Unpopular Opinions thread

One of the big issues is people still use Zig Forums elsewhere on the internet, many communities know Zig Forums exists, but they don't know Zig Forums.
Honestly I think we should just run a patreon or something for the BO here to buy www.leftypol.org and run it as our own with the same layout as here. Biggest problem with Bunkerchan is it's fucking hideous layout and the fact it's not explained what each board is.

Nu atheists are hardly critical of all abrahamic religions equally though, most of them are philosemitic zionists(you hate anti imperialism so you probably don't care about this much personally but I think its relevant and worth bringing up since zionism isn't completely secular) who completely ignore Judaism or apologize for it, black metal musicians and pagan nazis/reactionaries ironically are much more consistent on this issue.

Anyway I'll list mine
That's it I suppose

Attached: 30.jpg (638x957, 302.95K)

I happen to believe that unpopular ideas are often more correct, and popular ideas have a sense of religious fervor that is unhealthy for critical discussion.

Criticism of the general left:

On Zig Forumsleftpol/

Attached: DcSRCh9VMAA0Ko2.jpg (750x551, 46.42K)

...

So you're just a nationalist protectionist, not a socialist?

No, because I am against capitalism and support workers owning the means of production. I support Stalinist style socialism in one country policy.

How does being unable to join your worker's state improve conditions for international proletariat?

As long as nations exist, they should improve the conditions for their own people and workers, because mass migration is exploited by capitalists who use it for cheap labor and potential ethnic conflict/differences could be seized upon by fascists to sew division. It seems the most pragmatic solution for me ideally for each country to have a socialist revolution and improve their state and conditions thus negating the need for mass movement of people.

But wouldn't workers be naturally drawn to a state where they own the MoPs, and by accepting them into your worker's state therefore both drain productive capacity from capitalists nations and at the same time significantly increase your own productive output?

Agitation in other nations is a separate thing entirely and is not contingent on your own immigration policies.

That is a good point I didn't consider. I was thinking about social services and economic planning as well though, as there may be issues with overpopulation if you have too open of an immigration policy and it may put strain on the system. I'm not against immigration in general, but I think a country should be aware of it's limits because a state cannot support a finite amount of people.

*an infinite

I agree. There are also hard natural limits on production as well. You could ramp up immigrant processing to the whatever rate was found to be optimum, and even employ a large number of workers to process and assimilate workers into the socialist state. Obviously, you need to defend the land that your worker's state holds from capitalist proxy encroachment, but allowing workers in provides a double benefit for both the workers state and for the international proletariat. First and more obviously, it means an economic benefit to the workers state itself as increased productivity in the form of a greater number of productive workers.
Secondly and perhaps less obviously, it gives the worker's state a pool of potential candidates to send back outside to capitalist nations and agitate for revolution.

Who cares about the international proletariat of goat fuck dictatorships that nationalize and deplete their natural resources with a population that can no longer feed itself due to mismanagement of resources?

Since when did adding more cost to a company increase profits? Not all labor is equal.

Have any of the theoritiicans run a business or study economics where competition and profitability are things that determine if an enterprise can exist in a market place? Sure there are special industries that are given government cheese due to their nature. How do socialists do economics that makes any sense that doesn't collapse under it's own bloated costs?

Attached: VenezuelaLooting-700x467.jpg (699x467, 192.3K)

Right, I guess we can't unionize because who gives a fuck about the Jim and Contessa over in the produce section. They don't even have children or go to Wednesday service!

Weird, if it costs more to employ people, I guess we shouldn't employ anyone! Because profit is logically impossible by your lights, where workers add to costs rather than produce value!

It's weird to be getting lectured about economics by a protectionist, tbh.
Like, you don't even understand capitalism, but you love it?

nearly everything except my economic stances.

"muh atheism"
also
::checks flag::
yeah figures…

No thread about unpopular left opinions is ever complete without age of consent-related discussion, so here goes.

The problems with the dating market are hardly exclusive to less attractive guys. 8+/10 guys would go for a teenage girl virtually 100% of the time if it was legal, and having the law set up to where it's okay to consent only if you're within a certain age range of your partner is hypocritical bullshit that basically exists just to give assholes a target for their harassment by allowing them to harass people for doing what nature bred humans to do.

