Comedy Gold

[Anonymous No.6526478]

I'm not memeing and you should agree, My Twisted World is funny as hell. After the secret you just go downhill.

Any recommendation for next reading?

[Anonymous No.6526703]

i found it geninuely moving

he wasn't a bad guy, just made this way by our cruel and superficial society...he got so twisted that, in his desperate desire to conform he emulated the values by which we shunned him, to such an extreme extent that society jumped on them as an excuse to justify our treatment of him.

the truth is better art than any work of fiction ;_;

[Anonymous No.6526715]

it's kind of funny because the writing is so atrocious and his worldview is so stunted. I remember at one point he gets mad at his stepmom for taking him to some other country because they were "so backwards they didn't even have the latest video games."

but it's not a particularly interesting psychological portrait, the guy was a dumbass

[Anonymous No.6526731]

>>6526703
>just made this way by our cruel and superficial society

ugh

[Anonymous No.6526743]

>>6526703
It must be cruel to live in a rich sunny area with wealthy parents that gave you a car and girls so mean that they don't jump on you whenever they see you and simply manifest desire in a way that would be obvious for anyone not immensely absorbed by oneself. How sad :^(

[Anonymous No.6526744]

>>6526478
The terrifying thing is that the majority of people on /r9k/ are exactly like that

[Anonymous No.6526751]

>>6526703
I bet you thought Humbert was a victim, too.

[Anonymous No.6526771]

>>6526703
WOULD YOU SAY THE SAME ABOUT HITLER? IM SURE HE COULD MAKE YOU EMPATHIZE WITH HIM

LIBRUL SHIT

[Anonymous No.6526790]

>>6526478
>tfw he could have been saved if he through Stirner

[Anonymous No.6526803]

>>6526790

>tfw i was like this and stirner saved me

[Anonymous No.6526809]

>>6526771
Hitler was nice to animals. No need to bad-mouth him.

[Anonymous No.6526820]

>>6526743
>>6526731

The sad part isn't the material you morons, it's that how a fixed idea about reality can fucking kill you

The sad part is that our super ability to think as self-aware entities kills us

[Anonymous No.6526854]

>>6526744
no, /r9k is extremely self aware, to the point that it's impossible to tell what genuine and what's meta joking

[Anonymous No.6526856]

>>6526820

> dat true detective philosophy

[Anonymous No.6526864]

>>6526854

and then you spend enough time on it and can't tell whether you're so sure you don't believe all women aren't whores

[Anonymous No.6526866]

>>6526820
I love how you post has nothing to do with the posts you quoted. It highlights your point in a way merely stating it never could.

[Anonymous No.6526875]

>>6526864
>actually being sucked in

I bet you believe in Jewish plots too.

[Anonymous No.6526894]

>>6526856

heh, well, my point is that the idea of what constitutes a normal human being drove him insane. If he hadn't thought and introspect so much he would have gotten over it by just distracting himself

[Anonymous No.6526925]

>>6526894
Y'oure an idiot

[Anonymous No.6526965]

>>6526856
Rust Cohle's philosophy was really a mix of Ligotti and Nietzche.

[Anonymous No.6526987]

>>6526965

More like Zapffe, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

Ligotti is like the guy that mix them

[Anonymous No.6527013]

>>6526478
Try Tao Lin if you like autistic chinamen.

[Anonymous No.6527033]

>>6526875

nah i don't even get how people started believing that shit on pol. i'm somewhat inclined to believe stormfront has launched some kind of 24/7 covert raid on there in an attempt to recruit young neets.

but r9ks theories are a lot more plausible

[Anonymous No.6527046]

>>6527033
It's plausible that all women are whores, no woman can be ethical, and women are incapable of love?

[Anonymous No.6527140]

>>6527046

plausible that there exists a sub class of men who are complete losers, and that this cannot be helped

plausible that our explanations for things are often disguised circlejerks which only reinforce the advantage of the privilege, and further oppess the disadvantaged (e.g. 'i go for personality.' 'anyone can become good with girls if they try!' etc.)

