/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6886524]

>Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.
- Schopenhauer

>Women are a riddle, the answer: pregnancy.
- Nietzsche

>Woman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not prefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she never knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. . . . If in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is material success alone that is regarded as the highest value, and if money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due to the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other point of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does particularly in England and America, there you will find the worship of cash the principal religion of the community. . . . To-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives. Everything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided that money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is he who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in a sumptous Rolls-Royce. . . . Wives who have passionately loved their husbands will learn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy turn in their fortunes they become material failures. . . . Individually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue refinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice refinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end, and as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why the notion 'Lady' is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most palpable fiction. No 'lady' has ever existed or will ever exist.
- Ludovici

Why are philosophers so sexist?

[big balls malone No.6886534]

>>6886524
>Why are philosophers so sexist?
because thats reality

>they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man,

is 100% accurate, if you disagree i encourage you to spend more time with women.

[Anonymous No.6886537]

i feel like i've read 4chan comments that are very similar to those quotes

[Anonymous No.6886548]

>>6886524
>Ludovici

Seems like a true 4channer....

>Ludovici summed up his definition: (esoteric) conservatism "is the preservation of the national identity throughout the process of change by a steady concern for the whole of the nation's life." He opposed Jews, foreigners, and 'odd people' — eccentrics, cranks and fanatics — having anything to do with government.

...or not. This is 4chan and we love our jews, fags and cranks.

[big balls malone No.6886553]

>>6886548
>This is 4chan and we love our jews, fags and cranks.

maybe on s4s, mlp, soc and whatever other reddit tier board you frequent.

[Anonymous No.6886559]

>>6886524

Because Philosophy attracts resentful beta males.

[Anonymous No.6886570]

>>6886553
s4s is the most intelligent board on this site

[Anonymous No.6886573]

>>6886548
Ludovici wrote the best critical analysis without Jews I've ever read.

http://www.anthonymludovici.com/transfor.htm

[Anonymous No.6886574]

>>6886524
>>6886524
>Why are philosophers so sexist?
sexism is not good nor bad. Sexism just is.

are you too beta to understand what the woman is ?

[Anonymous No.6886579]

>>6886574
>sexism is not good nor bad. Sexism just is.

I didn't state anything otherwise in the OP.

[Anonymous No.6886583]

>>6886524
nah

[big balls malone No.6886591]

>>6886570
>s4s is the most intelligent board on this site

[Anonymous No.6886594]

>>6886534
>>they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man,

If you have read Esther Vilar you would know that this is snakery in their part, and she even goes as far as to say that the only reason why woman are this way is because they are enabled to do so because men take up all the bullshit of the world and become bitter fucks while woman retain their innocence.

[Anonymous No.6886596]

>>6886574
That guy needs to back up what he says tbh

[Anonymous No.6886597]

If all the harm that women have done
Were put in a bundle and rolled into one,
Earth would not hold it,
The sky could not enfold it,
It could not be lighted nor warmed by the sun;
Such masses of evil
Would puzzle the devil
And keep him in fuel while Time’s wheels run.

But if all the harm that's been done by men
Were doubled and doubled and doubled again,
And melted and fused into vapor and then
Were squared and raised to the power of ten,
There wouldn’t be nearly enough, not near,
To keep a small girl for the tenth of a year.

[Anonymous No.6886603]

>>6886524
I actually agree that in their time women were culturally taught to be mindless breeders.
But Feminism freed them from their mind prison so now they are capable to live as real humans. Of course Capitalism still holds 90% of all humans down. But the gender chances are even now.

[Anonymous No.6886608]

>>6886524
Because philosophy is the search for truth.

[Anonymous No.6886614]

>>6886603
nice bait

[Anonymous No.6886618]

>>6886614
What's wrong about my post? This is not /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6886627]

>>6886553
It used to be that 4chan was made up entirely of Jews, fags, and cranks.
Ah, well. I guess that's the price of popularity.