Western culture is nothing but virtue signaling cancer and shrieking about how everything that offends feminists is rape. Lay the fuck off your hysterical liberal bitchfits about power dynamics and other assorted bullshit buzzphrases when some guy barely out of college wants to bone a willing teen hottie.

They really can't get better, though. That's why the laws are rigged in their favor. Repeated studies show that no guy would even look at them if the age of consent was at 14 or 15 where it should be.

This. I've been accused of being an alt-right fascist for not liking Islam, a religion which has institutional discrimination against women and is possibly the only major example of this still in existence.

Here are some other unpopular opinions:

Stopped reading.

Also ITT : popular opinions

6/10 guys have always been worthless to the kind of chicks those faggots want to get laid with. The sexual revolution isn't anything new. It was actually much more relevant during the days of the new left and second wave feminism (which started the whole trend).

Those faggots are merely pathetic losers and there's nothing to do about them. How many of us men are, realistically speaking, 8/10 6'+ and athletic as fuck? 10% maybe? I also have little success with women (despite being average looking), but I'm not frustrated over that. Incels must simply accept they are genetic garbage and move along.

That's because the anglosphere was the main perpetrator of imperialism, genocide and slavery, at least on a global scale.

What exactly you mean by "progressive values"? I hardly see capitalism/mercantilism as "progressive" (quite the opposite, actually), along with imperialism. Those are traits of the anglosphere.

Based on? The anglosphere is economically succesfull because it invades and exploits developing nations for their own particular interests. Why do you think the US drops 700+ billion dollars on the MIC?

I don't think native americans enjoyed the massacre of their own people, neither do the mexican amerindians (also native americans), nor did sub-sahara africa. Hardly any of them beneffited from the invasion and destruction of their homeland. Most, if not all, of the benefits went to the ruling class and are still held by the bourgeoisie to this day.

Then they are not muslims. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity or race. Zionists and liberals are the ones pushing for jew and muslim identitarianism. Idpollers merely embrace their regressive agenda.

If I recall correctly, none of the "horsemen of atheism" (Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Harris) have ever endorsed neo-reactionary standpoints. As a matter of fact, Sam Harris condemned Charlottesville's Unite the Right rally. Dawkings also condemned the North Carolina murder of 3 muslims.

The alt-right merely piggybacked on the new atheist bandwagon, because new atheism opposition to identity politics. New atheism is entirely valid and worth pushing forward, because it combats religion in a hostile way. Zig Forumsturds and the alt right, on the other hand, deserve to be killed.

Regressive? Mabye. Reactionary? Not necessarily. The idpol "left" are liberals LARPing as leftists and get lost in the "muh tolerance" ecochamber, but hardly embrace reactionary politics, since 99.999999999…% of them are turd wave "intersectional" feminists.

Liberals do. SJWs are liberals. Leftism and religion isn't compatible at all. Remember Marx and his "religion is the opium of the people" quote? Socialism/communism and religion aren't compatible at all. We are mortal enemies, so you can say any actual leftist must embrace new atheism.

Either way, the american left is non-existent, outside of small groups like us. They are all neoliberals doing social justice slacktivism. Besides, this is hardly a controversial opinion among the left. The actual left, not reddit "left".

Continuation of above comment…

If you seriously think Trump won 2016 because of youtube, you're either deluded or have been living under a rock for well over 10+ years.

Trump, along with several far right politicians across the globe, won because neoliberalism has plagued domestic politics. Obama and Clinton were the biggest offenders of neoliberalism, along with Merkel. Besides, the average Trump supporter (boomers and below) are fed mostly TV propaganda and a big chunk of them are not quite used to the internet.

Neoliberalism gave us Trump and the alt right, not youtube or identity politics, for that matter (original anti-idpollers were still left leaning normies; the alt right just enjoyed their momentum to push for a white supremacist agenda).

Again, hardly a controversial opinion. Even the SJW retards on r/socialism agree on this.

What's so good about her? She's an attention whore with a severe case of unwarranted self importance syndrome like Lauren Southern. Shit, at least you can jerk off to Southern, if you're into blonde vapid whores that is, and move on.

Current dating markets for males is you either look great and get everything or you don't and you're kind of screwed. Luckily I look very good so I have no real problems. Applications accelerate this, just like wealth getting girls is more power law distributed.

