They lock away babies in playpens.

In the animal kingdom, when babies start nearing puberty, the elders teach them mating rituals.

Humans? They punish their pubescent young for expressing interest in sex.

People often like to mock virgins, and say that teens are terrible at sex. But that's because humans don't train their young for mating.

Humans like to talk about how they're "above the animals" yet the way we raise our young tells me otherwise.

Humans value innocence over maturity. The human behavioral tendency that adulthood is seen as punishment to be avoided for as long as possible? That doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.
Maturation is something to look forward to, if not ones natural purpose.

The most basic drives are mystified by humans.
I mean seriously. You have people ruining their own prospects over sex and relationships because they don't know how to do it right. And these people are smart and successful at everything else. And it's not even that hard.

It's become obnoxiously "relatable" to be retarded about relationships. Not just romantic ones either. Peer and familial ones are just as vulnerable.



>They act like kids, because that is how people treat them… to a degree.  There is also a biological component, like the late development of a sense of empathy and a crazy high metabolism

"Empathy" has become a kind of patronizing word that's thrown around as morality slur via inverse-implication.

Empathy does exist, but I feel that a lot of the sociocognitive pathologisation of kids "lacking empathy" is mainly due to how adults treat them.
If kids lack empathy, the way adults treat kids is just as prominent if not more.

"Lord Of The Flies" may be written about childrens executive functions, but I find that adults in real-time fit the bill far more than kids do.

When was the last time a toddler decided to fly an airplane into a corporate skyscraper in a metropolitan area to get back at said country for geopolitical occupancy?

When was the last time a teenager decided to incite a riot on a governmental campus over having their favorite president lose an election?

I doubt that empathetic drive is biologically-dependent. At least not solely.
If it were, war and crime would not exist in post-pubescent anthropology.
>>

 No.13931


>>13921
> But you're not disagreeing. You're simply censoring discourse. I know talking about single mother abuse stirs up painful memories of your childhood. But you can't let that stop others from children that can be saved right now.

Anon, I'm starting to think that you're the one with mommy issues. Did you grow up with a bitchy mom whom would verbally and maybe sometimes physically sucker-punch you for expressing masculine nuances?

The way you constantly cry and whine about "beta cuck simps" whenever people don't conform to your cookie cutter topic seems to reek of white suburban domestic angst.

You seem like the stereotypical socioethnogeographically white suburban male that reeks of passive-aggressive anger and vents it online because you'd get your ass whooped in meatspace for the way you're talking.

You probably aren't really fit nor strong and you probably don't have much industrial nor recreational skills to keep you occupied.
>>

 No.13932

>>13926
> Looks, yes, but more importantly eloquence.  If you are eloquent, instructors will bend over backwards for you.

"Lookism" is just a colloquial term for polite skills in this case.

>It is academically en vogue to pretend that vulgar speech should not be a handicap, particularly when it is associated with an ethnic vernacular, but the reality is that a student who has spent his childhood reading books and thus commands an extensive vocabulary is at a colossal advantage over a student who learned to read and write on the internet.  And if that book-learner also uses proper diction during his oral presentations, he is going to be carried to his degree on a litter.  Even the instructors who like to bemoan that reality practice it.


Irony is, medium doesn't really dictate the eloquence as much as you think. Most people talk and wrote vernacular for centuries long before the Internet.

This is another problem I notice: people think preference of media solely determines your lexical complexity.

In the twenty-first century Anon Domini, books are seen as the traditional medium of modest verbal expression.

Yet, back in the first century in the Mesopotamian realm, books were seen as newfangled vulgar nonsense. Polite skills were determined solely by oratory.

When papyrus and stylus was first promoted towards students in the ancient times, the elders went apeshit about it. Just the same way adults went apeshit over computers being the new traditional medium in the 2000s/10s.

Also another irony is this: formal speech is demanded of students as a metric of moral fiber.
Yet in the working world, formal wording is seen as a sign of unworldlyness and pretentiousnesses.

Formal speech is only respected as a discliplinary tool for kids. It's not respected/appreciated within itself amongst adults.

It's only respected IN adults BY  fellow adults if said adult is a success story.
>>

 No.13933

>>13926
> Same.  I have long disliked that tendency of art critics to care very much about what the artist intended.  It really does not matter.  What matters is what the person who consumes it takes from it.  As I see it, the author and the consumer create the message of art in concert, and only the consumer is privy to it.

Art is subjective not objective. The thing that people forget about is that it's all emotions, not logic. Philosophizing art has been an unfortunate benchmark of academic skills for too long.

And the funny thing is? All that ruminating over whatever sentiments the author/artist was trying to make is just waste. The author probably wouldn't want everyone trying to "figure them out".

The fact that people think philosophizing about art is the spark of intellect is a sign that people are cognitively lazy.

These same people couldn't be bothered to learn/discuss any physical science

In fact, I have yet to meet anyone outside of science nerd circles whose idea of intellectual discourse doesn't revolve around conspiracy theories, politics, or philosophizing art.
>>

 No.13937

>>13926
> I have heard that one as well.  It is like the poverty theory of crime with an unnecessary extra step added to it.

