/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

me first. org deleted this so I'm reposting it.

I am from the group of people that are NOT White but NOT Black either. Knowing that, you guys needed to understand that women, men, good-looking people, celebrities, and rich and influential people from my group of people here are objectively evil and are fucking insufferable. I have zero respect for them. I respect Blacks and Whites, but not the rest. I want as many of my own skin and any "in-between" people to die and be sterilized as much as possible when an (actual) communist revolution started. And I am willing to shoot up a mall for this. YOU DO NOT KNOW how right the Bleaching-program are. If any of you are Chinese, Arabs, SEA, and any other group that are not "White" or "Black" and you aren't afraid to say what you want to say and aren't bending knees to political correctness (that said mentioned objectively evil people socially control anyway), then you will understand me. As a matter of fact, FUCK both of you radlibs and tankies. FUCK both of you rightist and leftist. I am willing to defend stuff like Stalin-era USSR and Russia and the likes. But you guys are SO dogshit, like little children that you need to babysit, or some sort of smug retard suburbanites and woman. Except you guys are grown up and are healthy (I assume). FUCK YOU ALL!!!! you guys made me think that maybe those leftcoms were right. I WANT TO FUCKING MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that the creation of adolescence is a key ingredient to the dumbing down of society.

Making young adults think of themselves as defective fragile humans that need further protection to the point were "teenage rebellion" is considered par for the course.
Making them spend longer time in school to help "develop their brains" instead of having them do trades is why people struggle in their twenties and thirties for stability.
I think that college is being overpromoted to young people to upkeep the cultural institution of adolescence, now that most kids dont have the wacky misdaventures they used to have before the Internet.

>>7439
I mostly agree with you.

I don't think children should be treated too differently than adults. There's no need to talk to them any different or use excessive baby talk on toddlers. Obviously you have to appreciate the fact that they are going to be extremely ignorant until they're fully developed (probably for boys until about 25) but having a whole designation of "teenager" for the most formative part of their lives probably stunts development. Plus it creates annoying shitheads because nobody wants to be labeled a "teenager" or "tween".

I think spending some time learning the basics in an industrial setting for a coop program or a summer camp is a good idea, because it's educational and kids love building shit and learning, but I don't think they need to be tasked with creating material value for society until they're ready to take on that role.

We definitely can and should trust kids who are interested with way more responsibilities than we currently do. I bet they would love to follow someone around and learn to refuel a jumbo jet or something.

>>7448
brain development is a myth.
what happens at 25 is that your brain starts to die.
Also, if brain development for boys is 25, it would be the same for girls

Leftism and rightism are gradually being diluted by liberalism.

Any true rightism was back in the eighteenth century or esrlier.

Leftism died around the 1970s in the west.

>>7453
Retarded buzzwords

When people speak about "women", they usually refer to cishet females under thirty-five.
Feminism/chivalry doesn't treat all women equally sympathetically

It only protects the young, slim, light-skinned, docile, exuberant girly women.

Every human needed to be taught that Dictionary Definitions do not prescribe standards of usage or claim to be the arbiters of what is correct in language.
(I learn this from one of my college classes, I intend to use my own words but I'm to retarted and lazy to make my own. So I use what google AI typed.)

>>7763
This, holy fuck. I hate when some retarded ass faggot says "SOCIALISM IS 1 BAZZILON DEAD UYGHURS" and points to the dictionary

Politics in our postmodern era is now about generational culture.
And Millennials are the new chauvinistic elders

>>7464
Feminazism (also called feminismus) was made up by the chadgeoisie class 2 pull all the high quality breedable cunts to them since their puberty, 4 only the wealthy nobility can provide the little pretty funny quirky princesses the royal lifestyle they always deserved by birth.
The best moment is that all the other writeoff wombs too will have no choice but 2 support their superior sissies in their reproductive struggle against the broke ass proletaryan uyghas, 4 they still inherently share the same race-identity.

Vol. 2 will be about troons who are the most beauty-shaming & sex-race relations policing subhumans there ever were, gayreeks would've collectively drowned themselves in their shitty seas along with their historically not-yet-fully-progressive physiognomy.

>>7780
Bourgeois feminism is actuallyjust chivalry where women arr allowed to scream and flail arms obnoxiously.

And by women, I mean, only young, light-skinned, slim, Angloid liberal adult females are allowed.

Feminism is the prodigal daughter of patriarchy

Bump

Leftism doesn’t exist anymore

Inceldom is a non-issue raised up by entitled asocial men going through a dry spell

>>11815
The Bolsheviks would've sided with incels

Let's face it most incels are pessimistic little bitches that the bolsheviks would have put up against a wall and shot. If you make a lack of sex your entire identity then you are an insufferable little shit and you need to know that.