[big balls malone No.6886629]

>>6886618
>This is not /pol/.
nice one, agreed totally, tbh

[Anonymous No.6886631]

>Sister is pretty smart for a woman
>Gets kind of depressed over all the shit woman get called by philosophers
>Consults me about this (obviously wants me to cheer her up)
>Me: "Woman are actually known to have more sympathy than men, and besides everyone recognizes that they bring happiness into one lives even if the exchange means that they will be a little bit manipulative about it :^). Also woman weren't allowed to be anything more because reasons."
>Her: "Oh that's right, and besides I've learned that where woman are bad in one way men are bad for being power driven egoists"

Guess I ain't teaching her about Stirner.

[Anonymous No.6886636]

Because they are sensitive and got rejected.
Essentially neckbeard attitude expressed well

[Anonymous No.6886643]

>>6886618
Men and women are biologically different, women's purpose is to create and rear children.

[Anonymous No.6886645]

>>6886524
>Why are philosophers so sexist?
Their job is to see reality as accurately as possible and posit the best possible values for humanity, that's why.

[Anonymous No.6886656]

>>6886645
I thought their job was to make money without really working by entertaining the elite and the academia.

[Anonymous No.6886661]

>>6886603
This is true to an extent. The majority of women seem to exercise their more "male" rational side more than the women of Nietzsche's time, but it starts to fall apart when dealing with anything related to reproduction.

That bit about women not caring about artists is absolutely untrue these days. I know plenty of well-educated women who will get down with musicians and writers above all else.

[Anonymous No.6886662]

>>6886656
Nietzsche was read by no one his whole life and lived on some pension from a university.

[Anonymous No.6886665]

>>6886662
He was elite and academic and was entertaining himself.

[Anonymous No.6886683]

>>6886656
Back to >>>/sci/ with you, child.

[Anonymous No.6886686]

>>6886683
>he doesnt think philosophy is irrelevant
philosophy has produced nothing of tangible value, child

[Anonymous No.6886692]

>>6886603
This.
It irritates me that men say women don't take responsibility for their actions now they are liberated, but men still won't admit a history of keeping women as quasi-slave breeding machines who weren't allowed to exercise their higher faculties. It is the reason to this day many women still try and fill that role. Does it really hurt men that much to admit that men of the past did some terrible things to women? It isn't as if that makes you bad personally.

[Anonymous No.6886693]

>>6886631
>Woman are actually known to have more sympathy than men, and besides everyone recognizes that they bring happiness into one lives even if the exchange means that they will be a little bit manipulative about it :^)

Iz dat sum Rousseau?

[Anonymous No.6886696]

>>6886693
No I came up with that myself on the spot because I'm a massive misogynist, if only because I love my family more.

[Anonymous No.6886697]

>>6886686
Whenever you're ready to just head on back there.

[Anonymous No.6886704]

>>6886696
I hate people like you. You are like those people who say they hate all blacks, apart from like this one guy Steve who is sort of cool cos I know him.

[Anonymous No.6886713]

>>6886704
Well I guess I do sort of kind of believe it, and the only reason why I call myself a misogynist is because others surely would.
In reality humans are very miserable and need sympathy and love and its true that their instincts are contemptible but at the same time the few moments where they listen to reason instead redeems them so as to make them seem lovable.

[Anonymous No.6886745]

>>6886524
men are not interested in sex per se.

Women are interested in sex ALWAYS because
-they follow their desires
-they they follow the desires from which the expect the most pleasures, with the least diffuclties and consequences
-sex being what makes most people feel the most alive, women seek it

Women live for sex.


Now men: two kinds of men:

-betas love to please women, you have two kinds:
--the beta -robots who tries to please women in being nice to them, in being devoted, in being their confidant, listen to her and her problems
--the beta-douchebags/chads who tries to please women in lifting and giving her orgams

-the other kind of men is the one where the man do not really care about women, especially beyond sex. They value their time and serenity.

reminder that in the late 60s, the feminazies cringed that they did not experience enough orgasms, and that it was men's fault already.


