/sci/ - Science & Math

what happens if you take testosterone and estrogen at the same time? do they cancel out or do you become the most effeminate chad?

>>15930037
>Also does this mean that people who aren't politically conservative are low-T sissies?
No, it means that when your thinking is impaired by hormones you are less critical and more reactionary. Sound like anyone you know?

>>15930051
tbf the worst reactionaries are neoliberals because tards and midwits that make up the majority of almost any population repeatedly fall for their claims of progress.

>>15930051
Women?

>>15930049
You become a Jojo character

>>15930077
Yes. Women and conservatives are emotional.

>>15930060
You sound reactionary and emotional.

>>15930037
Testosterone is also higher among criminals, and among criminals testosterone is higher among violent criminals and rapists. I wouldn’t consider the presence of this hormone an endorsement of a belief system.

>>15930049
I think the testosterone would just convert to estrogen.

>>15930336
No, he's using his marxist jargon. "Critical" means "having revolutionary consciousness" and "reactionary" means "not revolutionary".
He could be chimping out and flinging his own shit and still not count as "reactionary".

>>15930051
What keeps getting your panties in a twist wvery single day?

>>15930367
I'm pretty sure he's just using the words to mean what they actually mean and you're an ignoramus. But inasfar as "ignoramus" and "cosnervative" overlap and you use "Marxist" to mean the opposite of those, yes, you are correct.

>>15930394
So are you black or a tranny?

>>15930404
Fortunately, I'm a skilled conservative-English translator, so I can confirm for you: yes, I do disagree with you politically, well spotted.

>>15930405
This bit was stale in 2010, actually probably more like 2005

>>15930356
>Testosterone is also higher among criminals
Source?
>and among criminals testosterone is higher among violent criminals and rapists
Source?

>>15930443
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings.

>>15930367
No, I'm him and you need to take your meds or find a psychiatrist.

>>15930450
>another Tea Party tier quip
Man, you sure are unoriginal

>>15930037
Without manhood you get essentially a bunch of useless whiners who consume everything they produce and more, a perfect anti-worker class even though it is brainwashed by capitalists from early childhood to think of itself as revolutionary. These half-men are called lumpenproletariat. Give them a little test and it amplifies the signal to noise ratio in their undead brains and they become individuals again I suppose.

>>15930469
I thought conservatives loved tradition? Not like you lot have come up with a new joke since 2009.

>>15930471
Here, now this guy is attempting (poorly) to drop some Marxist jargon

>>15930356
It's easy, we just feed violent criminals a onions diet, badabing badaboom

>>15930051
Being reactionary is literally being critical.

>>15930514

>>15930520
Poorly? What is poorly about this you failed faggot? I'm interested on your midwit response

>>15930612
>on

>>15930613
That's your response or...?

>>15930037
Debunked chud
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadwv/testosterone-hormone-politics-research

>>15930639
>hormone-politics-research
tell me you're a burger without telling me you're a burger

>>15930640
Go to sleep raj

>>15930049
Have you been to an inner city ghetto? That's the behavioral outcome of too much of both.

>>15930049
Does this explain why so many trannies are 6ft+ aryans with chad jawlines and linebacker shoulder width?

>>15930639
>vice.com
owned in part by rupert murdoch and george soros, its just a propaganda outlet, nothing on that site is true.

>>15930594
Lol, no.

Strong men are conservative
Weak men are liberal

NEWS @ 11

>>15930715
>owned in part by rupert murdoch and george soros,
actually owned by their debtors

>>15930446
Brother, it’s not hard to find. This paper presents findings associating testosterone with criminality, but the introduction also cites additional studies if you are curious:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X22001544

>>15930715

>>15931010
Some of the scrawniest dweebs you've ever met are staunchly conservative. Cosnervatism is all about projecting the appearance of strength, not about possessing actual strength.

>>15932753
>Some of
This is what passes as science.

>>15932857
Are you disputing it?
Fine, ALL of the scrawniest dweebs you've ever met are staunchly conservative. The scrawnier they are, the more they regress into masculine empty posturing.

The very fact that they are ruled by their hormones and not logic or reason just shows that most average voters are dumb.