Re: imperialism. Every sane country will try to push their values onto other countries. If a country had no binding culture or distinctions then why would there still be a need for a country? It ties in with your other point, a moderate muslim often still wants to push its own culture and its laws that govern it wherever he or she lives. It's why Islam is a very big problem for the western European countries that have decided to import them to please markets. Islam will always be imperialistic.

Liberal ""leftist"" parties in Europe have that, yes. But I don't really consider them left, I consider them liberals. If you examine US it's even more obvious. Democrats and Republicans are staunch liberals, they're not really leftwing and reject values they're there to please markets. It's just Republicans decide to carry social values of 20-30 years ago and try to sell that. There are very little differences between those two parties. And you see this as well in Europe where you have a number of parties that all carry the same ideology. So how does it matter what you vote? You vote for liberalism of 20-30 years ago or progressive liberalism. Want something different? Well good luck first getting the message out, if that is successful you'll get mocked endlessly by media and attract people who will subvert your ideology to liberalism so you might get more popularity in politics.

I think half of them haven't even read capital.

...

this but unironically. deal with it, faggot.

Attached: LTFMy3.gif (320x180, 1.63M)

Attached: back_pol.jpg (546x700, 136.3K)

Human nature exists and was shaped by history. Sexual selection behavior was shaped primarily by conquest expending loads and loads of men, leaving the women of the conquered peoples to be used for breeding by the conquerors. But this conflicts with people's self-concept and ideology so people try very hard to deny it.
This is true of most cases, which are the vulgar twitter left version. Actual principled anti-imperialism is a whole different thing.
Same goes for "modern [any religion ever]" except modern Jews still mutilate babies and modern Christians still go to poor parts of the world to forcibly convert people.
New Atheism turned into Anti-SJWism primarily in response to Atheism+. The spastic flailing of the present skeptic community is the ideological version of what you do after walking through a spiderweb.
If by left you mean red liberals.
Agreed. Text based communication has been historically important primarily because we didn't have a way to transmit audio/video for a very long time.
I would extend this to "haven't read a word of left lit except maybe the intro to the Manifesto or something"
Flawed but good.
Isn't she a succdem? I've heard her do succdem apology.

Disappointed but not surprised.

I don't think a lack of renown is the issue with Zig Forums and I don't see how getting Space_ leftypol.org after a campaign on twitter or other sympathetic forums will spring us back to Zig Forums's most active days. What I believe to be the biggest issue is that those who would have frequented Zig Forums left chans after BO started sperging out and aren't coming back because for various reasons. What is far more important than recreating Zig Forums's glory days is establishing connections elsewhere, both irl and online, and using them to reach and organize with people so we aren't fucked if the plug gets pulled on whatever forum we're shitposting on.

One of the more annoying aspects of the left from a minority, is the idea that us minorities are creatures of pure reaction and have literally no self agency beyond reacting to the white man.
It couldn't possibly be our entire culture (for my minority group at least) is based entirely around hucksterism, massive entitlement, stabbing each other in the back for petty gains, literally zero fucking sense of solidarity, dragging down those that try to escape or "succeed" (have at least a lower-middle class life), looking down on those that get educated.
Nup, the reason my our entire community is shit because white people are mean to us even though in my country, the benefits we have gotten for the past 40 years have been even by my socialist standards, are pretty fucking insane.
Cultural relativism honestly is one of the worst ideas to ever gain mainstream traction among the left. It is the cause of that embarrassing "Cultural appropriation" garbage as well.

...

Unions are ok. but when the food and produce are state owned and distributed, you get a corrupt dictatorial welfare state. Too many people are born that can't be sustained by a depleting resource.

Then they come to another economy to vote for the same socialism they had to leave their homes for depleting resources in a corrupt dictatorship welfare state.

I'm ok with Unionization of industry, but i don't like the whole "Real Communism has never been tried" memes.

I actually want to abolish capitalism not just get into a position of power.

…seconds later…
…shit gets better when you wall the MLs.

I do not think that is an unpopular position here. In any case, I concur whole-heartedly. Liberals and smashies do not seem to get that we can handle talking about society's ill without having them couched in terms of our identities. In fact, we would generally greatly prefer to just talk about the actual problems and their solutions.