>>11819
No, Lenin would've said:
"Give me just one generation of incels, and I'll transform the whole world."

>>11818
> The Bolsheviks would've sided with incels

I agree. I would say even more - if new Bolsheviks would arise in the future, their ideology will almost certainly be built around inceldom. Because now incels are the most revolutionary class. Women live too well now to fight against capitalists and too independently to support their husbands, that are now more partners than husbands.

>>11815
Everyone I've ever seen call incels entitled is in-fucking-variably part of the single most fucking privileged caste to ever exist. If these men aren't entitled to sex, you're not entitled to their protection, their tax money or their help with whatever political cause you're advocating.

>>11820
>>11818
Because he would’ve beaten the whiny ass bitch out of them.

>>11822
Can you provide eveidence for your theory? No offense but this sounds like schizo territory

Idk if Bolsheviks would even wanna entertain a bunch of mediocre men who make sexual gratification their entire ideologue. Just keeping it real with you.


>>11833
By your logic, women aren’t entitled to cook or clean for you because you don’t wanna adore them.

You’re reducing sex to a bargaining chip to get anything done is exactly what “muh roasties” you complain about do.

>>11819
Most so-called “incels” are actually volcels

It’s actually quite easy for them to get sex. They just think themselves as entitled to the sexiest prime age virgin females without having to pay up.

They don’t wanna date any plain-looking/chubby/older lady who has a lot of hood points

>>11860
> They just think themselves as entitled to the sexiest prime age virgin females without having to pay up. They don’t wanna date any plain-looking/chubby/older lady who has a lot of hood points

If you support the idea that men should pay for women, you are actually supporting prostitution. If you support the idea than some men should have the opportunity to fuck a bunch of sexiest prime age virgin females, and other should be happy with one old hag or a fat woman, you are supporting unequal distribution of sex between men, which is actually social-darwinism. That's why the idea, that all men should be entitled to the sexiest prime age females without having to pay up, is absolute correct and socialist. All communists should support it.

>>11859
>You’re reducing sex to a bargaining chip to get anything done is exactly what “muh roasties” you complain about do.
Yes we are, and that's the beauty of it. We're turning their own tactics against them. And why the fuck shouldn't we? No pussy no work. No pussy no taxes. No pussy no civilization. Cope and seethe about it.

>cook or clean
I don't need women to do this, I cook better than 99% of women. I've met like 2 millennial women who could actually cook.

>>11920
So there’s no need to complain then. Because all you’ve said is already been done since the dawn of time.

>>11911
I’m saying that prioritizing sex, especially non-procreative sex, as an automatic entitlement without requirements is not mature

By your logic, all women whom are ugly, older, chubby, husky, boisterous, etc should be pampered

>>7429
>women, men, good-looking people, celebrities, and rich and influential people
the six genders

>>11925

>I’m saying that prioritizing sex, especially non-procreative sex, as an automatic entitlement without requirements is not mature

Prioritizing sex is the way for men to get rid of exploitation by women and capitalists.

> By your logic, all women whom are ugly, older, chubby, husky, boisterous, etc should be pampered

No, I'm talking about men. Men are sexually poor, not women. To equalize men and women here is the same as saying "you know, the rich also cry".

>>11931
>No, I'm talking about men. Men are sexually poor, not women. To equalize men and women here is the same as saying "you know, the rich also cry".

You’re assuming that all women are physiognomically the same. You’re making the mistake of not factoring in that most women aren’t pretty, slim, docile, nor fair-skinned

>Prioritizing sex is the way for men to get rid of exploitation by women and capitalists

Wrong. Prioritizing sex will make men even more exploited than they already are. In fact, the moral obsession over “muh gooners” and calling for bans of AI robotic sex dolls due to “muh dehumanization” is exploitation.

>>11927
Wrong.

Theres fifty-four genders:
>Masculine, feminine, androgynous
>Male, female, intersex
>Homo, bi, hetero
>Trans, cis

>>11937

> most women aren’t pretty, slim, docile, nor fair-skinned

So what? How do you propose to solve the inceldom problem?

> Wrong. Prioritizing sex will make men even more exploited than they already are

In what way? I suggest to create a social system when all men have a guaranteed opportunity to have sex with young females. How does it make men exploitable?

> In fact, the moral obsession over “muh gooners” and calling for bans of AI robotic sex dolls due to “muh dehumanization” is exploitation.

AI robots are not the solution, the solution is available sex. Real sex, not dolls or robots.