>>15930037
>Also does this mean that people who aren't politically conservative are low-T sissies?
Yes.

>>15932753
If I were to put a picture of leftist protesters side-by-side with a picture of rightist protesters, which picture would have more scrawny dweebs? How about a picture of antifa vs. a picture of neo nazis?

For some reason, I really doubt your claim. Maybe it's because I live in reality.

>>15932903
>For some reason, I really doubt your claim.
Look in the mirror. Or just think back to high school. Who's the kid scratching swastikas into his desk in the corner? It's not the quarterback.

>>15932915
>High school quarterbacks are well known for being leftists.
Your entire series of posts relies on you trying very hard, and failing hilariously, to cherry pick outliers and declare them to be the norm. If you're just attention whoring because you're lonely, well, here's your (you) but if you're actually trying to convince anyone here that your silly examples define entire groups, you've failed miserably and only made yourself and your cause look stupid.

Let's check in with leftist media and see what they have to say on the subject.

>>15932915
>Who's the kid scratching swastikas into his desk in the corner?
It's funny because I actually remember one of my friends drawing swastikas, making the teacher angry, and he was literally the biggest and tallest guy in the entire school.

>>15930037
>Is it really possible to change the way people think using hormones like picrel article suggests?
Anyone who votes is a certified NPC. You're not talking about people. You're talking about automatons animated by hormones and neurotransmitters in a straightforward linear fashion. Why does it surprise you that you can make them vote differently by manipulating their hormonal balance? What else would politics be decided by if not simplistic mechanisms like this?

>>15932915
From my experience, it was.

>>15932941

>>15930051
Leftism is a mental illness caused by testosterone deficiency. You can't think straight because you are hormonally imbalanced, and you are demonstrating this as we speak with your feminine science denialist thought-terminating cliches.

>>15932929
No, it's not about declaring outliers to be the norm. It's that, past a certain point, the correlation no longer holds. The quarterback probably does have some conservative views, as socially successful people often do - he thinks the system is fair, he believes in social hierarchy, he probably has some regressive attitudes towards women. But the nerd posting ranting screeds on incel forums about how we need to go back to arranged marriages is ten times more conservative than him, almost in exact proportion to how much less manly he is. This is because he is compensating - like a cargo cultist, he is trying to make the correlation work in reverse. The quarterback is conservative because the system works for him. The nazi dweeb is conservative because he thinks being conservative will make him more masculine.

>>15932949
Ironic post

>>15932954
Mindless, botlike responses are another symptom of feminine mental illness.

>>15932952
See also: /v/, /tg/, /a/, literally all of 4chan. This website wasn't exactly founded on the most masculine hobbies, fellas. Male-dominated, sure. But not masculine. And that difference right there explains why everyone is trying to out-nazi each other here.

>>15932952
Ok. Now how about you take your testosterone supplements and get back to me in a few months.

>>15932958
I say ironic because declaring something to be feminine is itself a thought-terminating cliché in chauvinist culture. But your actual argument is the exact same as the one you're arguing against - people you disagree with are clouded by hormones, whereas people you agree with are thinking straight. It's tautological: it's bad because it's bad. Your post is therefore the one that is mindless and botlike, and I would almost say that your inability to see it suggests something about how testosterone impairs rational thought, but of course we can't actually confirm whether you're really masculine or just overcompensating on the internet.

>>15932952
So conservatism is not all about projecting the appearance of strength after all, and most conservatives do possess actual strength?

A man would have admitted he's wrong. A scrawny dweeb tries to silently move the goal posts. Check your testosterone levels.

>>15932968
I don't think I need any - I've had a full beard since I was 16.

>>15932969
Maybe if you start taking testosterone supplements you will understand the simple fact that a hormonal imbalance is causing you to think and behave irrationally. Emphasis on the word "imbalance". Men are supposed to have certain levels of testosterone to function properly. Low testosterone leads to anxiety, depression and other mental issues that correlate highly with leftist ideology and arguably cause a leftist worldview.

>>15932970
>So conservatism is not all about projecting the appearance of strength after all, and most conservatives do possess actual strength?
That's a false dichotomy. Conservatism is about the appearance of strength. That includes but is not limited to actual strength.