Plausible that unrestrained female sexuality ends up hurting civilisation. That for short term hookups women go for the types of men who are not the types of men that are helpful in creating a civilised society.

Remember: by the standards of nearly all of dead humanity, our society, espcially our attitudes to women, is totally insane. are you so sure our ancestors had no reason to think the way they did?

[Anonymous No.6527152]

>>6527140
>being this mad that even bar sluts won't hook up with you

lel

[Anonymous No.6527159]

>>6527140
>oppressed
>privilege

back 2 tumblr, sweetheart

[Anonymous No.6527210]

>>6527140
>Remember: by the standards of nearly all of dead humanity, our society, espcially our attitudes to women, is totally insane. are you so sure our ancestors had no reason to think the way they did?

this is why I threw my iPhone in a lake and ran naked into the woods to hunt animals with a spear made from pig iron

[Anonymous No.6527239]

>>6526894
His idea of normal was pretty fucked-up though. Notice for instance how he never (not in the extract I've read at least, which is a good 10% of the book and all from the parts when he's above 12) makes a move on a girl, except sometimes smiling. Normal behaviour would be try to hit on a girl, fail, be sad, try again in a few days with another girl, finally get laid, realize it's not the only justification of life though it's still pretty good. Elliot's normality is girl falling over you from a single look or smile. That's not normal, that's a level of entitlement that can only exist in a very fucked environment.

TL;DR: What drove him himself was the idea of being a human being in Santa Ana which, admittedly, is pretty terrifying.

[Anonymous No.6527254]

>>6527152
>>6527159
You can't see any truth in that?

[Anonymous No.6527255]

>>6527210

nothing to do with technology you dumb nigger

it's to do with values - unless you're saying that our technology changing has somehow meant that gender roles should nessacarily change, but i don't see why anyone would think that'd be enough of the case for the complete upturned world we have now

also yeah im motivated by the fact that im mad sluts wont get on ma dick but then so were all the guys you read now

[Anonymous No.6527282]

>>6527140
Our ancestors also didn't think showering more than once a year was useful (at least not for most of our history) so I'd be careful with that one.

Also the idea that all relationships are modeled after short-term bars relationships or whatever is bonkers. There's a reason the dichotomy is so ingrained in our minds. The Romans were at times more unapologetically into short term sexual fun than us (I mean read the Satiricon, Juvenal, or Roman graffiti, lots of exaggeration, but they could be written with some heavy real-life material).


Same for the "losers" actually. Yes that subclass probably exists, but pro-tip: it has little to do with /r9k permavirgin or whatever they imagine themselves to be. Try 3rd world poorfags and severely handicapped people. Now that's being fucked by life.

Note that your bit about disguised circlejerks can apply to anything, particularly /r9k.

[Anonymous No.6527289]

>>6527282
*only be written

[Anonymous No.6527320]

>>6527255
>unless you're saying that our technology changing has somehow meant that gender roles should nessacarily change

That'd be a good argument, all the more so than it is how it actually happened.

>but i don't see why anyone would think that'd be enough of the case for the complete upturned world we have now

Perhaps because upturning our conditions of lives is likely to cause a big change in how we live them ? We're talking about technological seachange, it's pretty important. When you change the way people produce and eat their food, make and wear their clothes, see and report about the world around them, measure speed and conceive space, then you can also expect them to change the way they fuck.

>im mad sluts wont get on ma dick but then so were all the guys you read now

That could be true, unfortunately I like Henry Miller so no.

[Anonymous No.6527343]

>>6527320
>then you can also expect them to change the way they fuck
u talkin about fisting boy

[Anonymous No.6527417]

>>6527282

Because our ancestors didn't know about how infection was spread. If they did, you can bet they would shower.

On the other hand, there is no particular reason to believe we have a better insight into human behaviour than they did. We have only a few better methods now than they did then. Completely apples & oranges.