I genuinely think discouraging people from reading theory is the most harmful thing you could do to the left and generally to society/politics.

That's not what I'm doing, in fact on this board I consistently help niggas with reading recommendations and tell them to read. What I am saying is that the fetishization of theory has transformed it from a useful tool to help us organize and revolution to an end of itself, this is how you get hundreds of study groups whose activities will never go beyond reading texts with a dozen people instead of a hundred proletarian organizations who are fighting to improve their conditions and build dual power. We need to study and to think, but we also need to organize and act in our current conditions.

You can use buzzwords such as fetichization or even pseuds but you cannot ignore the fact that even a pseud on youtube can do a whole fucking lot making theory more digestible and accessible to people who actually need it and actually end up sowing seeds of doubt in the mind of naive right-wingers.
I'm not going to really expand much more on that.

I don't know about him, but I will deny that all day long.

I agree with you but I don't think a theory fetish is why this happens.

The reduction of the left (esp. in places like the U.S.) to study groups and student organizing happens because:
1. People are conditioned from a young age to accept the classroom environment.
2. Colleges and universities often have lots of (comfortable) spaces where people can meet.
3. Organizing people in the workplace is not only complex and hard but it faces tremendous resistance from businesses.
4. Material conditions may not be right for moving beyond study-groups or limited organizing.

I'll add a caveat: there are certain organizations (like the ISO) which do appear to have focused primarily on student organizing instead of labor organizing. Back in the '70s and '80s the far-left in the U.S. did make attempts to orient itself towards labor unions, industry, and workplaces. The results were minimal. From what I've read, some of the problem was that the New Left incorporated a lot of middle class elements who never really belonged to the working class and could not adequately merge with it. Another problem was the hierarchical nature of many far-left groups. Changes in tactics and strategy within these orgs always came from the top. All changes in policy came from above. Low-level members would always lose in an ideological debate against higher-level members. This made parties typically very conservative in their approach to theory and practice. It also led to the cargo-cult mentality of establishing a dogma and indoctrinating members into that ideology rather than allowing new developments in theory to guide practice.

Whatever. Feel free to do as much damage as you can.

French revolution was caused primarily by the percolation of vulgarized enlightenment ideas down to french society at large through broadsheets and pamphlets. It works

No, I am pretty sure that the French Revolution was caused by widespread poverty in the wake of disastrous wars with the British.

"primarily" is an exaggeration. but french revolution wouldn't take the shape it would if it didn't exist within the intellectual world of the 18th century. it'd just be another Ciompi revolt.
no it wasn't. the irony of the revolution was that France's economy and society were quite stable and prospering. There was no special economic and social crisis except maybe the widespread panic of famine that came from freak weather conditions of 1788-89 that caused mass panic. The debt crisis from warfare was real, though, but even that could have been avoided had the king been less bungling.

Yeah, except for those little trifles. I mean, what are famine and economic crisis compared to guys in salons getting drunk and railing about politics?

nah I hate market fundies. anyways, adults are talking.

anyways, religion and socialism are not incompatible, even if I like Bakunin and Proudhon for various reasons.

incels are misunderstood by most people, the kneejerk reaction to them is comparable to Joe Truckstop (I'm southern by the grace of God, but I don't follow what most hillbilly types follow) and his reaction to so-called "Muslim terrists" was in the 2000s

Contrapoints and Muke are gigantic faggots and the only non-Authortiarian Marxist that matters is based Jim.

Khmer Rouge was a decent attempt at reviving ancient pre-Marxist socialism and we're due for it to happen again

Trotsky deserved the icepick but J. Posadas is interesting if meme-worthy.

most Egoists on this board are feminists and that's just class divisionary nonsense that they are blind to

Kurds are predatory parasites just like Romis and Jews.

most American Socialists nowadays are miles behind the classics like V. Debs and Long and Bellamy in thinking reformism is the way to go

Leftcomms are largely morally bankrupt cretins that fuck this board up and too many of them exist. just red liberals to be honest.

the Alt-Right made missteps in going back to Capitalism and will never recover

Spinoza, Descartes and Russell are the moral equivalent of fedora tipping Atheism+ retards today and their books should be burned in bonfires.

that's about it for today.

