/lit/ - Literature

>>15208868
Joyce

>>15208868
I don't see the problem here. Explain how this is bad without muh god and muh religion.

>>15208944
so you like sucking dick and taking it up the ass ?
bwahahaha faggot

>>15208944
Erasure or long haired males and promotion of clonecest.

>>15208944
Because incels can’t have sex

Marx

>>15208868
HG Wells. He predicted submarines, anime (War of the Worlds is a mecha shit) combustion reactions launching moon capsules. He also predicted childlike retards running the world and living off the niggers who occasionally eat them (Time Machine).

>>15208944
They both look the exact same so its creepy

>>15208960
yea my biggest problem with it is how the two "ambiguous" characters look the exact same, isnt the cool thing about being non-binar/gender queer the fact that you look literally any way you think best expresses yourself? this new design feels more uniform and controlling than the original design

Book of Revelation

>>15208944
Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals and children raised by homosexual parents are at a huge risk for all sorts of things, hence heterosexuals raising children should be promoted.

>>15208944
The more ambiguous our culture becomes the less it engages us and the more indifferent we become towards it.

>>15208944
Destruction of what is beautiful

>>15208984
>He also predicted childlike retards running the world and living off the niggers who occasionally eat them (Time Machine).
Kek, spot on

The liberal west so far beyond the worst imaginings of 20th century dystopian literature that it's almost comical at this point. Watching it all come crashing down over the past few months would have been hilarious if not for the suffering and loss of life.

>>15208868
>only women can have long hair
Genius

>>15208944
Diversity requires things to be different(men and women, blue and red, etc) instead of uniform so as to not offend anyone.
Its the destruction of the individual and an unhealthy obsession with assuming the worst if something isn´t expressly stated or depicted(A man and a woman is depicted as it is the most common type of family and the only one capable of producing children in a natural fashion = that must mean nothing else is possible and whoever drew it is clearly a neonazi)

>>15208944
Explain how the former was so bad that it needed to be changed without muh inclusiveness and muh equality.

>>15208868
Brave New World.

Dystopia isn’t going to be some nazi 1984. It’s going to be dressed up as utopia and people are content with living in it.

BNW showed us that the psychological war is the most devastating of them all

>>15208944

>>15209217
Also your gender is determined by social stereotypes which are in turn social constructs. But you have no control over which set of artificial behaviors you practice and which stereotypes you act out. To suggest a person voluntarily follows artifical social constructs is bigotry against victims of circumstance. How dare you.

>>15209275
The BNW will transition into 1984 super totalitarian state (the national socialists were actually pro human spirit/freedom)

>>15211010
oh yeah and national socialist germany was humanity's last chance for the future

I'm an amorphous blob of indeterminate sex, you're an amorphous blob of indeterminate sex, join me in our amorphous blob orgy porgy!

Evola

>>15208868
Imagine thinking there will be an LGBT dictatorship a la Stalin because people acknowledged existence of trans and gay people. Pol has really left a big mental impact on this place huh

>>15208944
Rather than respond to the responses, it's a fucking emoticon. Stop whining about erosion of values here, there are so many other points where it could be argued better.

>>15211167
>Go back to sleep.

>>15208917
This is unironically the world Joyce wanted. It's precisely this sort of thing he was affirming at the end of Ulysses.

>>15208868
Aldous Huxley

>>15209235
The individual died a long time ago.

>>15211167
The kind of social restriction necessary to accommodate them practically makes every trans person their own mini-Stalin.

>>15209253
>moving the burden of proof
cringe

>>15209020
yikes, a bigot.

industrial society and its future

Lmao they look like a cult...


Wait

>>15211952

>>15211893
I don´t recall Huxley tackling gender issues. But yea, BNW is the endpoint of historical process if dominated by the english.

>>15208868
Huxely unironically

>>15212016
"Gender issues" is just another orgy porgy. A cultlike distraction from anything that is relevant or useful in actual human society. A mysterious boogeyman for us to be argue over.

Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
Kiss the girls and make them One.
Boys at One with girls at peace;
Orgy-porgy gives release

>>15208868
Vyasa, Heidegger, Kaczynski

>>15208944
It perpetuates the idea that inclusion is only valid if homosexuals ape heteronormative stereotypes; one is to be tolerated not by the fact of one's existence as a conscious entity but by one's express desire to maintain the status quo (pair-bonded child rearding) or place oneself outside it as an object of humor ("drag" culture); an acceptance that can never be absolute as one will remain othered by the requirement for special consideration itelf.