Not all relationships, but our culture is insanely more sex friendly than it was 200 years ago. Naturally this may lead to people prioritising more 'superficial' short termist values, rather than ones which, I feel, while more 'boring' are ultimately more fuffilling. Honestly, read books/diaries from back then. I find it hard not to believe a better class of people didn't just exist then. (in b4 poverty -- yes, again, technology.)

I'm not talking about the 3rd world. Just pointing out that, unlike women, it is likely that there will be a lot of men who are really unsuccesful with the opposite sex. These men may have many virtues (before they are driven mad by rejection, I guess) but these are not appeciated in the dating world. Basically, autist nerd values would be appreciated more if we had victorian sexual mores.

Indeed. But while leftists are keen to point this out when say, rich men, talk about how they 'earnt' their income, they are less keen to talk about how beliefs like that mating isn't extremely looks based are equally sops to the advantaged

[Anonymous No.6527463]

>>6527417
>there is no particular reason to believe we have a better insight into human behavior than they did

Except that a mere 150 years ago doctors thought the most likely cause of a woman being deeply upset was due to a wandering womb

And with advances in neurobiology we have a vastly improved understanding of behavior.

so uh, dial it back on your redpill koolaid already.

[Anonymous No.6527604]

>>6527463

Huh? Again, you're talking about scientific explanations for behaviour, which those in the past were obviously less able to discover the right answers to than us. I'm not disputing that at all.

But there is no strong reason why they would be less likely to work out sociological questions, like what societal structure would be most effective - the vast majorities of the theories we have now are generated by the same non experimental process we have then, people just theorising starting from what seem like sensible basic assumptions about human nature.

If we, were using our knowledge of neurobiology to understand human drives, and creating sociological theories from that, then you'd have a point, but that just isn't the case at all. In fact, most of our theories seem to go against obvious facts about our neurobiology, far more so than those in the past (e.g. that men and women think in significantly differnet ways...but that we should expect there not to be gender differences in our society.)

[Anonymous No.6527617]

>>6526478
How much David Icke have you read? If the answer isn't "all of it", read more of that.

[Anonymous No.6527714]

>>6527604
The fuck are you babbling on about, m8?

[Anonymous No.6527727]

>This period of my life, aside from my early childhood in England, was one of the best periods. Life was fair and life was satisfying. As kids, proving our self-worth and gaining validation among our peers was achieved in a fair manner, by how good we were at the games we played, or how big our collection of Pokemon cards were. No one had unfair advantages. This was perfect, and this is how life should be.

If you had the most Pokemon cards, you were the best. Nothing unfair at all about that. Obviously someone never had to scrap and trade to get their shine on.

[Anonymous No.6527736]

>>6527604
>But there is no strong reason why they would be less likely to work out sociological questions,

there's a very strong reason

"They had less experience than us"

Greekicus the Greek has an incredibly limited amount of knowledge compared to Anon the American. We've seen social structures of collapse and fail and change and evolve and thinking people in the past had a more insightful view of modern society than members of modern society do it

By the way,
>>6527463
is my only previous post, and I see why others are disengaging with you. You're moving goalposts and speaking only in extremely vague terms to hold on to your worldview, and I don't appreciate wasting my time trying to educate people who aren't willing to be educated.

>BUT AREN'T YOU DOING DA SAME THING!?

Sorry anon, but you're emotionally invested in a 4chan conspiracy theory that disavows conflicting information as being part of a matriarchal plot to give you the feel of no gf. SO I'm gonna blast at what I believe are your premises
>>6527140
1. Alpha/beta is a fucking meme based on wolf behavior that ISN'T EVEN ACCURATE FOR WOLVES and there is no evidence of it being at all relevant for humans.