>That's a false dichotomy.

>>15932972

>>15932973
>Maybe if you start taking testosterone supplements you will understand the simple fact that a hormonal imbalance is causing you to think and behave irrationally.
Rationality can be objectively judged. You're jumping to conclusions. You're not being rational. And I'd say it's probably your own anxiety regarding your own masculinity that is causing this defensive attitude.

>>15932974
:>>15932753
Either you're arguing against yourself or you jumped into a conversation ignorant of what was being talked about.

>>15932980
>be (You), a little bitch
>misinterpret a impersonal point as a personal attack
>accuse me of jumping to conclusions
>immediately jump to conclusions about me
Clockwork.

>>15932977
>Beard length
Not the same as beard growth. Are you actually suggesting there is no relationship between testosterone and beard growth? Tell it to trans men. Tell it to menopausal women. Tell it to adolescents with actual hormone imbalances. Do you honestly think that if I were to take oestrogen supplements that my beard growth would be unaffected? Your own abstract says
>as men can easily alter their facial hair, beards may provide unreliable information about the beard owner's characteristics
>>15932975
Here we see the conservative masculine rationality in action lol

>Rationality can be objectively judged. You're jumping to conclusions.
You can tell them apart immediately.

>>15932983
I think you're being disingenuous and cowardly by pretending you don't consider it a personal attack to call someone's masculinity in question. Especially considering I responded exactly as impersonally to you as you did to me. Something appears to be clouding your judgement in that regard.

Arguing with leftists is the same thing as arguing with women. If you bother engaging these people as a "conservative", you lose automatically. Conservatives don't argue with women.

>>15932985
I'm sure there is a relationship. Just not a direct causality one way or another. Otherwise obviously would not have a beard. Or any soiboi neckbeard for that matter.

>>15932981
Third option: you don't understand the conversation, because there is no contradiction here.

>>15932990
What makes you think I'm a leftist?

>>15932989
My point applies to leftists generally. You just happen to sound like a stereotypical one, so it's a convenient rhetorical device. Your bitching and whining, on the other hand, is just another example of a feminine behavior. Either way, I can repeat the point you're trying to avoid without directing it at you specifically: it's a hormonal imbalance that's causing leftists to think and behave irrationally. Emphasis on the word "imbalance". Men are supposed to have certain levels of testosterone to function properly. Low testosterone leads to anxiety, depression and other mental issues that correlate highly with leftist ideology and arguably cause a leftist worldview.

>>15932991
>There can't be a direct causality otherwise I'd be wrong in my other assumptions!

>>15932993
What makes you think I was addressing you? This is pretty funny. Cry some more about fallacies and jumping to conclusions, maybe.

>>15932996
>What makes you think I was addressing you?
More intellectual cowardice. You're not exactly screaming "masculine" and "rational" here, Sally.

>>15932959
Weird how every single one of my posts has been obsessively replied to by the test brigade except this one

>>15932992
Either conservatism is all about projecting an appearance of strength or it is not. If conservatism can be actual strength without any need to project any appearance whatsoever, your claim is wrong. If conservatism can be anything other than "projecting an appearance of strength", you're wrong. Simple as.

>>15932998

>>15932995
There can be. There isn't. Check your testosterone levels. At this point, I can pretty much guarantee that they're low. It's not healthy for a man, you know.

>>15933002
Weird how you obsessively reply to every post except this one: >>15932994. Is it because you can't avoid the presented fact by going personal this time?

>>15932959
>>15933002
Well if /v/ has lots of wimps, then I guess that conservatism must be all about projecting an appearance of strength. Makes perfect sense.

>>15933006
Almost tempted to go ahead and do it because I'm so confident it'd prove you wrong
>>15933008
I'm only one man, give me a second

>>15933010
>I'm only one man
Not even that.

>>15933008
Your post is mostly just a rephrasing of one that I already replied to here >>15932973
Your entire argument hinges on unfounded assumptions. It's circular.

>>15933010
>Almost tempted to go ahead and do it because I'm so confident it'd prove you wrong
You should. It's easily treatable.
>I'm man,
Be real.