>>15212089
Or to assimilate others into your culture vis a vis grooming.

>>15211893
now post one i can read

>>15208868
Stendhal

>it's now normal and encouraged to make a child take artificial hormones and surgically alter their genitals
>this is supported by almost every major company and mainstream politician in the West
>this isn't even the end of the continuous process of "social progress" but another curve in the spiral
Satan controls the world.

>>15208868
Huxley. Brave New World share a lot of similitudes with our current society(technological progress, NCPs, destruction of traditional family, sexual degerancy, "hapiness", lack of morality, etc).

>>15213605
If the parents really gave a damn, they could brain their wife or child and kill themselves.

>>15211844
I hate these sort of people. Imagine thinking autonomy is bad because people disagree.

>>15208944
it's an ugly design and the sameface is kinda creepy

>>15213743
Technological progression and destruction of tradidional family was already done when Huxley was alive. The rest is meaningless.

>>15211952

>>15211167
How did you arrive to that conclusion from a picture of an emoji?

>>15208868
Unironically Plato in "The Republic".

>>15209016
This is the general issue of "Be whatever you want" philosophy, the sheer size means that the end result is a amorphous homogenous thing.
I don't mean that we would end as a homogenous non binary robots, but that really, trying to represent "Infinite possibilities" ironically leads to uniformity.

>>15208944
Humans have roles and that gives us meaning. We're not interchangeable parts.

>>15214158
>Humans have roles and that gives us meaning.
Agree
>>15214158
>We're not interchangeable parts.
That is where you're wrong kiddo

>>15209020
>Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals
Curious as to what the exact rates are. Care sharing?

>children raised by homosexual parents are at a huge risk for all sorts of things
I'll bite. Like what?

Me but everybody thinks I'm a """conspiracy theorist"""
>>15214116
Yup, the first technocrat

>>15211858
How so?

>>15213605
Relax, everything is self-destructing.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

>>15209401
>But you have no control over which set of artificial behaviors you practice and which stereotypes you act out
Is this sarcasm? It reads like sarcasm.

>>15211844
> Goldsmith

>>15214167
How so?
You cant turn most women into effective soilders, just like you cant turn most men into effective caretakers.
The average black man would do poorly as a sailor, just as the average white man wouldnt last long in the heart of darkness. Biological advantage affords us abilities that not all are capable of.

>>15214211
>You cant turn most women into effective soilders
This is based on?

>just like you cant turn most men into effective caretakers.
Based on?

>The average black man would do poorly as a sailor, just as the average white man wouldnt last long in the heart of darkness. Biological advantage affords us abilities that not all are capable of.
Did you just blow in from /pol? What is this unfounded drivel you're spewing?

>>15214229
>This is based on?
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

>>15208868

>>15211010
No it won’t. It’s the same concept as Satan coming to you as a beautiful man instead of some horrific two horned demon. Nobody is going to buy the latter but almost everyone will buy the former

>>15214211
I meant that you can change a person for someone else that can do the same.

>>15208944
Religion epitomises evolutionarily advantageous behaviours.

>>15214229
Women are physically weaker than men, men are emotionally less perceptual than women, niggers cant swim, and a white man is gunna find trouble in africa.
These are common truths, not /pol/ conpiracy, didnt think I needed to spell it out for you.

>>15214246
>https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81
You are aware it 2020, the year of our lord, yes? Guns, more or less, make raw physical strength moot.
>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units
>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html
Skimmed over it. Curious to see how all female squads would perform.

>>15214284
>devoid of any and all substance
What a surprise.

>>15214167
You can't have both of those statements, unless you believe that human meaning is not the highest truth.

>>15214302
You can

>human meaning
define

>highest truth
define truth

>>15208984
He also wished commies would destroy religion in The Shape of Things to Come

>>15214294
Anyone who thinks guns are the great equalizer between men and women has never held, let alone fired a gun.

>>15214316
Explain? I've both held and fired a gun, and disagree.

>>15214311
No need, your arguments have no substance.

>>15214325
Im gunna call bullshit and say youre just trolling then.

Vico, Spangler, Marx

Spengler

>>15212032
Huxley didn’t predict this. He helped bring it about along with his brother and the Fabian Society.

>>15214328
I've yet to make any (other than the post you replied too). With that being said, I've read yours (what i'm assuming are yours). They aren't any better.