2. I have a friend who is a fat greasy weeaboo and he dated some real qts because, yes, he had a good personality.

3. Unrestrained female sexuality hurting civilization is just, like, your opinion man. I have another friend who pulls mad 'short term hookup pussy' and I'm of the opinion that he's a great guy who is indeeed helpful in creating a civilized society because he's polite, talented, and empathetic to those in suffering. But maybe you want us to go back to a Puritanical Christian society, in which case I can't relate to your set of morals.

[Anonymous No.6527741]

>>6527736
>Sorry anon, but you're emotionally invested in a 4chan conspiracy theory that disavows conflicting information as being part of a matriarchal plot to give you the feel of no gf. SO I'm gonna blast at what I believe are your premises
Damn nigga. You deserve a slow clap.

[Anonymous No.6527752]

>>6527736

BTFO

[Anonymous No.6527892]

>>6527417
>Because our ancestors didn't know about how infection was spread. If they did, you can bet they would shower.

They also had overall less access to clean water. Betcha didn't think of that.

>On the other hand, there is no particular reason to believe we have a better insight into human behaviour than they did.

How about the fact we can observe current behaviour while their insight was grounded on past behaviour ? People before us had insight into what human behaviour was before us, and we have insight into what human behaviour is now. But those two are different, and although they overlap, it's very difficult to say when the insight they had then apply to our behaviours now, and when it doesn't.

To put it shortly, yes, we have not many reason to think we understand human behaviour better than they do, but we have even less reason to think they understood our behaviour better than we do. All the more so that we benefit in part from their insights while the reverse is not true.

So, apple and oranges if you want, but apples and oranges are both fruits and they can be compared at least in that respect.

>Honestly, read books/diaries from back then.

How many diaries have you read and how many of them were written by 19th century higher-class british women ? Remember those were a tiny part of the population, but a big part of the writers of diaries whose works have survived. And the education of higher-class diaries-writing british women is one of the things that has less changed as far as sexual education is concerned.

>I find it hard not to believe a better class of people didn't just exist then.

Honestly I don't find that those diaries, for those I've read, paint them in a too favorable light. And that's not even mentioning the huge selection bias (people who are going to write diaries about their lives are generally more introspective, a trait we often mistake with being "better", whatever that means).

>Just pointing out that, unlike women, it is likely that there will be a lot of men who are really unsuccesful with the opposite sex.

Do you have data on this ? Last time I saw something remotely informed being posted here, the data tended to show the wide majority of both men and women had sex and the minority who hadn't were rather evenly distributed among men and women.

Now if we're talking average numbers of partners (though easy on that one, averages only tell you so much, and it's entirely possible that the distributions of partner among men and women are too different to really compare) or easiness of access to sex, I'd believe that women have more, but it's not really an advantage since sex is generally more trouble for a girl than for a boy (just think about the first penetration for instance).

>I'm not talking about the 3rd world.

Then talk about 1st world poorfags or 3rd world immigrants. Those are the real losers, people who can afford to spend their night on an uranian dolphin gangraping smirkfest aren't.

[Anonymous No.6527895]

>>6526478
If you're looking for more "classics" of this "genre" I'd recommend the Unabomber's manifesto and Chris Dorner's manifesto.

[Anonymous No.6527897]

>>6527892
cont'd

>Basically, autist nerd values would be appreciated more if we had victorian sexual mores.

Victorian values are literally Female Hystery: The Epidemic-inducing System and do not reward the "nerd autist behavior". And their sexual mores were hypocritical as fuck, have you seen their adultery and divorce laws ? Putting aside the question of why you would think "autist nerd values" are something that should be valued or why them being less valued is a problem, mentioning them in a Victorian context is completely anachronistic. What you're talking about is essentially a modern tv stereotype. If anything we vale that kind of "nerdiness" more, first because nerdiness is actually a thing to us, and second because it's associated with qualified workers productive in tech-driven industries. If you wanted to be appreciated in the Victorian era, the best solution was to be a wealthy landlord.

>These men may have many virtues (before they are driven mad by rejection, I guess) but these are not appeciated in the dating world.