>>15933009
1. /v/ is overwhelmingly very conservative
2. video games are not a masculine hobby, the stereotypical gamer is not masculine
3. therefore, there cannot be a 1:1 correlation between masculinity and conservatism

And if one person is going to give me shit for relying on stereotypes you all forfeit the argument for being hypocritical beyond reason.

>>15933014
>Your entire argument hinges on unfounded assumptions. It's circular.
No, it isn't. It's supported by empirical facts:
- Leftism correlates with low T
- Low T correlates with mental illness like depression, anxiety, mood disorders etc.
- Leftism correlates with same mental illnesses
- Said mental illnesses correlate with irrational behavior
- Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists
You will attempt to ignore and deny this in your next post again, like the little bitch that you are.

>>15933017
>There can't be a direct causality otherwise I'd be wrong in my other assumptions!

>>15933018
>Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists
This is another tautology.
Your argument explicitly depends on stereotype, on equating leftism with femininity, and on declaring any deviation from what you consider desirable to be objectively undesirable.

>>15933021
All right, so there is in fact a direct causality between /v/irgins lack of masculinity and their over-the-top conservatism? Glad you agree.

>>15933024
>fails to address or dispute any of the presented facts
I accept your full concession. All the scientific evidence points towards you being mentally ill and irrational. Your behavior ITT points towards the same. Good luck and take your Tsupplements.

>>15933027
Third option: you don't understand the conversation: Conservatism is not all about projecting an appearance of strength.

Also, why are you so obsessed with /v/? I can understand someone being mindbroken by /pol/, but I've never seen anything like this about /v/.

>>15933028
>fails to address or dispute any of the presented facts
That's right, I didn't intend to. But now that you mention it, we can easily explain that correlation thus:
- Lower testosterone correlates with mental illness
- Leftism is more accepting of mental illness and less concerned with taboos
- People who struggle with even minor and perfectly manageable mental illnesses therefore gravitate towards leftist political position
- Therefore, leftism correlates with mental illness
- Therefore, leftism correlates with lower T on average

But there is another flaw in your argument, one that you seem implicitly aware of: you dismiss me (and leftism) as feminine, irrespective of sex. Are you suggesting that women are hormonally unbalanced by default and should take testosterone supplements?

>>15933035
I think the clearest sign that you don't understand the conversation is that you're parroting back my own words without any regard for whether or not they even make sense in context. You don't seem to be understanding what you're saying, so when I said it that meant you understood maybe half of the conversation, and now that you're saying it too, it means you understand nothing.

>Also, why are you so obsessed with /v/?
I'm not, I mentioned all of 4chan, someone else singled out /v/ and it's as good an example as any.

>>15933028
>>15933040
I should also like to point out that you declaring me irrational is based entirely on the chain of correlations that goes
>Disrupts conservative circle jerk with facts and logic > therefore, is a leftist > therefore, is low t > therefore, is mentally ill > therefore, is irrational
none of which are actually a given. But you can't point to me actually behaving irrationally.

>>15933046
Trying to weasel out of your own words like that is incredibly low-T.

You made the claim that "Cosnervatism is all about projecting the appearance of strength, not about possessing actual strength." You refuse to admit that you were wrong, even though you're incapable of defending that claim. You making the claim that all users of /v/ are some sort of wimpy nazis is not only ridiculous, but of course completely retarded when you try to use it to prove that conservatism is all about projecting the appearance of strength. Even if everyone on /v/ were precisely as you project them to be, it still would not validate that retarded claim.

Copy-pasting your own retardation back at you is all you're really worth.

>>15933053
I think the causality is more like this:
makes a retarded claim -> throws a hissyfit when confronted about it -> therefore is low t, mentally ill, irrational, etc.