>>11948
> So what? How do you propose to solve the inceldom problem?

Cosmetic surgery and selective service for sex work. Applies for both men and women
And it need not be domestic it can be overseas.

>In what way? I suggest to create a social system when all men have a guaranteed opportunity to have sex with young females. How does it make men exploitable?

You’re forgetting about personal choice. And that not all men are gonna be up to par in hygiene, looks, manners, talent for female preference

Likewise the same for women.
Not all women are gonna be up to par in looks, hygiene, manners, talents, etc

And physiognomical preferences of individuals of both genders.

And personality preferences as well.

Your idea is idealistic at best. It’s just gonna be another failed romantic parity program.

The best way to solve this problem is to get people socialized and dappered up young.

Not wait until your past your early thirties with some psychosomatic damage.

> AI robots are not the solution, the solution is available sex. Real sex, not dolls or robots.

How are they not a solution?
Sometimes people aren’t convenient. You know how women complain about being objectified.
Idk why there’s such pathological contempt for AI sex dolls.

It’s perfect.

>>11950

> Cosmetic surgery

It might be a solution for a one incel, but it's not a systematic solution. In South Korea lots of men do it, but there's still huge amount of incels there. It's like, let's say, everyone would get 200k salary a year. Would everyone become rich then? No, because the standards for being rich would just rise up, as well as prices for everything. Same with mass look-maxing. Women would still choose a small percentage of men.

> selective service for sex work

So prostitution? How do you imagine a socialist/communist society with prostitution? It's nonsense. But nevertheless, even it would be ethically appropriate in a socialist state, let's do some math. I hope you meant state-sponsored prostitution for incels? Because otherwise it just makes no sense.

First of all, the majority of men are incels. Sex is required once a day. Let's suppose that a state-sponsored prostitute can "work" with 5 men a day. So, we have 50% of population (men) * 50% incels / 5 = 5% of total population or 10% of female population are required as prostitutes. Also we must exclude non-adolescent girls and old women. If we take, let's say, 14-30yo females, that's less that 20% of female population, so we multiply 10% by 5, which gives up 50% of 14-30yo females who are required to be such state-sponsored prostitutes. It will be impossible to voluntarily hire a half of young females to be prostitutes, especially in a socialist society when women have guaranteed job, free medicine, education etc.

So this idea is mathematically impossible. And that's not even saying that those men who would get sex only from state prostitutes, will not feel themselves well about it, as they will compare themselves to other men, who get sex for free. And this will lead to yet another wave of social envy and hate from incels to other men. That's why I state that there must be equal distribution of sex between men. State-sponsored prostitution doesn't provide it.

> You’re forgetting about personal choice. And that not all men are gonna be up to par in hygiene, looks, manners, talent for female preference

I'm not saying that there should be strict pairing. The system might be set up in different ways, even giving people, for example, limited options to change their partner, but the most important remains - no young female should be a volcel and no man should be an incel.

> The best way to solve this problem is to get people socialized and dappered up young.

Agree, all ideas like teenagers don't need or don't want sex must be abolished.

> How are they not a solution?

Because it satisfies only the physiological part of sex, but not the psychological one. Just like regular masturbation.

> You know how women complain about being objectified.

I know. This anti-sexual shit feminist ideas about sexual objectification must be cancelled and forbidden. Men want women as sex partners and it's absolutely normal, this is what should be declared.

>>11960
> It might be a solution for a one incel, but it's not a systematic solution. In South Korea lots of men do it, but there's still huge amount of incels there. It's like, let's say, everyone would get 200k salary a year. Would everyone become rich then? No, because the standards for being rich would just rise up, as well as prices for everything. Same with mass look-maxing. Women would still choose a small percentage of men.

You sure? I think cosmetic surgery would do wonders to increase mens chances of getting laid. Women as well. You’re also mistaking looksmaxxing for wealthmaxxing.

>Agree, all ideas like teenagers don't need or don't want sex must be abolished.

I find it peculiar that our culture permits and even encourages bullying because it “toughens up people “. This same culture even says “cringe phases are necessary for adolescence otherwise you become a horrible person”. But they draw the line at romantic/sexual experiences.

> So prostitution? How do you imagine a socialist/communist society with prostitution? It's nonsense. But nevertheless, even it would be ethically appropriate in a socialist state, let's do some math. I hope you meant state-sponsored prostitution for incels? Because otherwise it just makes no sense.

>First of all, the majority of men are incels. Sex is required once a day. Let's suppose that a state-sponsored prostitute can "work" with 5 men a day. So, we have 50% of population (men) * 50% incels / 5 = 5% of total population or 10% of female population are required as prostitutes.