What is "the dating world" ? If you're a man with "virtues" living in the 1st world and between20-30 there are dozens of millions of women from a good dozen country that you could date. If you can't find one, it's because you don't really want to, or because you're not that virtuous. Now there are a minority of truly unlucky and heartbroken people, but this has more to do with humans being mortals than anything else.

>leftists

Let's keep the 4chan babblespeak out of this please, "autist nerd values" was already enough.

[Anonymous No.6527907]

>>6527897
>that mating isn't extremely looks based

Yes, mating are looks based but:
1) Look at the ugly fuckers who get laid. Seriously nigga unless you're facially deformed you look better than at least 5% of the guys who get laid (and I'm not including any richfag in those). So there must be something else than looks at play, and no it's not personal worth, more like playfulness and (non)involvement.

2) Looks aren't a scalar quantity like money. How much you have on your bank account, how big is your mansion and wether you actually own it, how big is you cars, etc...those things can be hierarchically ranked without too much problems. Looks can't. Some girls prefer a skinnyfag to a fatfag, to others it's the reverse. Again, see 1), unless you're a fucking lobster you'll rank in the 30% most attractive of at least a decent amount of girls.

3) Looks aren't a matter of physique only, clothes, shoes, posture and body language are extremely important, particularly for girls, and yes you can work on those.

4)While we're at it, smell can be as important as looks on the last stages. Yes, smells. That's actually were a good deal of the "natural, magnetic attraction" comes from. That's also what can help you realize the typical blond sorority slut isn't necessarily the one that gets you the hardest.

5) Being a balls-deprived faggot will ruin the dating life of the best-looking men and I talk from experience. Most girls will take a average or even low-average guy who can stand for himself and will actually do stuff to get them over the attractive idiot who gives up at the first obstacle. Good news is it leaves some room for less attractive but more daring/curious/persistent/horny guys.


6) It's easier for ugly men to attract hot females than for ugly women tp attract hot males, on average, source: any of the 1000+ persons I've met since I turned 12. And before you bring dating sites statistics to the table, remember the only person you can fuck through a computer screen is yourself.

7) If you feel like the "dating world" is only rewarding a particular kind of guy and a particular kind of look, attitude, etc., you need to find new friends. Some environment can be poisonous, but fortunately Califronian-highschool-style dating is still a minority.


If I look dismissive, that's not the point, btw, I'm sincerely trying to convey my own experience to you. I can understand sexual frustration, believe me, but most of it comes from taking sex as a evaluation of self-worth or a societal mistake or a reward for socially accepted behaviour. It doesn't have to be provided you're open to experience and try to connect with people and have spontaneous good time with them and then perhaps having sex (but in that order). And yeah, it's not easy for everyone and nobody really understands what's going on at a local, person-by-person level.

[Anonymous No.6527944]

>>6527907
> It's easier for ugly men to attract hot females than for ugly women tp attract hot males

If the ugly males have high social status. Ugly men with high social status (rich, well-respected in a particular social niche, famous poeple, etc.) can definitely bang to hottest girls. But social status is the only thing other than looks that will get you there. If you're not attractive and don't have a high social status you don't have a chance.

Most people who are successful with women and claim not to be attractive massively underestimate their looks anyway.

[Anonymous No.6527978]

>>6527736

Firstly:


I don't agree that I am moving any goalposts, and where am I speaking in extremely vague terms? If I am, this wasn't my intention at all, and I apologise if it seems that way. However, please stop with the ad homimem attacks which have no basis e.g. that I disavow conflicting infomation because of a 'matriarchal plot' (fuck'd you get that from?) (which note, you can get away with because your 'side' has far more social capital - people tolerate ad homimen attacks on my opinion as fedora-esque, people would instantly switch off if I started calling you a beta man gina.)