40 years later, they have their degrees, their jobs, their salary, their gigolos, their lovers, their husbands, they have their pills, their abortion, their dildos, their sexual harassment, their hysteria over rape, their hypocrisy over divorce and marriage, their oppression towards ugly and poor powerless men for calling them slags, their orgasms from super horny promiscuous pussy chasers à la chads or sluggish beta losers who appease any demand a female makes because they view themselves as lesser, women are no longer in the habits to compromise on their desire for GOOD sex, aka sex from men they desire and expect orgasms.....

But women lived for and through sex far before their liberation. Women did not wait for the 60s to happen to be themselves. The feminists just make it a pride for a woman to acknowledge what she is.

[Anonymous No.6886762]

>>6886594
women act like stupid children because it gives them plausible deniability. if you can make someone believe you're childish and stupid when you're not, you have an edge on them.

>women are snakes
u said it.

[Anonymous No.6886769]

>>6886665
says the child.

[Anonymous No.6886778]

>>6886745
>men are not interested in sex per se.
I seriously hope nobody is this retarded.
Where woman only care about wealth men only care about sex.

[Anonymous No.6886786]

>>6886762
The most irritating thing about dating an intelligent woman is when she falls back on acting dumb to get out of trouble and does things to leave that avenue of escape open. It's almost insulting that they expect you not to notice, whereas with a dumber woman it's just the fucking way she goes.

[Anonymous No.6886788]

>>6886745
>Everybody fits into convenient archetypes
>I don't need to prove any of this is true
>Why isn't 40 years enough to fix massive problems

Why don't you just fuck off tbh.

[Anonymous No.6886803]

>>6886786
I'm a woman and I do this all the time at work. That and massaging the men's ego. Needless to say I got promoted quickly.

[Anonymous No.6886804]

Genuine question: women have been "liberated" for about a century now, why can't I find good female composers? No, St. Vincent is not a "good female composer", no, neither is Patti Smith; no not even The Knife

[Anonymous No.6886822]

>>6886804
>why can't I find

your problem

[Anonymous No.6886924]

>>6886769
Wait, are you paying me a compliment via Nietzsche reference?

[Anonymous No.6886989]

>>6886524
>Ludovici
Nice name, brah!

[Anonymous No.6887000]

>>6886804

the reason there are no women physicists / composers is because of the toys that girls were given when they were younger along with subliminal conditioning. I read this in the washington post while watching a TED talk on my phone at my nearest starbucks while on a lunchbreak at my high powered corporate job

[Anonymous No.6887009]

>>6887000
That is actually true though. There is obviously no reason women couldn't do physics. Anybody who claims otherwise knows fuck all about the human brain.

[Anonymous No.6887016]

>>6886745
is this pasta?

[Anonymous No.6887021]

>>6886692
> It is the reason to this day many women still try and fill that role

have you considered in your ivory tower that many women actually like that role?

[Anonymous No.6887044]

This image is paradigmatic for the nature of "the WO(E) of MAN, of WOMAN, Pandora.

They are doing exactly what is wanted of them, which is also exactly what they want themselves. But the faces are of resistance, rebellion, cockyness. They don't want to want what they want, they don't even know what they want. At a certain point they no longer want, I mean they always "want", as in are always WANTING, but never can there be for them a sense of contentment or achievement. To be a woman is to be in a never-ending war with yourself. Why?

The eternal paradox, in all its excruciating shapes and forms, is all they exist for, is all they are. All they know, all they LOVE, is striving, is the new, is the next thing. They set thousands of petty goals, only to be disappointed, only for their desire to already yearn for the next thing. This is an example of the fact that they are everything in a perverted way: they are A, but not really A: In this case: they are goal oriented, but not really, because the goal itself it is nothing to them, meaningless. Therefore evertything is meaningless to them, and throughout the ages men have been stumped by their lack of understanding of the virtues. Like a psychopath, they can only mimic things like 'loyalty', they are only familiar with its dictionary definition and the basic use of it in daily language and what it looks like on the superficial level. Like Nietzsche said, they aren't "deep", because there's no bottom to be found, they aren't even flat. All they do is move, move, move. Any steadyness, any sternness, be it in mental, moral, physical, logical sense, is to them rust, a weight, eventually depressing and destroying their petty, superficial spirit. Yet men never stop trying to please them, trying to satisfy them, which is exactly what is completely impossible for these creatures. That is why in Greek mythology, Pandora, the "beautiful evil", had a box which contained elpsis, "hope".