Are you unable to elaborate?

>>15214329
Are you unable to elaborate as well, anon?

>>15214294
being in the military is far, far more than just firing guns.

>>15214175
Like being molested

>>15214348
Explain

>>15214329
Agreed

>>15214355
I'm aware.

>>15214356
You've neither answered either of my questions nor refuted what was implied by them. Good job.

>>15214350
Fine Ill bite.
If youve ever held a gun, youd know that guns are heavy, and if youd ever fired a gun, youd know that they require strength to steady.
Only the limpwristed citydweller, whose only exposure to guns is through cinema and videogames would think of a gun like a point and shoot camera.
But youve dragged us far enough off topic anon, why dont you go troll some other board now? Maybe /tv/ is more your speed.

>>15214398
Don't respond to the poster. They're toxic and should be ignored until they have properly tamed themselves.

>>15214398
>youd know that guns are heavy
Some yes. Not all.

>and if youd ever fired a gun, youd know that they require strength to steady
Some yes. Not all.

Moot argument is moot. I appreciate the effort though, friend.

>>15208868
>the future we currently live in?
there's something wrong with the sentence

>>15214413
>no its not because I say its not
You argue like a child, you are as 'moot' as those you accuse

>>15208868
every day we stray further from god.
ex-gay here, never had any relationships but am glad I never engaged in any.

Time to put back the clock on this future, and I think we are beginning to do so.
;-)

>>15214463

>>15214456
Interesting. You no longer feel attracted to men?

>>15214455
I don't think so. I'm admittedly a bit socially inept.

You're argument hinged on:
>all guns are heavy
>all guns require strength to steady
If either of these however are untrue (they both are), your argument falls flat (guns aren't force equalizers in the hands of women). Am I wrong?

>>15214494
>Am I wrong?
Yep. Man stronger, so man carry more gun than woman. Simple as

>>15214473
Good quote. But even more obvious is that clocks never reach an end: they cycle. But I guess Chesterton, being Christian, doesn't like the idea of cyclical time.

>>15214494
I'm not either of them, but if strength and endurance are not important factors in military training, why is it that the military has fitness entry standards? Why do militaries train their special forces and elite troops more rigorously and intensely than their cannon fodder? Why do scores on tests of physical fitness determine which branches and roles one can enter?

If the answer is that physicality is the basic necessary element of military operations, then it should also stand to reason that portions of the population that are either lacking in or are incapable of developing the highest levels of physicality - women, children, the elderly, and the infirm - should not be allowed into the military, except in roles unrelated to combat.

This is the point that the other anons were trying to make. The simplest, easiest, and least autistic way to put it is "women are not fit to join the military because they're not as strong as men." The fact that such a self-evident statement is met with skepticism is a sign of cultural decline far more sinister than that of the OP.

>>15214456
What led to the revelation? I'm assuming some pseudo-religious awakening (specifically one of judeo-christian origins)

>>15214508
>Man stronger
Yes, on average. I haven't stated otherwise.

>so man carry more gun than woman
You only need one, nor was that the argument.

With that being said though, I doubt you're the anon I replied too. Interject yourself elsewhere, smoothbrain.

>>15208944
its fucking gay

>>15214512
I dont think the idea that theyre cyclical would be lost on him. A lot of the rise and fall of civilizations show cyclical patterns.

>>15211083
this desu

Unironically DFW in Infinite Jest. He predicted instagram filters, Netflix, and Trump in a way (although he envisioned him to be more like Reagan, than, well, Trump). Plus, his general commentary on drug use, technology, and social isolation are just as relevant if not more than when it was written.

>>15214533
>You only need one
Lets play a game, ill be the man, you be the woman, you can shoot me in the leg with a .22 (one of those light guns youre so fond of), and ill shoot you in the leg with a .50 BMG.

>>15214570
Id like to read infinte jest but im fearful of becoming a psued

>>15208868
E M Forster in The Machine Stops

>>15214527
I took issue with how a argument was worded. We've since moved on from this. We agree.

The conversation has since devolved into, "guns aren't force equalizers in the hands of women", as is seen here >>15214316.

>>15214572
>implying people are walking around with a .50 BMG hidden in their pants.
Lets play a game. You're a women. I'm a man. You have a .22. I have a .22. Whoever has the best aim wins.

Unironically sterilize yourself.