I'll grant you that we have greater examples to draw apron when forming views about how society can/should work. I still don't believe this significantly diminishes the force of what I said: that we have no reason to prima facie believe with the tenacity that we do now, that we are going to have better insights than those in the past. As counter points, I could mention that by the thinking of 1900, the objections you raised is greatly diminished, and yet people still had far more reactionary social views than they do now. I'll leave this here, though I think we could argue further, because I think this leaves your objections weight light enough that you should be able to value the point I was making.


Searching what you've written to find any arguments..Umm..okay.

1. I hope you can agree with me that women find it easier to get sex than men, because men generally have lower standards than women. It seems to naturally follow from this that there will be more men who are sexually ignored, than women.

I hope we can also agree that, firstly, females find social dominance attractive. Also that there is a significant subset of men who's defining characteristic is that they lack social skill - nerds.

These are just two reasons why it seems quite clear we could expect a lot of men to be very frustrate by their levels of romantic success.

3. It strikes me as also obvious that nerd qualities are often morally positive, socially useful qualities (if you don't get into total autism territory.) Nerds tend to be scrupulous, interested in abstract ideals and ideas, non violent, and so on. If 'nerds' are less sexually successful than non-nerds, it is likely (since you do believe that genetics has some influence on personality, right?) that these qualities will become less common in society. If this process has been going on for over 100 years, we can expect a significant sociological change to have occurred away from nerd values/behaviour, towards chadish behaviour.

Secondly, I believe we can agree that sexual desire, and with it, the desire to increase ones sexual value to women, plays an important part in male behaviour. If mating is to be short term, then males will likely attempt to boost qualities which make them attractive in the short term. Cont below

[Anonymous No.6527995]

>>6527978

Cont:

Likewise, if mating is to be long term/lifelong, then it follows that men will attempt to possess/demonstrate a different set of qualities. I also think it is obvious that the 'long term' set of qualities are likely to be ones which are more beneficial to a healthy/moral civilisation. For instance, charisma and physical attractiveness seems important for short term mating, but if we impress apon women that they only get one shot at marriage, I imagine they will look harder at things like a man's moral character, trustworthiness, and future earning potential. Changes in people's mating priorities will affect how people behave. They will also affect what people buy, and what career/life choices people pursue.

Note here, I am inuatively very left wing - I was a hardcore Marxist from 16-20. I don't like what I am saying here, but I just think it is true.

I'll let you respond now!

[Anonymous No.6528005]

>>6527907

That post was very kind and gives me some hope, despite myself. I do disagree with you though, but want thread to continue on more societorial trends than just talking about what girls want lolz.

[Anonymous No.6528013]

>>6528005
man those dudes look like some fucking herbs while those girls look down as hell

whats up with that

[Anonymous No.6528026]

>>6528013

Look closer, Simba

[Anonymous No.6528048]

>>6526751
Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert, but Humbert Humbert definitely Humbert.

[Anonymous No.6528089]

>>6527978
>please stop with the ad homimem attacks
There were none. I'm attacking your position. YOU ARE NOT YOUR POSITION.

There is almost NOTHING in your numbered area of the post that I agree with. I don't agree that men have lower standards, I don't agree with your construction of women and nerds as homogenous groups, or that your stereotyping of them is even necessarily accurate, I don't agree with your laughable understanding of evolutionary biology. And you're not stopping to critically examine and debate these vague premises, no, you're just piling them on as though they're self evident truths.

But you know what? I RECOGNIZE the thought behind them. I recognize it as the conspiracy narrative /r9k/ has built up. I recognize the victim mentaility, the us vs them rhetoric, the buzzwords of chad, the stereotyping.

In a perfect world I would have time to go over your posts and point out how you are using extremely poor logic and not even realizing it. I'd pour a decade of logic courses, and a dozen years of social interactions with people though my 4chan post and then you'd have access to viewpoints beyond the stupid echobox of this stupid meme conspiracy theory you are trapped in. But it's not a perfect world.