>>15933059
I am not wrong. There is no contradiction. Conservatism, as an ideology, is concerned with being strong. This does not preclude actually being strong. But in the absence of actual strength, it is compensated elsewhere. And insofar as conservatism is perceived to correlate with strength, this compensation often takes the form of performative conservatism, virtue signalling if you will.
>You making the claim that all users of /v/ are some sort of wimpy nazis is not only ridiculous
What do you dispute, that they are wimpy, or that they are nazis?
>but of course completely retarded when you try to use it to prove that conservatism is all about projecting the appearance of strength
That's correct, because that argument wasn't intended to prove that. It's part of a related but different argument. See, I knew you weren't keeping up.
>>15933064
Phrase it with more subjective judgements and projection if you wish, it remains a bunch of assumptions.

>>15933074
>Conservatism, as an ideology, is concerned with being strong
being perceived as strong*
Fortunately I can count on all you rational masculine master debaters to overlook this error in good faith.

>>15933074
>I am not wrong
You are blatantly wrong, and you know it. I really find it hard to understand why people do not admit when they're wrong on anonymous forums.
>Conservatism, as an ideology, is concerned being perceived as strong*
Except it's not. Conservatism is a philosophy encompassing a ton of ideas. Conservative people are often characterised by strength, but that's as close as you get to your ridiculous claim.
>What do you dispute, that they are wimpy, or that they are nazis?
I don't use /v/, but it's the most popular board, so I can confidently say that they're neither wimpy nor nazis as a whole, and it's litearlly irrelevant to the whole issue. The only reason I even talked about it was because of your smug message going "look look nobody is replying to this bullshit I just concocted". Even if they were all wimpy neo-nazis on /v/, it still would not say anything about conservatism.
>See, I knew you weren't keeping up.
I really doubt that, but also don't bother to double-check, so have it your way.

>>15933040
>That's right
Ok. Then we both agree everything I said stands. Occam's razor says T supplements can cure your leftist. Try it.

>>15933086
>You are blatantly wrong, and you know it.
No. If you'd bother to try to understand the argument to begin with you might have a shot at actually proving me wrong, but your repeated insistence isn't going to cut it on its own.
>Except it's not. Conservatism is a philosophy encompassing a ton of ideas.
Yes, and so is leftism, and yet in this thread we're boiling it down to "low t".
>Conservative people are often characterised by strength
I'm willing to reach across the aisle here and slightly amend my claim and yours to the following: conservative people are often perceived to be characterised by strength. Therefore, people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism.
>I don't use /v/, but it's the most popular board, so I can confidently say that they're neither wimpy nor nazis as a whole
Wasn't /pol/ the most popular board for a while now? And yet nazis are quite disproportionally represented there. What bearing does relative popularity have on the political outlook of a board's userbase?
>Even if they were all wimpy neo-nazis on /v/, it still would not say anything about conservatism.
It would say this: it is possible to be very conservative and also wimpy.

>>15930037
They turned midwits(Democrats) into dimwits(conservatives).

>>15933104
>Then we both agree everything I said stands
I explicitly did not agree with everything you said.
>Occam's razor says T supplements can cure your leftist.
Just because you gloss over your assumptions that does not mean your theory actually has the fewest assumptions.

>>15933110
Balanced T levels correlated with better cognitive performance. They turned mentally ill and handicapped people into functioning members of society. This treatment should be mandatory.

>>15933111
>I explicitly did not agree
You failed to dispute any of the facts brought up and then explicitly confirmed you are not disputing them. Occam's razor says T supplements can cure your leftist. Try it and talk to me in a few months.

>>15933112
"Balanced" seems to be at odds with "excessive".

>"Balanced" seems to be at odds with "excessive".

>>15933113
>You failed to dispute any of the facts brought up and then explicitly confirmed you are not disputing them.
I acknowledge and explain the found correlation. I do not subscribe to your hastily drawn conclusion which depends on a large number of assumptions.

>>15933117
>I acknowledge
Good. This is where the conversation ends as far as I'm concerned. Your coping mechanists don't interest me. The following facts speak for themselves:

- Leftism correlates with low T
- Low T correlates with mental illness like depression, anxiety, mood disorders etc.
- Leftism correlates with same mental illnesses
- Said mental illnesses correlate with irrational behavior
- Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists

>>15933116
You don't think there is such a thing as too much testosterone? More T = more smart?

Which leads me back to the question I posted earlier, should women be considered naturally hormonally imbalanced and made to take testosterone supplements?