>>15214606
Why would I walk around with a .22? Thats for rodent hunting. I think we've firmly established that youve never held or shot a gun, nor have anything but a child's understanding of them.
Fun chat tho anon, better luck next time.

>>15214606
If you agreed with them but wanted to take issue with their mode of argumentation, you should have explicitly stated your agreement and then calmly pointed out that, while their conclusion is correct, their arguments are spurious. You basically started a fight and earned the ill-will of a bunch of random strangers on the internet for no good reason.

>>15213605
yfw it's actually a regression to a pre-civilizational state because progress inherently requires differentiation, discipline, social roles, specialization, etc.

>>15214533
No, it's not on that level.
I know I can't rid myself of this "attraction" but at the same time I know most people who are homosexual have shorter lifespans, are more likely to spread STDs, on average are more likely to molest children, etc.
No spiritual awakening involved actually, I am irreligious or an atheist.

>>15214674
There are presumably non-promiscuous gays, though.

>>15214621
I don't know why I expect others to argue in good faith...

Take care anon.

>>15214640
>you should have explicitly stated your agreement
Yea. Probably.

>calmly pointed out that,
I've remained relatively calm/civil.

>while their conclusion is correct
It wasn't. It was an absolute claim backed by national averages.

>You basically started a fight
I started a conversation. Not all disagreements are fights. I see what you mean though.

>and earned the ill-will of a bunch of random strangers on the internet for no good reason
It's anonymous. Anything earned external to the individual is fleeting at best. Approval of your peers means even less.

>>15214687
If there are non-promiscuous ones they must be a minority.
I just get scared of being associated with degenerates who flash people and have "pride parades" or whatever.

>>15214690
Cool, can you leave now? Im the OP, youre shitting up the thread

>>15211010
Looking at the chinese model it looks kinda a mix of both, chinese citizens live both in fear of their gov and in indifference.

>>15213563
not the retard you were replying to but here you go since I also wanted to read it

>>15208964
Whatbthe duxj is incel? Is from redit , huh?..
Why justno say virgin?
Prudish noobs
and incel sounds like a pencil, pincel , how original ...
Id rather watch seth rogen and her weird laugh with her homo friend james franco

>>15214736
Are you okay, schizo?

>>15214706
>Cool, can you leave now?
You wouldn't know if I had even if I had.

>Im the OP
Don't care. Didn't ask. Thread was off topic long before I arrived. It'll be off topic when it's pruned. Welcome to /lit.

>>15214752
faggot. not the op btw

can't wait for the faggots ITT to get their due on the day of the rope

>>15208868
Marx, Deleuze, Baudrillard unironically

>>15214762
Dont feed the troll

>>15214762

kurt vonnegut predicted sjws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_(novel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

>In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.

>>15214762
Based

>>15214580
Just read it, it’s not like everything will be clear from the start

>>15214752
Your passive aggressiveness reeks of reddit.
Go back.

>>15214846

>>15208868
Why not just add gay and lesbian family emojis?

>>15214846
Lmao what a chad

>>15214862
They already have those, there are looking at my own keyboard anyway

>>15214264
lolno

>>15214570

surely you infinitely jest

>>15214889
How so?
It chastizes both men and women, preventing them from disease. It encourages men to rear their own children. It enforces structured morals. It disuades so called evil behaviour like murder and theft.
Those are all advantagous and civilizing behaviours.

>>15214580
wtf are you talking about. just read, if you don't like it give up on it, and if you like it, enjoy it, just don't become one of those fags who doesn't shut up about it. do you need someone to hold your hand while you turn the pages? faggot baby

>>15214935
Its a joke dumbass

>>15209401
Nope, your gender is the expression of your sex and your mental health.
Culture is the cope we build to deal with our innate biology we don't individually grasp.

>>15209235
The people who tend worship the idea of diversity don't actually want diversity in any authentic sense. In fact they hate diversity on all but the most superficial, cosmetic sense. Eventually, it is their wish and their intention for all of these distinct peoples to homogenize into an undifferentiated mass of humanity, and ultimately assimilate into their pseudo-religious meta-structure of progressive, neo-liberal values. Their goal is to flatten distinct identifies through metropolitanization, and thereby produce a kind of social equality.

>>15214606
>war is isomorphic to a single-shot duel
A year in the service would straighten you out, boy.

>>15211167
No, the faggots are just the useful idiots at the end of the day, but they will always be among the most viciously loyal to the neo-liberal regime because they are fully aware that any power or status they currently hold in society can only be sustained so long as the progressive consensus of the ruling elite maintains hegemony over culture and its institutions.