Also hypergamy, while inherent female nature biologically, is still a form of class traitorism

Anfems are disgusting urchins and deserve rape

We should just kill all of them and become sexy gay twinks

Attached: 1a1726ca7b1b67fe4debf2b35581eda2c8081a511d868b096858742754204c54.jpg (756x945, 110.1K)

People who complain about modern pop music focus too much on gangsta rap and glorify the kitschiness of punk/ heavy metal.

People who glorify the past are dumbasses with personal crises.

People in political forums take themselves too seriously. Most of them base intellect and morality on pop culture preferences.

" If you like pop you're the problem. Here listen to six hours of (insert underrated metal band here) in order to be appreciated as a member of society."

Theyre just "anti-establishment" fuckers trying too hard to be "legit."

Read a fucking book.

Mostly true.
This is an unspoken truth that everyone with half a brain acknowledges. But there are legitimate exceptions, one should not be too presumptuous here. I disagree with the alt-right that it is natural though, it is entirely a sign of the times and in fact a result of liberalism itself. Porn exacerbates all of this to an incredible degree.
No. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
whatever, i cant bring myself to care
should not be abandoned. The radical left needs to do more online.
Both okay. They stand for competency, class analysis and not being repulsive.

alright lets give this a try.

Highest Autism Level post in this thread by far. the trans movement is by far the most fishy aspect of the left and is given far too much attention, AND its precisely the thing that probably alienates the most workers from the left. I'm not saying we should go anti-trans, but, im sorry, trans issues are fucking special interests and they cant be in the front row, ESPECIALLY when their theory is so spurious and contradictory.

read my post. it was a "panic". There was plenty of food to go around, but prices spiked after a hail storm destroying crops in the rich agricultural areas around paris, which is where you get the justified hysteria around grain hoarders sitting on their supply to inflate prices for parisians.
the economic "crisis" was entirely man-made and had nothing to do with the economy at large, but the finances of the Crown which were crippled by the debt of a century of warfare. Britain was a SMALLER country demographically and had some of the largest debts in Europe but their finances didn't collapse because their political economy was better managed and had the confidence of the landowning class and financiers who sat in parliament.
I just told you that the printing press popularized the ideas of the Enlightenment among the people (parisians especially). Artistic salons that showed artworks of the academic artists were open to the public as well, ironically, so your characterization is wrong in that regard too. pic related was on display to the public for example and had a quasi-republican message even though it's official message was that the roman republican virtues were now to be offered to the defense of the kingdom.

Attached: 350px-Jacques-Louis_David,_Le_Serment_des_Horaces.jpg (350x270, 31.98K)

LOL he reduces a political movement purely to sexual-economic factors

Attached: 2eef149201afe58fac66d1ea9e2aa049154e40b10e4c6907acc9422a8da41e7a.png (740x720, 626.42K)

Mass migration is the antithesis of a strong socialist state. The international proletariat cannot be integrated until there is an extremely strong domestic proletariat, which cannot happen under the premises of free trade and open borders.
The ideal socialist state must first secure its own before it wishes to free the world.

My unpopular opinion is that when leftists trash their own place, they export it to another economy while finding a way to fuck over the natives.

All this free trade shit is trying to put the costs of labor to zero.

hey I ain't stoppin ya

that's discriminating against illiterate people

one thing that gripes me about this board is how much they love third world exploitative labor and anyone who counter this gets the whole "YOU FUCKING NAZBOL BAN BAN BAN"

Ya dun goofed.

You are doing it wrong.

LOL WUT

true socialism can only be achieved without a state YOU GUISE

t. anarkiddie.

and I happen to like Bakunin and Proudhon

from what I've seen on this board, and I've been here for quite a while, there's a lot of socdem and soclib normalfags who really think like this.

The entire new left was a mistake and only facilitated the modern neoliberal paradigm by weakening the left's emphasis on unions and labour issues

1. Competence is merit, so yes
2. Hell no. There will be stages to sociopolitical developments but the economic should be fast tracked
3. No
4. No
5. [Pic related]
6. ?