They are truly tragic creatures.

[Anonymous No.6887053]

"Nowadays we can already hear women’s voices which—by holy Aristophanes!—are frightening. They utter threats with medical clarity about what woman wants from man, from start to finish. Is it not in the very worst taste for woman to prepare like this to become scientific? So far, enlightening has fortunately been a man’s business, a man’s talent—in the process we remained “among ourselves.” In dealing with everything which women write about concerning “woman,” we may finally retain a healthy mistrust whether woman really wants enlightenment about herself—or is capable of wanting it. . . . Unless a woman by doing this is seeking some new finery for herself—so I do think that dressing herself up belongs to the eternally feminine?—well, by doing this she does want to arouse fear of herself:—in that way perhaps she wants to dominate. But she does not want the truth. What does a woman have to do with truth? From the very beginning nothing is stranger, more unfavourable, or more hostile to women than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern appearance and beauty. We men should admit it—we honour and love precisely this art and this instinct in woman, we who have a hard time of it and are happy to get our relief by associating with beings under whose hands, looks, and tender foolishness our seriousness, our gravity and profundity, seem almost silly. Finally I put the question: Has a woman ever herself conceded that a woman’s head is profound, that a woman’s heart is just? And is it not true that, speaking generally, “woman” up to this point has been held in contempt mostly by woman herself—and not at all by us?"

[Anonymous No.6887057]

>>6887009
Not the guy you're replying to.
After graduating with a degree in a physical sciences field from a top American university where many of my classmates were women, I'd be foolish to say they cannot "do" physics.

They would simply rather be doctors, or dentists or work in a business field, because they value interaction with other humans more than the average male physicist or engineer, who tends to have a narrow focus on his field and be borderline autistic (not something I'd consider superior to the female predelictions for socializing). Pretty sure not being given slide rules to play with as children has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.6887064]

"In no age has the weak sex been treated with such respect on the part of men as in our time—that’s part of the tendency and basic taste of democracy, just like the disrespect for old age. Is it any wonder that this respect immediately leads to abuse? People want more; people learn to make demands. They finally find this toll of respect almost insulting and would prefer a competition for rights, in fact, a completely genuine fight."

[Anonymous No.6887068]

>>6886553
>>6886534

>i like memes
>look at my funny username
>jews, women and fags are bad!! look at my proof here

worst namefag of 2015. do everyone a favor and kill yourself you pathetic subhuman

[Anonymous No.6887070]

>>6887021
I am a women and I hate that role. We aren't all the same.

[Anonymous No.6887071]

>>6887044
>fixed misspelling of paradigmatic without anyone even telling you

proud of you

[Anonymous No.6887079]

>>6887000

[Anonymous No.6887092]

>>6887057
I will just say that while you're being very, very kind with your choice of words, I can agree with this to some degree

[Anonymous No.6887096]

>>6886524
Arguments ordered from the most contextualist to the most geneticist:

-Women rarely if ever pursued advanced education at the time.

-Often, philosophers are socially introverted, without much interaction with women.

-Women tend to prefer dominant males, and dominance often relates to resource control and/or physical power (these used to be very correlated in humanity's past). Philosophers don't tend to be wealthy or physically imposing.

[Anonymous No.6887099]

>>6886524
Nietzsche was the proto-/r9k/ even a century before. Astounding.

I wonder if there's some equivalent of Pepe to be found within his works.

[Anonymous No.6887131]

>>6887071

[big balls malone No.6887137]

>>6887068
on a scale of 1 to PTSD how triggered are you my man

[Anonymous No.6887144]

>>6887044
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6887155]

>>6887144

> utters disagreement not in sensible reasoning, but in referencing internet meme culture insult.

go die in a puddle of any liquid of your choosing.

[Anonymous No.6887169]

>>6887070
You're a minority

[Anonymous No.6887173]

>>6887096
Plato was huge and strong.

[Anonymous No.6887175]

>>6886661
>That bit about women not caring about artists is absolutely untrue these days. I know plenty of well-educated women who will get down with musicians and writers above all else.