I think you mean to say the majority of incels are men.


>Also we must exclude non-adolescent girls and old women. If we take, let's say, 14-30yo females, that's less that 20% of female population, so we multiply 10% by 5, which gives up 50% of 14-30yo females who are required to be such state-sponsored prostitutes. It will be impossible to voluntarily hire a half of young females to be prostitutes, especially in a socialist society when women have guaranteed job, free medicine, and education, etc.

thirties and early forties aren’t old.

So it should be fourteen thru forty-five

Also, your idea of “sex is a female duty for a male need” is much more improbable.

> I'm not saying that there should be strict pairing. The system might be set up in different ways, even giving people, for example, limited options to change their partner, but the most important remains - no young female should be a volcel and no man should be an incel.

This is coercion.
Volcels should be allowed.
And yes, men can be volcels too.


> Because it satisfies only the physiological part of sex, but not the psychological one. Just like regular masturbation.

The psychological aspect of sex, that is companionship, can be solved by getting friends.

> I know. This anti-sexual shit feminist ideas about sexual objectification must be cancelled and forbidden. Men want women as sex partners and it's absolutely normal, this is what should be declared.

There’s difference between sexual objectification and wanting women as sexual partners

I’m talking about lusting for women in strictly business situations.

>>11967

> You sure? I think cosmetic surgery would do wonders to increase mens chances of getting laid. Women as well. You’re also mistaking looksmaxxing for wealthmaxxing.

If everyone is rich, no one is rich, if everyone is handsome, no one is handsome, I mean that. By the way, good looking is not the only female filter that men have to pass. There are others, and in case of mass looks-maxing, they will play the decisive role.

> I find it peculiar that our culture permits and even encourages bullying because it “toughens up people “. This same culture even says “cringe phases are necessary for adolescence otherwise you become a horrible person”. But they draw the line at romantic/sexual experiences.

The elites don't want people to have sex, and especially young people. It's insane how there are already discussions that the age of consent should be 21, while the age of military draft is 18.

> I think you mean to say the majority of incels are men.

No, I said it correctly. Majority of men are incels, and all or almost all incels are men.

> thirties and early forties aren’t old.

There was a survey, in which photos of different aged females were shown to men, not telling their ages, and 30yo women came out to have similar attractiveness as 11yo girls. Very low. Though some men 50+ don't mind 30yo women.

> Also, your idea of “sex is a female duty for a male need” is much more improbable.

Why? There had been like that for thousands of years till the end of the 19th century until feminism had come. Just in a monogamous way. I propose the polygamous system as a more progressive and effective one.

> This is coercion. Volcels should be allowed. And yes, men can be volcels too.

Who would want to be a volcel if he can fuck any young beautiful female for free? Highly unlikely. About women - it's a question of current women mentality. If we allow them to be volcels now, when they hate incels and do not want to have sex with them, there will be no difference with the current situation. Incels will remain incels. If women would become different, understand that every man needs sex and give it voluntarily, there will be no need to point them out to this.

> The psychological aspect of sex, that is companionship, can be solved by getting friends.

No, that's not about companionship. That's about sensuality, recognizing, touching, warmness. Completely different feelings. Haven't you had sex? For me it's just impossible to compare.

> I’m talking about lusting for women in strictly business situations.

I don't understand what is the problem, but anyway, it's not a problem to separate sex from work, if you mean that. The most important thing to make sure that there will be sex.

>>11969
>If everyone is rich, no one is rich, if everyone is handsome, no one is handsome, I mean that.

Now this is bullshit. This logic is what sore losers say. I’d rather have a society where the average person is handsome and sexy.
It may not result in excessive sex overnight, because libido isn’t infinite, but it will make life a lot easier in the dating realm.

>By the way, good looking is not the only female filter that men have to pass. There are others, and in case of mass looks-maxing, they will play the decisive role.

Of course looks aren’t the factor. There’s wit and talents.

>Who would want to be a volcel if he can fuck any young beautiful female for free? Highly unlikely. About women - it's a question of current women mentality. If we allow them to be volcels now, when they hate incels and do not want to have sex with them, there will be no difference with the current situation. Incels will remain incels. If women would become different, understand that every man needs sex and give it voluntarily, there will be no need to point them out to this.


Women want men to paneled them but women don’t get that all the time. Feminists want society to have men act as butlers for every non-essential whim of women. Your proposition is like that but for men. It’s coercive.

>No, that's not about companionship. That's about sensuality, recognizing, touching, warmness. Completely different feelings. Haven't you had sex? For me it's just impossible to compare.