See Bio-Leninism:
http://spandrell.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/

>>15208868
OH NO NOW THE HECKIN'E MOTIOCON ON THE TODDLER PHONE DISPLAYS AS AMBIGUOUS GENDERS SOCIETY IS DONE REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

>>15208868
>>15208944
>NOOOOOOOOOO MUH HIPSTER EMOJIS ARE DESTROYING MUH NUCLEAR FAMILY IT'S APPLEL'S FAULT I CAN'T GET LAID

>>15215913
It's just a drop of blood, you can spare it.

>>15215913
It's actually more alarming to me that they thought to fuck with something so minor.

>>15215953
why is a braindead easy PR stunt so alarming to you? it threatens nothing about your life

>>15214494
It's not only strength but also the mindset of being a soldier which more commonly found in men

>>15215996
The physical requirements of military service has less to do with any actual combat and more to do with being able to move lots of heavy shit from point A to point B all day every day without breaking down, which is about 90% of what you're expected to do as a grunt.

>>15215986
It just shows that even the most innocuous symbols of traditional culture won't remain unmolested by the malignant touch of corporate diversity consultants.

>>15216061
ooooooooh so malignant ooooooh not the evil inclusion hippie pandering how am I gonna sleep tonight

>>15214196
Interesting site.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/20/the-amish-health-care-system/

>>15216064
>NOOOOOO STOOOOP. YOU CAN'T LIKE TRADITIONAL VALUES AND WANT A TRADITIONAL FAMILY. YOU MUST BE LIKE ME: A HEDONISTIC FAGGOT THAT THINKS CHOPING OFF YOUR BALLS WILL MAKE YOU A WOMAN. PLEASE STOP PRAISING THOSE NAZI RACIST HOMOPHOBIC VALUES.

>>15215913
>>15215923
>>15216064
Have sex, incel

>>15216023
Fair point.

>>15216087
>seethes over an emoji
>spergs out in greentext
>pretends I'm the one who's mad

>>15216102
You seem quite butthurt by this very thread. Why else would you be shitposting it if you didnt care?

>>15216102
>

>>15216061
>>15216087
>>15216093
>>15216107
>>15216108
Why don't you just ignore him?

>>15208868
>>15208944
Oh I see what OP did here

>>15216108
>>15216107
>no u
every time
>>15216112
because they're seething

>>15211935
its a valid question. why couldnt they have just made an alternate version of the family emote? why did the original need to be removed and replaced outright?

>>15216174
>why couldnt they have just made an alternate version of the family emote? why did the original need to be removed and replaced outright?
they didn't remove the old ones. https://blog.emojipedia.org/ios-13-2-emoji-changelog/
gender neutral is just a new option just like you can use yellow, white and black emojis now. OP's post is bullshit

>>15215913
Its just an emoji nigger calm down

>>15216254
go ahead and link that 4channel post calling for black emojis. It doesn't even have to be from /lit/, any board will do

>>15216243
For apple and google, the gender nuetral has become the default unicode for family, the traditional family has been moved behind it, along with gay and lesbian combos. There are no black families, just yellow ones.

>>15216102
>noooooo my ass isn't bleeding with anger just look at my smug ri
Yikes.

>>15216315
>guys who should we use for the default family? gays would be weird and normal could get some backlash from huffpost.
>I know! let's do a gender neutral
>anon still seethes
thank god anon's opinion matters less, imagine being stuck between clickbait hippie faggots and conservatard autismos. I'd ask for a raise

>>15216112
I just like talking to people, and conversation is really all I'm after, but apparently he would rather seethe.

>>15216350
OP didnt say any of that.
Seems like someones doing a bit too much projection.

>>15216323
>NOOO I'M NOT MAD YOU'RE MAD
>Yikes

>>15216372
>no u
Typical.

>>15216365
>OP didn't say any of that
I wasn't quoting OP, illiterate retard

>>15214175
>Like what?
depression, substance abuse, homelessness, suicide

>>15216378
who started it tho? >>15216087
pretty retarded tactic you're using when I can just scroll up and see the chain posts

That one book Philip K dick wrote where mc visits a planet where the countries are all based not on ethnicity but on mental illnesses, e.g Paranoiac Land, The Hebephrenics, The Republic of OCD etc etc.