Attached: Who cares.jpg (500x376, 193.98K)

>One faction headed by Vladimir Lenin, favored a narrow definition, while another, led by the longtime socialist activist Iulii Martov, supported a more inclusive one. Lenin's vision was a small , elite, conspiratorial party, Martov's of a broad workers' movement … The congress at first backed the latter position, but due to a walk-out by some of Martov's supporters, Lenin's view received the support of a slim majority of the delegates still left in the assembly hall. That accident of history produced the name with which the Martov group would eventually be stuck –– men'sheviki, literally "the minority" ––while Lenin's less popular faction claimed the title "majoritarians" that is, bol'sheveki,

Typical liberals. Always rebranding their shit to disguise the truth.

Attached: King - The Ghosts of Freedom.jpg (583x865, 142.79K)

this is when i stopped reading.
FFS how do you set a numerical number to reflect a subject feeling that your brain has? stop acting as if its a legit argument point, its not! contrary to popular belief, a lot of people become more desirable when you find out their personality, of course you might disagree, but you can always fuck a woodplank, but have fun having a long lasting fulfilling life with it. Those "10/10" people that you guys worship are the most boring people ever! its far more attractive to have stuff to share and not wanting to leave her after buttfucking her.

The level of attention makes more sense once you realize that the "transgender movement" isn't really about transgender people. It's about pressuring the masses into unwanted sexual activity with "queers". Proliferating pronouns, crying out the physiological sex isn't real and attempting to shame people for expressing "genital preferences" are all attempts to stifle the complaints of anyone pulling up the skirt and getting a tranny surprise.

Sauce: solidarity-us.org/atc/43/p4954/

For all Drucker is careful not to condemn heterosexual acts in that segment, it's quite clear he thinks that once someone has a reacharound or engages in some stubbly tribbing they're going to be coverted to the joys of such acts and it's merely social pressure keeping them from the bathhouses. The idea that "straights" might find these actions inherently repellent is not acceptable to him.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Too easy?

Attached: Christian-communism.png (238x237, 6.9K)

Your first point is why 99% of incels are alt-right.
There is no place for retards like those in the left & there will never be. "The girls have it easier" well bitch if men weren't so thirsty…

The other thing is grow the fuck up already dude, you're not a child anymore, maybe a manchild but grow up. Getting rejected inst the end of it all, accept that possibility every time in every possible relationship.

THE reason I'm in a relationship rn is because I accepted that possibility & gambled with chance & a lot of things. If I were to be rejected I would just have been like "oh well ok Imma look somewhere else for my other half". Because jesus fucking christ son, LOTS of women even men exist. You can be bisexual, partners are plenty just don't be a piece of shit & be reasonable, you're only considering your own EGO not the girl's EGO here. Which also matters, individuals. Not generalities ffs. APPEAL to their fucking uniqueness, you have it or you don't simple as that. You fail you move on.

The ones that lose are the ones that do not try to even get other people, read that carefully GET other people. Understand their uniqueness in contrast with theirs.

Never agree with fucking anything about the right, you wanna be happy in life? or at least have an stoic world view where you keep getting up from failure even stronger? Discard fucking everything they say, they're retarded. They don't understand true uniqueness, real individualism. Only capitalism, hierarchy, authority, boot licking & being the actual NPCs/Cucks of real life.

Attached: 1428297473538.png (535x546, 243.22K)

YE

you're a woman, its easy for you.

its the natural course of life, and making fun of retards is normalfag behavior

you're a fucking lesbo. it takes no effort

oh I understand other people, doesn't mean I have to like them

you seem to not get syncreticism

99% of USA doesn't use tinder. only 1% of the total population which is still a lot don't get me wrong but you don't have to date fuckboys or fuckgirls.

The mere fact, even if "Chad" looking, the mere fact that these people have "dating" profiles on the internet means they're failures at irl dating & lets face it most know Tinder is only for sex no true relationships, some desperate seek relationships in there but you gotta get very lucky in Tinder to find somebody who unironically wants to date with the goal of love in mind.

Just asking anyone in there: "what are you looking for in this app?" (most of the time men since fuccbois in there are so beyond thirsty)
The response is gonna be first some bullshit way to avoid sounding that he is desperate for sex.
THEN the true answer that we is just looking to "have a good time" aka sex.