There’s people who have sex without all the sentiments that come with it.
Friendships are more sincere than sexual intimacy in the hear of the moment.

>Why? There had been like that for thousands of years till the end of the 19th century until feminism had come. Just in a monogamous way. I propose the polygamous system as a more progressive and effective one

Wrong. Womens duty was to cook and clean for the husband and kids
Although men did coerce their wives to give sex, a lot of times, men would go to brothers let off steam that wives didn’t wanna do.

>There was a survey, in which photos of different aged females were shown to men, not telling their ages, and 30yo women came out to have similar attractiveness as 11yo girls. Very low. Though some men 50+ don't mind 30yo women.

Can you show the article that said this? Thirty year old women aren’t suddenly wrinkly old grandmas. This is the consequence of using white people as the physiognomic standard. Pasty white people age terribly, especially in sun climates. Factor in processed food, smoking and drinking, yea.

Women in their thirties are attractive to men. Not just older men either. Teenage males crush on mid-prime age females.

>I don't understand what is the problem, but anyway, it's not a problem to separate sex from work, if you mean that. The most important thing to make sure that there will be sex.

I’m talking about how men and women will judge peoples value in industrial affairs based on their looks and wit, rather than their talents.

>No, I said it correctly. Majority of men are incels, and all or almost all incels are men.

I think you’re mistaking the definition of incel. Inceldom isn’t when you suffer from a two year lapse from hanky-lanky after indulging in it everyday for a decade.

By your logic, women are incels too.

>The elites don't want people to have sex, and especially young people. It's insane how there are already discussions that the age of consent should be 21, while the age of military draft is 18.

Wrong. It’s not just sex and it’s not just elites.
Adults in general are resentful of young peoples personhood

People get pissy and crash out seeing younger people achieve success while they themselves are still stuck in dead end jobs.

Adults feel threatened by children whom are worldly and intuitive.
Teens who lack any sort of awkwardness about them are labeled as anomalies.

Even in literature, whenever there’s precocious kids who show occasional laps in judgement, it’s described as “finally acting their age/they’re still just kids”.

>>11970

> I’d rather have a society where the average person is handsome and sexy

Who minds that? I'm just saying that it won't enough by itself to provide sex to all men, if we don't change the system.

> Your proposition is like that but for men. It’s coercive.

Why? If women understand the importance of sex and provide it voluntarily to men, there is no coercion.

> There’s people who have sex without all the sentiments that come with it.

Maybe. But does that mean that other don't need them?

> Friendships are more sincere than sexual intimacy in the hear of the moment.

Friendship is great, but it's not to replace sex, just like we don't replace food with drinking more water or breathing deeper.

> Wrong. Womens duty was to cook and clean for the husband and kids

And to give sex to husbands.

> Although men did coerce their wives to give sex, a lot of times, men would go to brothers let off steam that wives didn’t wanna do.

Sounds like nonsense. What's the point of such a wife, lol? If she's a wife, it's her duty to give sex to her husband, otherwise she's just a parasite.

> Can you show the article that said this?

Np, I don't have it saved, I only remember that the research took place in the 90's.

> Thirty year old women aren’t suddenly wrinkly old grandmas.
> Women in their thirties are attractive to men. Not just older men either. Teenage males crush on mid-prime age females.

Sounds like old women coping, lol. But I don't mind, if anyone wants to fuck them - they can do it.

> I’m talking about how men and women will judge peoples value in industrial affairs based on their looks and wit, rather than their talents.

No, that's not appropriate, sex is sex, talents are talents and so on.

> I think you’re mistaking the definition of incel. Inceldom isn’t when you suffer from a two year lapse from hanky-lanky after indulging in it everyday for a decade.

Incel is a state when a person (man actually) needs sex and cannot get it. It applies for a certain period of time, no matter how much sex the man had before. It's like "hungry". We don't say that a guy, who hasn't eaten for a week, is not hungry, because he ate a bunch of burgers a month ago, right?

> By your logic, women are incels too.

They are volcels, those women who don't have sex. They can get sex, but wait for a chad, a millionaire and so on. Or just don't want sex, there are lots of women like that. Females libido is much lower that the male one.

> People get pissy and crash out seeing younger people achieve success while they themselves are still stuck in dead end jobs.

You are talking about society morale, but society morale is always set by the ruling class. It the elites didn't want to cancel sex, they wouldn't be promoting by propaganda all these shitty things like pedohysteria, raising up the age of contest, "sexual harassment", feminism and so on. Otherwise, they could have done a lot to turn the sexual morale towards a more positive direction. But they don't do it.