>Every liberal stripe has a thoeory about what causes crime.  For example, dipshit OP thinks it's single moms because he saw some stats on a think tank's website.  The reality is that crime is definitively caused by one thing and one thing only:  the law.  The law defines crime.  It takes an activity that people were already performing and says, "stop doing that or I will have armed thugs beat you, throw you in a box, and ruin your life."  Thus that activity that was not crime before is crime now.  The more an activity is performed by people, the more crime there is when the law declares that activity to be illegal.  The law is not some force of nature that is inherently violated by certain behaviors, which is what the people who propose theories as to the cause of crime seem to believe.  It is entirely the definitive creation of a given state entity.

This is why I'm leery of behavioral science articles. Most of the time, they seem more similar to superstition and religion than any genuine scientific inquiry.

This is especially true whenever the behavioral science articles in question focus on gender relations

Virtually all gender-relation discourse always wanna pathologize men.

There's articles saying that handsome men are more likely to abuse women than ugly men.
Yet these same people will
Then say that ugly men need to step up their game.

Yet, if men were to self-beautify, behavioral science declares them as "low T" or "over-familiarizing their feminine side".
>>

 No.13938

>>13937
In this vein, behavioral science is just as shallow as philosophizing art. In fact, even more abysmal because it projects ones selfish sociosexual biases onto real people. At least philosophizing art keeps the abstract in the abstract
>>

 No.13939

>>13931
>Anon, I'm starting to think that you're the one with mommy issues.
>What's this REALLY about.
Oh boy, this old liberal canard. Someone that just won't hold child abusers accountable just because they resemble their mother is the one with mommy issues.
I have a problem with child abuse and neglect.
And because there's so many victims of child abuse by single mothers, discourse always gets derailed because betas with mother wounds come out of the wood work to censor the discourse. IT HAPPENS EVERYTIME.
You're not alone anon, but the abuse ends now. You're going to have to stop enabling child abuse, me and my fellow comrades won't allow it anymore.
>>

 No.13941

>>13939
Anon, seriously. You need to confront whatever inner demons you have. Stop harassing other online patrons. Your problems are internal.

May I suggest therapy?
>>

 No.13945

File: 1793287097461.jpg ( 159.65 KB , 1140x641 , f4f86116-405a-40ef-9808-31….jpg )

>>13941
You're just yet another liberal defending a long running history of child abuse in the US. The state just uses single moms as proxies now.
History will not remember people like you kindly.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/community/facing-race/indian-adoption-project-dark-history/281-a21a5d07-b405-4342-a6d7-ba3d0a01921f
>>

 No.13946

>>13941
>Attacking my liberalism for objectively abusing millions of children? You must be mentally ill.
Kek, nice try lib
>>

 No.13948

File: 1793290315018.jpg ( 229.25 KB , 1100x950 , Around A Soul.jpg )

>>13945
>>13946
You just cannot help yourself, can you?
Are you inflicted with some metaphysical sludge?
>>

 No.13949

>>13948
>Anon wants to discuss OP.
>U juS CaN'T HELp YourSElF cAN U?!
Don't let your abuse keep other children from being helped.
>>

 No.13979

>>13949
It's okay anon. We will get you the help you need for your passive aggressive rage towards women due to your mom henpecking you since infancy.
>>

 No.13991

>>13979
I'm just mad at single mothers who abuse their children, like your mom obviously did.
I'm not angry at you anon, I'm angry at her for what she did to you.
>>

 No.13996

You guys are making me horny for single moms now. Thanks for that.
>>

 No.13997

>>13996
This anon is lying. For anyone to be horny for single moms there'd have to be some kind of barrier to entry. Single moms are easy, so anyone that wants one already has one.
>>

 No.14013

>>13991
Anon, you need to stop assuming that everyone else is a victim of single moms.
>>

 No.14015

>>14013
Everyone? No just you.
>>

 No.14016

>>13997
> Single moms are easy

The only people who say this are asocial bitter pseudo intellectuals whose political stances are motivated by lack of nubile prime age pussy.

Single moms are much more difficult to score than childless single women.

They're very prickly and will look down on you for the slightest flaw.

Single moms only seem easy due to lack of a stable long-term childrearing partner.

Irony is, most single moms usually only had a small number of childrearing mates.
>>

 No.14017

>>14015
Why are so obsessed with me? Especially with your pop-psychological diagnostics?

Even Reddit isn't this annoying.
>>

 No.14029

>>14017
I'm not obsessed with you. I wanna to talk about OP and it triggers you because you were groomed by your single mother to be a beta doormat that will defend her abuse even when she's not around.
You're welcome to leave the thread anytime you want and I'll go back to talking about the study in the OP.
>>

 No.14030

>>14016
Single mom melty

Unique IPs: 63
[Return][Go to top][Catalog]|[Home] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
Return Catalog Top Bottom Home