>>15216372
>I-I know you are but what am I?
Looks like we're running out of steam.

>>15216392
>samefag starts the chain of "no u"
>hehe, no u again
keep embarrassing yourself

>>15208958
>>15208960
>>15209016
>>15209026
>>15209051
>>15209235
>>15209253
>>15211070
>>15212089
>>15214142
Simply choose not to use this.
>>15214175
This person has no citations and considers a man who rapes a boy to be "homosexual," despite the universal understanding that the term refers to adult men attracted to adult men.

>>15216350
>could get some backlash from huffpost.
Nobody would have cared

>>15216401
it's better to play it safe when you're a PR team for a company worth trillions of dollars that pays you for this

>>15216389
Im not the same anon retard

>>15216397
>despite the universal understanding that the term refers to adult men attracted to adult men.

>>15216397
Oh look its this arguement again

>>15216406
lol that just means there are two retards with unoriginal "no u"s instead of one. Holy shit are you guys geniuses. It takes the two of you to make up half a brain

>>15208944
The slow degradation/progression of culture.

>>15216412
You can autistically handwring over technicalities all you want. When people actually use the terms "homosexual" or "gay" they are not referring to pedophiles.

>>15216417
he literally disproved the bullshit in the OP. there's nothing left to argue, you can go back to your containment board now after your unsuccessful attempt. Next time find a harder target, in this board we actually read.

>>15216397
I think the point is that there are a series of intellectual steps that must be made before one can even come up with the idea of making such an emoji. Those intellectual steps relate to the nature and role of gender in American society, and are, to some people, anti-family. The fact that we can no longer escape even the most minuscule manifestations of this ideology is a testament to its widespread acceptance in technology and entertainment circles.

Basically, it's not about emojis. It's about the people behind them and the ideas in their heads.

>>15216428
you know he's got nothing when he delves into this reddit tier pedantry lmao. Just ignore these retards, their bait thread was an absolute failure

>>15216428
>"Universal understanding"
>Isn't universal

>The last man is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security.

Fuck why are all you faggots in /lit/ of all places dont you have a /b/ thread to shit up?

>>15216428
This is true, but it's also not what the guy who you're responding to said.

What he said is that homosexuals make up a large percentage of pedophiles. I believe that this comes from the conflation of the population of men who have sex with underage boys - who happen to make up at least a third of all child molestation convictions in the US - and the population of men who have sex with underage boys and are genuine homosexuals. The two are not the same, and the degree to which they overlap is unknown.

>>15216429
Im refering to the semantic arguements anons like to have about word definitions. Stop letting /pol/ live in your head 24/7.

>>15208944
True inclusivity would just add another emoji instead of replacing the traditional nuclear family that many people still identify with.

>>15208944
Except that PC culture is a religion. Science and evolution favor a father and mother figure.

>>15216397
but it replaces, rather than adds to, the previous icon. so to not use it, I must avoid using the "family" emoji entirely; one either engages with the new symbolic language on the new ideological terms, or is deprived of the ability to express the concept. which is in line with the project of redefined the conception of "family" on a broader societal level which one cannot "simply" choose to opt out, given that non-adherence is legally punishable in many instances. this ultimately continues to foster the hegemony of majority opinion as it stands at a particular moment, rather than genuine representation of individuals on their own terms.

>>15216437
I think they understand this, they just have a vested interest in obfuscating it by playing dumb, and taking this one instance as if it occurred in a vacuum.

>>15216510
>but it replaces, rather than adds to, the previous icon. so to not use it, I must avoid using the "family" emoji entirely
I can't tell if you're trolling, but it sounds like you didn't look at the image.

>>15208944

Families in the vast majority of cases consists of a father and a mother, and hence the representative value of the emoticon goes down. At the same time it supports the idea of family units with a different make up than a mother and a father, which has been known to have a negative effect on society and children.

>>15216528
>it sounds like you didn't look at the image
why do you think so? some platforms have added a plurality of icons as a misguided but well intentioned attempt to increase end-user choice. Apple have replaced a single icon to restrict it; "before" and "after".

>>15214294
>Guns, more or less, make raw physical strength moot.

Imagine being this retarded. Then why do armies train physical strength at all?

>>15214316
You're a retard.

>>15216707

>thinking the army will no longer require you to hike with gear
>what do you mean I have to walk there? I have a gun!