It can still mean they only care about the social implication of such things.

[Anonymous No.6887178]

>>6887053
>We men should admit it—we honour and love precisely this art and this instinct in woman
this tbh

if you dont like how woman are weasels in their double faced nature then you cucks ought to turn gay instead

[Anonymous No.6887181]

>>6886788
>Introduce more and more and more problems
>it's just recessive oppression

[Anonymous No.6887184]

nietzsche didn't have the bitter animosity towards women like schopenhauer had
when he brought them up, it was in a light-hearted, ironic tone
like they were corrupted by modern egalitarianism and were acting too manly because of the weakness of men
he admired women

[Anonymous No.6887186]

>>6886804
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0feFedDW_iQ

[Anonymous No.6887196]

>>6887070
>many
>all
I dunno about the gender-role bit but I bet most women read better than you.

[Anonymous No.6887198]

>>6887009
maybe women aren't autistic enough to waste their time playing ancient number sudoku

[Anonymous No.6887201]

>>6887070
let's see those boobs

[Anonymous No.6887202]

>>6886778
Yeah, this. God.

[Anonymous No.6887213]

>>6887099
>Nietzsche was the proto-/r9k/
No, he wasn't.

[Anonymous No.6887218]

>>6887070
your cunt is a mass of slime and i want to lick it like a ravenous dog

[Anonymous No.6887226]

>>6886603

feminism did the opposite- it encouraged women to embrace the savage instincts within them that hold humanity back from living in a technological utopia free from strife.

[Anonymous No.6887256]

>>6887173
That was from a time free men were expected to be hale not just in mind but in body.

And as far as I know they weren't socially introverted either. Thinkers were expected to also be good public speakers.

[Anonymous No.6887262]

>>6886643
>Men and women are biologically different, women's purpose is to create and rear children.
no, women want pleasures, especially through sex

feminists have asked for this as soon as they could for a good reason.

[Anonymous No.6887277]

>>6886692
>women don't take responsibility for their actions now they are liberated,
indeed

feminists like you miss completely that women had rules for a good reason. But now, that you are liberated, we fail to see this

[Anonymous No.6887278]

>>6887155
You die, faggot.

Only a true retard would come to 4chan and hate on memes.

[Anonymous No.6887293]

>>6887175
Do most artist actually have a high social status?

I don't look at it that way.

They just tend to be have more interesting lifestyles than people with common jobs.

[Anonymous No.6887302]

>>6887277
They had such rules because it was convenient to men.

[Anonymous No.6887310]

>>6887293
If they're social people then yeah. Is they're moderately popular within their small community? Even more so.

These aren't loner philosophers.

[Anonymous No.6887316]

>>6887302
This. Men cant stand that women don't necessarily want them in their lives any more.

[Anonymous No.6887321]

>>6886692
>Does it really hurt men that much to admit that men of the past did some terrible things to women? It isn't as if that makes you bad personally.

It doesn't hurt, but it is too much for anyone to ask. Not because of how anything reflects on anyone personally (which your slimy one-sided accusations completely do, btw) but because you want to use that made up accusation as an excuse to get one over on men, not only reputationally, but financially, socio-politically, in terms of 'privilege'.

additionally if we begin to make an effort to re-balance all of the transgressions anyone has made against anyone in all of history we will be stuck in an endless mire of impossible to prove accusations. Even given the idea of reliable histories (loud laughter) how ought one to perform the calculus of one injustice weighed against another? how shall anyone decide where debts lay, how they compound, how they might cancel each other.

Furthermore, don't for a second imagine that all historical injustices have been perpetrated against women by men, the opposite happens just as frequently, however complaints by men are not taken seriously, the reflect poorly on the character of the man making them, whereas women have leeway.

I for one, believe adultery should again be made illegal, and that this would do wonders for the state of marriage and divorce.

suck my dick

[Anonymous No.6887348]

>>6887262
women, as all people, want power.

sex and reproduction simply happens to be the most-highly-rewarded-by-evolution avenue towards power for women, thus pleasure is found in the act.