Sorry anon. I tried my best to help out, but you're just spouting tired old /r9k/ conspiracy garbage at me, and that's where I draw the line. I'll engage in debate with people who, for whatever reason, I believe might be capable of critical thought, but when stock conspiracy lines come out I give up, because I'm not engaging a person, I'm engaging the regurgitated flotsam of a collective narrative, and there's nothing for me to do but say:

Get out of your echobox, or become part of the walls.

[Anonymous No.6528113]

The first episode of my favorite television series of all time, Game of Thrones, was released in April.
I watched it with profound excitement.
Being a fan of the books, this was a very anticipated event for me.
Seeing all of the characters that I knew so well on the television screen was spectacular.
The show exceeded all of my expectations.
Each week I looked forward to the next episode, and each episode gave me a small hint of joy in my otherwise bleak life.

[Anonymous No.6528129]

>>6528089
It's like I'm looking into a mirror into my past, just replace /r9k/ with /pol/

[Anonymous No.6528142]

It's headache-inducing to read, even for laughs.

[Anonymous No.6528170]

>>6528089

Stop being so damn rude. I've put effort in to engage with you...and now it's just more insults (i hope you won't deny that stuff like 'using extremely poor logic' is an ad homimen) and just further 'i won't engage with you because your arguments sound similar to stuff on r9k!'


also holy shit a decade of logic courses

[Anonymous No.6528176]

>>6528089

if you want, you can argue with me about whether we are right to construct nerds/women as homogenous groups (obviously I think its possible to some degree, but no generalisation will be 100 percent accurate) and what exactly is wrong with my 'laughable' understanding of evolutionary biology (seriously do you even notice when you are insulting your opponent?)

Do you want to start there? Maybe it'd take me away from my stock r9k turbonerd assumptions

[Anonymous No.6528468]

>>6527907

This guy has clearly never seen the empirical dating site studies where fat / deformed women get tonnes of messages, where Chad profiles get the girls' numbers despite telling the girls that they (the Chad) have autism / want to rape, and also the obviously many dating profiles of sub 6/10 males who get zero matches.

So much bullshit in this guy's posts that is assumed to be true. kek, grow up and stop trying to rationalise away real ilfe

[Anonymous No.6528471]

>>6527033
>>6527736
The nikki minaj and homework threads almost made me jump ship from skimming this board. You changed my mind.

[Anonymous No.6528541]

>>6527978

Sorry /r9k/ anon but this post is pure crap.

You're making these massive generalizations about women which could just as easily be applied to men.

For example you say that women are more attracted to social dominance. The exact same thing could be applied to men, as if given the option wouldn't men prefer not to spend the money they've earn't on women they're courting, and would it be nice for a guy if the girlfriend you're seeing bought you tickets to a holiday in the tropics (or wherever)?

Also, women do not have an easier time having sex with men. Let us say you're an ugly woman and you go to a bar to hook up with some guy. You find an average guy (who you still find attractive in some way, cause what's the point if there's no sexual allure whatsoever, but is nonetheless average) and he's slightly tipsy, but not drunk yet. Why would he sleep with you?

He's in a bar to find a girl, why would he sleep with some paper-bag princess who's desperate, he's surrounded by hotter girls and might have a chance with them so why pick the ugly one? He has a chance with the hotter ones (or at least thinks he does as that's why he's in a club), so he'd never do that unless the physically unattractive girl had qualities beyond her appearance, in which case we're talking about what everyone else has been talking about.

Also, the whole "nerd" chaste type is the most bullshit thing I've read. Do you know about many nerdy guys there are who work out? Or how many non-nerdy guys there are that don't? Do you know how many physically confrontational nerds there are? Alot in all categories.

[Anonymous No.6528579]

>>6528541

Read >>6528468

You and the other guy are ignoring observed reality.

Also your logic is laughably shit and half passed.

[Anonymous No.6528593]

>>6528579

I was talking about people who meet people in the real world. Not pseudo-flirting on OKstupid.