>>15932952
>>15932969
I can tell just from these two posts you are a massively cancerous retard who shits up multiple boards

>You don't think there is such a thing as too much testosterone? More T = more smart?

>>15933106
>conservative people are often perceived to be characterised by strength.
Good.
>Therefore, people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism.
Demonstrably false. See the arguments about conservative and leftist protests, quarterbacks drawing swastikas etc.
>What bearing does relative popularity have on the political outlook of a board's userbase?
The more people there are, the more they will tend towards the population mean by just about any metric.
>it is possible to be very conservative and also wimpy.
Which has never been in question.

>>15933119
>Good. This is where the conversation ends as far as I'm concerned.
That rather smacks of desperation.

I once again also point out I explicitly disputed your final point.

>>15933122
>shits up multiple boards
He very clearly shits up multiple websites and I'll leave it to you to guess the other one.

>>15933122
>>15933127
I can tell from just these two posts that you're both prone to making false assumptions about your interlocutors in order to win imaginary arguments. Par for the course ITT of course, but you demonstrate it quite clearly.

>>15933126
- Leftism correlates with low T
- Low T correlates with mental illness like depression, anxiety, mood disorders etc.
- Leftism correlates with same mental illnesses
- Said mental illnesses correlate with irrational behavior
- Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists
Your elaborate cope ("leftism appeals to mentally ill people because leftists are nice to mentally ill people, it's not because of politics and low T is just a coincidence!") smacks of desparation but everyone else is free to review these facts (which you don't challenge) and make up their own minds.

>>15933129
I'm not having any arguments with you, just presenting some pertinent evidence addressing mainly non-leftists, for the obvious reason that arguing with mentally ill people is futile.

>>15933112
Retard, that graph shows that high T creates midwits, while low T is for geniuses and dumbasses.

>>15933125
>Demonstrably false.
Except, again, for the widely acknowledged phenomenon of wimpy, emasculated men becoming virulently reactionary. This isn't just theoretical. Every single stereotypically nerdy hobby has a very vocal contingent of exactly such people.
>The more people there are, the more they will tend towards the population mean by just about any metric.
It is a mistake to think that any board on 4chan is representative of the general population. It is self-selected. Do you also suppose that /v/ has no more gamers than the average population?
>Which has never been in question.
It's being explicitly questioned throughout the thread

>>15933129
No, I just profiled your posting style

>>15933145
Notice how you are incapable of basic reading comprehension, and how your low-T-induced mental incapacity causes you to argue schizophrenically against points no one made.

>>15933110
Is that picture seriously trying to claim that ~50 % of men have an IQ of ~60, and another half has an IQ of ~140?

>>15933131
>leftism appeals to mentally ill people because leftists are nice to mentally ill people, it's not because of politics
You don't even understand. That is explicitly about politics. You're the one saying it's not about politics. The point is that that is actually a very rational thing to do.

Third reminder that you are continuing to include the parts I did dispute whilst falsely claiming I didn't. You misrepresent me in multiple ways in your over-eagerness to claim victory and declare the debate settled. What is it you fear, exactly?

>>15932890
/thread

>>15933144
>>15933151
To spell it out: I don't argue on other boards or websites. You are simply imagining things about me in order to find some reason to condemn me. Which is what everyone else has been doing, but less explicitly. I'd say I'm more rational than all of you, which clearly means I'm also higher T, which naturally means I'm more conservative. So fuck off back to plebbit, commies.

>>15933157
Remember, 100 is an average

>>15933158
>my politics revolve around how people react to my mental illness
LOL. Yeah, that sure undermines my point.

>>15933158
>You misrepresent me in multiple ways in your over-eagerness to claim victory and declare the debate settled.
And once again, you misunderstand. I explicitly reject the notion that you need to be "debated". I reject the notion that anyone should bother having good faith discussions wiht you, try to reason with you, try to prove something to you etc. Addressing you is just a rhetorical device, an excuse to highlight the following facts:

- Leftism correlates with low T
- Low T correlates with mental illness like depression, anxiety, mood disorders etc.
- Leftism correlates with same mental illnesses
- Said mental illnesses correlate with irrational behavior
- Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists

I leave this to the review of non-leftists who still errneously believe right vs. left is a legitimate "political" debate.