[Anonymous No.6887356]

>>6886692
It's not my responsibility to feel guilt at what people who also have a penis did years before my birth. This is a perfect instance of how spooky women's sense of responsibility is; to be concise, feminism is like the final slave revolt in morals - not liberation, but moralizing.

[Anonymous No.6887461]

>>6887356
>It's not my responsibility to feel guilt
Admitting responsibility does not necessarily lead to feeling guilt unless you're a woman tbh

[Anonymous No.6887466]

>>6887356
Well done for not being able to read.

[Anonymous No.6887485]

>>6887356
It's not my responsibility to feel guilt at what people who also have a penis did years before my birth
I don't even care for "muh women" but boy do you people piss me off
I bet you also go around telling people to "live and let live XD"

[Anonymous No.6887520]

>philosophiNEETS trying to back up their hatred of women with outdated philosophical thought and dank /r9k/ memes

4chan is a horrible place tbh

[Anonymous No.6887553]

>>6887466
Alright I guess I'll own up to the fact that I didn't read the whole post to which I was responding.

[Anonymous No.6887616]

[Anonymous No.6887625]

>>6887616
I like how by what that wench says if we look at modern day society these free woman wear less and less clothes, bleed over some white curtain claiming it a work of art and all together become vile monkeys.
of course not all woman are like this but going by some sand nigger general apparently giving woman more freedom always related to them debasing themselves to more animalistic-hedonist tendencies. how I wish they were more noble by nature and not nurture (men can be accused by this too btw)

[Anonymous No.6887641]

>>6887625
What do you have against sex anyway you miserable prude?

[Anonymous No.6887650]

>>6887641
Not so much against sex but the stupidity that accompanies it. Maybe in some futuristic society where monogamy is a laughable concept, STDs are taken care of and unwanteed pregnancies are unheard of I wouldn't look at it with disgust, but right now my brain associates wanton sexual behavior with morons, hedonists, violence, jealousy and disease.

[Anonymous No.6887651]

>>6887641
He condemns what he cant have

[Anonymous No.6887653]

>>6887625
Did you just watch The Purge or something

[Anonymous No.6887658]

>>6887650
Literally how does that affect you in any way

Cheer up m8

[Anonymous No.6887665]

>>6886524
Because they look at the world.

[Anonymous No.6887675]

>>6887651
Calling someone a virgin because they disagree with your views on sex is just as stupid as calling someone a sjw. /pol/fag, etc just because they happen to be slightly to the left or the right of you. It's come to the point that those words have lost they're meaning, and posting them adds nothing to any discussion

[Anonymous No.6887677]

>>6887658
>something creates morons, hedonists, violence, jealousy and disease.
>thinks it wont go around
don't be retarded m8
just to make this clear:
morons: stupid people obviously, intelligent men are incredibly sexual but the lesser ones seem to become stupider the more they receive (no thoughts about woman here)
hedonists: they stop caring about mental cultivation and instead seek sensual pleasures entirely
violence: on a smaller scale, rape. On a larger scale, I can trace back the buffoonery of gangbangers in the US to some kind of primal hierarchy based on sex.
jealousy: more often than not a partner will cheat, and the result will obviously lead to emotional distress of the betrayed partner
disease: like morons, easy to understand. STDs are a fact and aren't always preventable.

>"le live and let live maymay"

I'm not telling you how to live your life, just pointing out that certain things are contemptible.
In reality, only a dumb feminist or a communist would have something against what I've written here.

[Anonymous No.6887683]

>>6887650
First time I took the plunge and engaged in a casual encounter, I caught something.

[Anonymous No.6887694]

>>6887641
We're slowly but surely moving past the stigma against 'prudish' attitudes.

It was merely a reaction against all the prudishness of boomers' parents, after all.

[Anonymous No.6887697]

>>6887677
God I can just picture you now. I hope people bully you regularly.

[Anonymous No.6887700]

>>6887697
I'm an amiable but aloof fellow, nobody talks to me so don't worry.