Thats because they do it WRONG you dumb dumb. Thats why it's called assertiveness that doesn't means that you gotta sexually harrass a woman like a "dominant alpha male" n shit, that shit doesn't exist either ffs the ones voicing these thoughts are virgins, you're believing the advice virgins give to yo ass just let that echo in your mind for a moment…

Basically it depends on the girl, depends in her state too sober or drunk, depends on a fuck load of things. I say just get to know her, appeal to that if you're unlike what she considers cool then fuck off tbh why would you even want a relationship with an individual without any common interests at all? the other thing is aesthetics not always but most of the time their look tells what they're into a bit, not everyone is into this image of "Chad" created by lonely virgins (stop taking dating advice from virgins). Women have wide ass range of types of beauty too.

Teens & young adults usually like boyband type boys. K-pop etc.
Older women like more rugged men.
Even then it varies snce everyone is unique you can find a milf that has a fetish for youthful almost teen looking young adults, etc. And is true also that everything is into play your attitude, your looks, your ability to be interesting, etc.

If an ugly betty fat hambeast flirted with you, you would never validate her im sure. but maybe… maybeee if her personality was kick ass, her determination strong, her life good & stable you would consider her as partner even for a moment.

I'm not a woman you retard.
but yeah "le normie" well shit dude it's because it's true that people who fall into misanthrophy in 4chan or other chan forums is true. They develop absolutely buttfucking retarded ideologies of generalization like you.

I'm a man, I'm pretty I do have it easier but it's annoying to get hit by random women who sometimes are rude. I believe thats how some pretty women FEEL. I'm sure in fact. Anyway I'm a petite looking dude, pretty n all so I got a petite looking asian girl pretty n all. I match her, she matches me. I think that also matters a fuck ton but even if you don't have it you can always try to compensate with your effort if you even have.

Anyway I think you're of the incel mindset so you will never improve atm, it's worthless trying to convince you that everyone is unique & that shit varies. There are "mosts" ofc, you can appeal to "most" people but then would you like that? even if it means not being how you enjoy yourself? if so it's dumb.

It's ok tho you don't like most other people I get it, they don't like you either dw relation is mutual. But at least be ballsy enough to recognize you're unliked mostly because you literally dislike others mostly in general, in a big ass way. Alt-fucks will never understand this cuz "hurr durr it's le Kultural Marx post-modernism waaaah".

They don't know shit about post-modernism or Marx. They don't read for shit.

you sure complain like one. bitch, bitch, bitch

I've actually had relationships, I just empathize with them. you don't know me nor care to get to know me. so much for accepting differences.

oh I'm very well aware of the Frankfurt School. Adorno was one of the least faggy of them all, they had a point about consumerism but were musical idiots.

I'm far from Alt-Right. most alt-righters are pro-Zionist or anti, depending on how Trump works. I didn't vote in the last election and don't plan on it until major bureacratic changes are made.

I'm a disagreeable asshole because I can be one. Its my god given right.

I don't care who you fuck or who you are with. I am not a moralfag.

most incels are not, you act like those idiots who are like "just be your shelf bro" it has to do with biological/economic/social stances of your given area. its not always the same everywhere. and believe me, women DO care about looks more than men think they do and that's one of our flaws of not realizing it.

I don't care about FEELS or anything. I'm a hollow man, devoid of empathy. and then you get on your pedestal to make me feel bad. it doesn't work.

ITT : How do you do fellow leftists?

nob a agment

In fact I think it's less than men think since like fucking 95% of men think is all about looks. I said it, it's a big plus ofc even they themselves care about the women's look ffs. But if they can compensate with personality, well being, etc women can too. Any human being can & it's not a flaw to be just born ugly ffs it was more in the past now with plastic surgery it's just a class issue if you care that much… the ugly born rich have access to symmetry, the ugly born poor do not.

well indeed you are. what makes you think you're fit for future friendship or even talking/caring about politics, how society should run? then?

If anything its more convenient for all of us if you either lived in isolation somewhere remote or killed yourself tbh. If all other humans produce for you is bother & you want to bother them back when that happens then just fuck off, your issue is a personal one why even care about politics or society, plenty of wild free land out there to hermit in. Shoo go be a gremlin there if thats what you like.

You're specifically the one I'm talking about. You do not contribute to the quality of this board.

This should not be controversial here. The opening/liberalisation of the dating market is analogous to the liberalisation of the regular economic market: It promised great richness for everyone by removing those evil regulations, but in reality decreased overall wealth (less sex and love than ever before) and shifted the remaining resources (females) from the bottom to the top. We must seize the means of reproduction.