>>15933148
>his isn't just theoretical.
That's right, it's merely horribly wrong.
>Every single stereotypically nerdy hobby has a very vocal contingent of exactly such people.
I can assure you that stereotypically masculine hobbies very vocal contingents of conservatives too. Are you seriously trying to claim that wimpy nerds tend to be conservatives, because you find conservatives in your hobbies? This is a riduclous reason to ditch all the actual data that points to the polar opposite conclusion.
>Do you also suppose that /v/ has no more gamers than the average population?
No, but I do suppose that the gamers of /v/ are not very different from gamers of any popular forum.

>>15933163
If don't want to be profiled don't use such identifiable language

>>15933168
But Gaussian is unimodal.

>>15933169
You think self-advocacy and standing up for your rights isn't a rational political position?

I mean, you can also try to deny that you're mentally ill in order to fit in with your conservative environment, never seek help, and double down on being more-conservative-than-thou to avoid too much scrutiny. It doesn't count as mental illness if you never get a diagnosis. As an added bonus, you won't be counted in statistics that way, making leftists even more mentally ill on average! You're not mentally ill, they are!

>>15933174
>I reject the notion that anyone should bother having good faith discussions wiht you, try to reason with you, try to prove something to you etc.
I have done nothing but provide you with good faith rational arguments, and in the end you just throw up your hands like this? If anything can be considered a concession, it's this. You are incapable of rational discussion. You avoid it like the plague. You fear the outcome and the ensuing loss of face from exposing your irrationality and weakness.

>>15933179
>You think self-advocacy and standing up for your rights isn't a rational political position?
Only within the context of the bigger picture of your core beliefs, which surely aren't determined by how people react to your mental illness. You wouldn't understand this, being mentally ill.

>>15933175
>That's right, it's merely horribly wrong.
You yourself said you don't use /v/. You're out of your element here.
>I can assure you that stereotypically masculine hobbies very vocal contingents of conservatives too.
I don't doubt it, but that actually is something that doesn't tell us anything of relevance.
>No, but I do suppose that the gamers of /v/ are not very different from gamers of any popular forum.
And male gamers everywhere grapple with their perceived lack of masculinity.

>>15933183
Sorry, I don't "debate" women and gay men. Just dropping some facts:

- Leftism correlates with low T
- Low T correlates with mental illness like depression, anxiety, mood disorders etc.
- Leftism correlates with same mental illnesses
- Said mental illnesses correlate with irrational behavior
- Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists

>>15933176
I wouldn't know what you consider to be "identifiable" because it appears to be based on websites you visit, not I. By all means, though, continue with your pointless conjecture.

Why are low-T men so obsessed with this endless, futile bickering they call "debate"? If they're so desperate to prove themselves, why don't they choose action instead of babble?

>posting on 4chan ever
>not mentally ill
Chose exactly one(1).

>>15933185
>Only within the context of the bigger picture of your core beliefs, which surely aren't determined by how people react to your mental illness.
That's right, they're determined by your T levels.

Jokes aside, a coherent belief system is precisely that: coherent. You can't simply look at its components in isolation. How conservatives perceive mental illness is grounded in how they perceive strength and weakness, fairness, justice, social propriety... just to name a few things off the top of my head. When you pull one thread, the whole tapestry might unravel. Not all at once, probably. But it'll be harder to maintain its integrity over time.

But you wouldn't understand changing your beliefs in the face of contradictory information, being irrational.

>>15933189
>I don't doubt it, but that actually is something that doesn't tell us anything of relevance.
It tells us that finding vocal conservatives in a group is not enough to claim that that group represents conservatism.
>And male gamers everywhere grapple with their perceived lack of masculinity.
So why talk about /v/ at all? Also, you can hardly even find a man in this day and age who doesn't play video games every now and then. That's just about equivalent to saying that every man has his insecurities, which actually is probably true.