[Anonymous No.6528608]

>>6526743
This is the point where you realize that the capitalist definition of a good or pleasant life is utter bullshit.
Not to say that he wasn't immensely self-centered, but there's no rule that states that he should be happy because his family was rich. It's not about the girls either, the problem lied somewhere deeper.

[Anonymous No.6528619]

>>6528608

Disprove the marxist idea just as much as Marx is nothing if not a materialist.

[Anonymous No.6528625]

>>6526965
I defy you to name one Nietzschean thing he said.

[Anonymous No.6528646]

>>6528625

"What is that Nietzsche?"

When the dude (who's about to get shot) is talking about time being a flat circle.

>being sincere though

When Rust explains to the cops about eternal recurrence.

[Anonymous No.6528730]

There was another shooting in Isla Vista tonight.

[Anonymous No.6529056]

>>6526478
If only he'd been gay.

[Anonymous No.6529156]

>>6526965
All this time I thought his name was Russ Cole.

[Anonymous No.6529292]

>>6527895
also anders breivik and suicidenote.info

if youre into the long form stuff

[Anonymous No.6530077]

>>6527907
>6) It's easier for ugly men to attract hot females than for ugly women tp attract hot males, on average, source: any of the 1000+ persons I've met since I turned 12. And before you bring dating sites statistics to the table, remember the only person you can fuck through a computer screen is yourself.
All my friends since I turned 12 have been introverts who rarely go to parties/bars etc. and every single one of them who actually managed to get laid settled for a sub-5/10 girl. Many of these guys were really attractive, one worked as a model for clothing commercials. Two of them turned out gay, and boy, am I jealous.

[Anonymous No.6530424]

>>6528541

Mate...come on. Like I don't even know where to begin with this.

Are you trolling here? You believe that because an ugly woman is unlikely to get average men for sex, this proves that women don't have an easier time getting sex than men?!

I know a few nerds who work out...I also know a lot of chads work out. Even if nerds work out, it's hardly that good an example since it's actually a fairly nerdy thing to do (scrupulous, rationally life optimising) and I think you can see that by the fact that there is a large bb.com 4chan /fit/ sluthate crossover of memes and posters. I don't know many physically confrontational nerds! God this is like, you just seem to think making these claims that contradict my generalisations is somehow important but it isn't at all since i'm not claiming these are anywhere near absolute generalisations, just significant trends, and you never compare the examples to the situation on the other side (i.e. do would an ugly guy be able to pick up average women in a bar)

[Anonymous No.6530526]

>>6528541

The notion that it's equally hard for women to get laid as it is for men is ludicrous.

We have twice as many female ancestors as we have male ancestors. Why do you think that is?

[Anonymous No.6530536]

>>6526478
Any lit fags hard up and need cash? I will pay a decent amount for one of you faggots to dramatically read his manifesto and record it.

[Anonymous No.6530708]

>>6527907
>5) Being a balls-deprived faggot will ruin the dating life of the best-looking men and I talk from experience. Most girls will take a average or even low-average guy who can stand for himself and will actually do stuff to get them over the attractive idiot who gives up at the first obstacle. Good news is it leaves some room for less attractive but more daring/curious/persistent/horny guys.

I prefer being the 21 y/o virgin that I am than going out of my way begging or earning women.

[Anonymous No.6530822]

>>6527907
>all this feel gud bs

It's literally just an endurance race.

And that ugly people have to endure more before finishing, if finishing at all.

Normal people finish sooner. Ugly people just have to run and run and run.

[Anonymous No.6530918]

>>6530526

LOL r9k virgin ITT

[Anonymous No.6531000]

>>6526703
>he wasn't a bad guy
He was just a fucking idiot, trapped in a loop of masturbatory reasoning.

Idiots do stupid shit, like killing people for stupid and irrelevant reasons.

[Anonymous No.6531010]

>>6530708
>begging
>earning

You're lost. Log off the internet, it's poisoned your mind. Go join a book club. Strike up friendships. You'll be happier. I can tell you're miserable.