I do not buy the notion that there is any new and real epidemic of guys who cannot get laid. From what I can tell, it is not any harder to get laid now than it was twenty years ago, and I am fairly sure that I am not a member of the Chad master race. If an average-looking cubicle monkey can get poon, I cannot imagine that things are much different for anyone else who is not a repulsive autist.

Progress is terrible.

There isn't, incels are a small minority that are overrepresented on chans for obvious reasons. Online dating certainly does favor more photogenic people, but there simply aren't enough 6'+ 9+/10 men to completely push 80% of men into perpetual virginity. Most incels are fags that either write off any woman who isn't stunningly beautiful or repulsive in some manner which explains the aut-right connection.

online dating is fake as fuck, photoshop exists and dating on the internet it's for actual losers no matter if you look like a "Chad" irl.
Thats all im gonna say, virgins give e-dating a lot of credit. In general everyone should stop taking relationship advice from incels because they're by far the worst, conservitards that have had gfs once & then divorced (most "pick up artist" YouTubers) aren't much better either.

...

Are you kidding? I think shes real cute

The problem with dating

Modern "feminist" rhetoric though, has pointed out rightfully these are largely toxic social norms, so what often happens is that a lot of guys actually go along with the what Feminists say and then get get nowhere because it's not clear, what you can do in dating these days that isn't considered harassment or wrong, so a lot of guys sadly just read it as "Treat women like your friends and you will get laid" and they end up as "nice guys" who lash out, somewhat rightfully when largely they've done everything right, but ended up nowhere and then are mocked. Women don't owe them sex to be 100% sure, but what is deeper down is that the modern #metoo rhetoric around dating doesn't play into reality and the reason is, it's not just men who are socialised into thinking that largely toxic behaviour is attractive, women are 100% as well and I don't believe enough emphasis has been put on that, dating is a game of give and take and the emphasis has been put entirely on men to change yet much of the issues are actually women aren't exactly true to say what they actually want because they're just as socialised into these behaviours as men. Just look at "no means no" but then when you get down to it, no actually often means 'try harder' there is a study out there that asked women if no means no in regards to sex, from memory 70% said it's just "token resistance", so despite women blasting out no means no as one of the core statements of this Metoo world, in reality most women don't actually believe that and in fact have been socialised to put up token resistance.
This isn't to say the feminist ideal isn't what we should work towards, but clearly the actual socialisation has not caught up to the ideological goal and I think it's disingenuous for people to pretend it has and especially mock the guys that have become largely confused in regards to what and what isn't socially acceptable among dating.
Most redpill/Incel people, are just actually largely people who are terrified of stepping out of line in the dating game and angry that they repeatedly played by all the "right rules" of how to treat women and ended up being mocked for being nice guys when they did everything right and they became disillusioned. I don't know what the right solution is, but the left is absolutely dropping the ball when it comes to this, especially when sexual pathology is one of the core driving elements of the Alt-Right.

It is easy enough to forego dating altogether. Hell, I never officially dated my girlfriend at all before we got married. We just hung out together and had sex. Seriously, relationship conventions are just a waste of time that neither participant enjoys. People only observe them, because they think that they have some traditional obligation to do so. There is absolutely nothing to stop a person from just not bothing with any of it.

That is your brain on tradition.

The only winning move is not to play.

I agree, this should be the ideal, this is how I think as well.

This is what socialization is, it's deep embedded into people at an early age through all the media they consume which has "romance". People are basically brainwashed into finding certain things attractive.

Which this is technically true, the vast majority of people are not truely "woke", studies even find that majority of feminists still think guys should pay in full on dates.

I'm not a traditionalist. I don't even believe in monogamy really because I view sex is really just a fun activity with no real special meaning. This is though, how most people have been socialized to think, that there are certain "Rules" to dating and that certain ways you have to act to be attractive or successful, both men and women have been socialised into believing this, it's toxic, but it is material reality.

Isn't this what Incels have done? In truth there reality there isn't actual any real simple solution. Most forget as well, most Robots, incels etc suffer from severe mental illness in retards to anxiety.

Retards = Regards, wow what a typo, kek