>>15208868
Fahrenheit 451 was closer than people give it credit for. The fact that censorship is redundant because people just don't care and would rather be entertained, and specifically by reality TV and celebrities that they relate to like personal friends, was pretty fucking prescient.
I started The Pale King today and got to a fourth-wall-breaking chapter where DFW talks about how the 1985 restructuring of the IRS was one of the most dramatic shifts in relations between Americans and their government since the Civil War, they basically computerized the taxation and auditing processes to start the first steps toward NSA-style datamining of all citizens. This was openly discussed by proponents and deteactors of the reforms within the public record - all of it is readily available, you don't even have to make a FOIA request - and nobody knew or even cared because it was too boring.

>>15214919
It stifles mutation rate in the population precisely because of those things. Religion is good for civilization, not for a tribal anarchist society with mammalian hypergamic instinct fully on display. The latter produces strong men at the cost of horrible conditions. Civilization is inherently dysgenic.

>>15215459

>>15216397
>Simply choose not to use this.
That doesn't address the points you reply to at all.

>>15216784
>Moving the goalposts
>Implying it's impossible for female soldiers to ruck over there and shoot you anyways
A woman with a gun is just as deadly as a man with a gun. If you weren't a nogunz doublenigger then I wouldn't have to tell you this.

>>15216397
:// they didn't include genderqueer children

>>15214175
based and discussionpilled

Looks like it was a bait though 'cause that anon didn' t even pull one of the "priest pedophiles molest mostly boys so homosexuals bad duh" (((studies))) that tend to come up in those discussions

>>15209026
What is your definition of beauty then?

Not that it matters in this case, as nothing is destroyed - not only the emojis (as someone pointed out, they only added new ones), but neither is the idea of a "traditional" family. Those still make up the vast majority of families, and things will most likely stay that way. No one is trying to "destroy" anything - it just spreads awareness and, at the same time, is in itself a sign of slowly increasing acceptance of "non-traditional" family models. Which is a good thing, because LGBT+ people deserve the same rights as any other human being, and there is no rational or empyrical argument against granting them those rights.

>>15211167
You need to go back. And not because you disagree with the general consensus here. This place has always been lawless. But what I dislike is how defensive you get over an image and start touting strawmen that nobody implied.

>>15217214
My country has had a 40% (or greater) divorce rate since the 1970s. The only reason why non-tradition families are being accepted is because the traditional family is already dead. Marriage itself is effectively a dying institution, given that the rates of marriage have never been lower and are only decreasing.

The right isn't seeing ghosts when they talk about the disintegration of the family, and this has mostly occurred as a result of things like marriage and traditional family dynamics being heavily liberalized.

Deviant family arrangements are only possible in a society that has already been demoralized to the point where traditional family family values are no longer valued.

>>15214249
who wrote this?

>>15215913
>>15215923
I love how late night /lit/ brings out the lefties, guess we know who neet incels really are.

The light will win.

>>15214342
Spengler really was prescient in both Decline and Man&Technics.

>>15214752
Hours later, and the thread is still off-topic. All attempts to answer the (erroneously worded, vague and open ended) question asked by OP have been derailed. What a surprise.

Dostoevsky, especially in Demons

>>15217784
This

>>15217625
>late night /lit/

>>15217071
>Implying it's impossible for female soldiers to ruck over there and shoot you anyways
>A woman with a gun is just as deadly as a man with a gun.
I see the American is back to the “we’ll just go over there and shoot them” fallacy again. You really should study your own history.

>>15217625
/lit/ is a left leaning board

>>15216494
Citation needed.

>>15217625
Fucking Aus posters.

>>15218325
What is your issue with the second statement?

Are you saying that the minimum requirements to brandish a gun with the stopping force required to kill a man (or women) are so high that women, as a whole, are unable to compete? I want to be totally clear. This scenario does not take place in an all-out war-torn third world country, but somewhere more akin to that of <insert first world country/city here>.

>>15218546
Why are you ignoring your first?

>>15214580
>afraid of becoming a pseud

i don’t even know where to begin with this. just read the book and decide for yourself

>>15218767
>Why are you ignoring your first?
I should clarify that I'm not >>15217071. With that being said, I didn't address it because I don't believe it's worth being addressed. It's an over simplification of an already complex situation. People, regardless of their gender, don't just ruck over to "x" and unload a clip into "y". The presence of a firearm is not the only variable in that situation.

The second, however, is not, which is why I ask. I'm not trying to "get you". It was a genuine question.