[Anonymous No.6887706]

>>6887700
meant to say polite instead of amiable

[Anonymous No.6887722]

>>6887650
>wanton sexual behavior with morons, hedonists, violence, jealousy and disease.
which leads to drama and tragedy. People cannot live without feeling alive, so all is well, especially when the cost is spread amongst all the individuals, even the ones not doing anything.

[Anonymous No.6887745]

>>6887694
>We're slowly but surely moving past the stigma against 'prudish' attitudes.
hopefully, this is why I promote open-relaitonships, cuckoldry, candaulism, because it makes women cheaper with larger choice on the market.

It is really how to make women compete between each other. The price is that betas-providers pay the bill, actually, they even love to share their wives. They believe that they are in control, and the lover is actually the loser.

husbands are kind of pathetic on this one, but as long as they feel good, they let you do anything that you and their wives want.

And there is no pity to have towards them since they are the type of men to accept anything from the female (and women will be women, aka want pleasures through sex mostly and sustain these pleasures through money), from being knocked up by a few other lovers, or even fucked by strangers while pregnant.

Sometimes, you can even fuck,on the hush-hush, their daughters who crave nothing but a piece of the action.
Rarely, without the husband, you can convince the mother and the daughter for a threesome [and they think that the idea comes from them, if you are good]

[Anonymous No.6887753]

>>6887722
Anon clearly thinks everybody should be loke himself and live with their parents and waste their days away reading about irrelevant philosophers

[Anonymous No.6887761]

>>6887745
kok wyt

[Anonymous No.6887766]

>>6887753
You are clearly a cuckold.

[Anonymous No.6887785]

>>6887745
Ever get wives pregnant?

[Anonymous No.6887810]

>>6886643
Humans don't have purposes, noob.

[Anonymous No.6888830]

>>6887753
How is dicking around relevant?

[Anonymous No.6888845]

That women can't understand why anyone would find fault with them is the ultimate proof of their inferiority. Their symbol is a hand mirror (vanity), and that's all you need to know.

If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance. -- Augustus of Rome

[Anonymous No.6889089]

>>6887044
As Nietzsche put it,

>The happiness of man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: He will. 'Behold! now hath the world become perfect!'—thus thinketh every woman when she obeyeth with all her love. Obey, must the woman, and find a depth for her surface. Surface is woman's soul—a mobile, stormy film on shallow water. Man's soul, however, is deep, its torrent gusheth in subterranean caverns: woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.—

In a way, this passage makes me think that some feminists are the real misogynists. Some of them don't seem to respect, appreciate, or praise the feminine as well as he does here. On the contrary, they seem to reject the true feminine.

[Anonymous No.6889153]

>>6889089

Where does he say this?

[Anonymous No.6889174]

>>6889153
Zarathustra chapter 18 I'm guessing.

[Anonymous No.6889274]

>>6886570
tru

[Anonymous No.6889563]

>>6889089
>being a slave is supposed to make you happy

Didn't Nietzsche teach against this kind of thinking?

[Anonymous No.6889927]

>>6889174
I think Nietzsche ultimately meant Zarathustra to be a neckbeard on some serious shrooms and was not to be taken literally.

[Anonymous No.6889996]

>>6886559
yup
dont know about ludovici but Schopenhauer couldnt get it up and Nietzsche probably died a virgin

[Anonymous No.6890001]

>>6886573
Thats like being the tallest midget or the smartest kid on the short bus

[Anonymous No.6890005]

>>6889996
Schopenhauer was even accused of being adulterous due to how much fucking around he did. The funny part is that he never bragged about it, rather he felt himself a victim of his strong instinct. Kek.

[Anonymous No.6890107]

>>6889563
>Didn't Nietzsche teach against this kind of thinking?

No. Slave morality is better for slaves, master morality is better for masters. Same goes for masculine/feminine identity traits.

The times N. does explicitly rant against slave morality is not to condemn it entirely, but to free potential higher men from its pervasive grasp on the modern world.

[Anonymous No.6890151]

i think it was just ignorance tbh

[Anonymous No.6890217]

>>6886574
just once i'd like to read something sexist without obvious typos

[Anonymous No.6890916]

ok

[Anonymous No.6892576]

Woman are whores though.