>>15933190
>Sorry, I don't "debate" women and gay men.
There we have it. Fundamental irrationality. Just completely imagining things in order to dismiss someone as unworthy of consideration. That is the only way you can maintain your stance.
You look irrational to everyone except those who already agree with your irrational positions.

>>15933194
My good man, if volume of posts ITT were an indicator of T levels, how do you suppose anyone comes off looking any better than I do?
>>15933195
This guy gets it

>>15933203
>It tells us that finding vocal conservatives in a group is not enough to claim that that group represents conservatism.
Good thing I never claimed that, then.
>So why talk about /v/ at all?
We're on 4chan?

>>15933214
>Good thing I never claimed that, then.
If you didn't mean "people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism", you shouldn't have said it. Not saying things you don't mean is generally a pretty good thing to do.
>We're on 4chan?
We are talking about your claim that wimps are drawn to conservatism, which is untrue and to which /v/, and 4chan too, is irreleavnt.

>>15933220
>If you didn't mean "people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism", you shouldn't have said it.
I did mean that. But "people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism" doesn't mean "people who lack strength represent the entirety of conservatism".

And I consider 4chan to be highly relevant. A website devoted to Japanese girl cartoons, escapism, nerd and otaku culture, and NEETdom. Apart from the late additions of /fit/ and /sp/, this site has always been about the sort of things that would get you laughed at by girls in school, and the userbase reflected it. Regardless of topic, the background radiation of virtually every board on this website consists of two things: lack of success with women, and reactionary politics. 4chan also highly stimulated the burgeoning incel/red pill community, which synthesises the two.

>>15933202
>That's right, they're determined by your T levels.
They're determined by you, except when your whole perception of reality is shaped by mental illness caused by hormonal imbalances.

>>15933206
>Fundamental irrationality.
Prove that it is irrational for me to dismiss you for being a feminine little bitch. You can't. Your own idea of rational behavior is an irrational fairytale.

>>15933202
>all this incoherent rambling
you sound really upset, maybe take some time off lol

>>15933239
The data points towards weak people being more attracted to leftism than to conservatism, so your claim is wrong.
>A website devoted to Japanese girl cartoons, escapism, nerd and otaku culture, and NEETdom.
If we go by that line of reasoning, it'd be way more accurate to say that people who like freedom of speech are drawn to conservatism. In fact, I suspect that conservatism is popular here precisely because it is difficult to be conservative elsewhere. I'm sure there are plenty of forums for neets, otakus and girl cartoons where the userbases are not conservative.

>>15933247
So right-wingers determined their own views but leftists are influenced by hormones, that about right?
>>15933250
So you get to be the arbiter of rationality because you are a priori rational and therefore what you do and say is by definition rational? And in spite of this, you need to come up with fairytales yourself in order to find reasons to dismiss me. Again, if I were actually irrational, you could just point that out. But instead you assume I'm gay or a woman (but not a gay woman; her t-levels would probably make her rational, right?) and declare me irrational based on that. Putting the cart before the horse. The only one to actually demonstrate irrationality directly is you.
>>15933254
I'm not upset, I know I'm perfectly coherent and you are in fact trying to upset me by pretending otherwise.

>>15933257
I don't even understand why you bother denying any of his points. They don't help his case in any way. 4chan is full of losers by circumstance who lean right because at their core, they aspire to be men. Runts like him, i.e. genetic loers, lean left because they aspire to nothing, they just want the world to change to suit their disabilities.

>>15933257
>If we go by that line of reasoning, it'd be way more accurate to say that people who like freedom of speech are drawn to conservatism.
That is easily disproved by looking at who's out there banning books. Besides, if people only came here for the "freedom of speech" then all the hobby boards would be empty.

>>15933239
Are you even aware of how cliche you are?

>>15933263
>So right-wingers determined their own views but leftists are influenced by hormones, that about right?
Not what I said. You're too stupid for basic reading comprehension. I won't even dignify you with the assumption that you're intentionally arguing like a jew.

>So you get to be the arbiter of rationality because yadda yadda
Notice how you've failed to show that I am acting irrationally by dismissing you. Try again.

>>15933267
>That is easily disproved by looking at who's out there banning books.
Confirmed, not disproved. Leftists are the ones banning and silencing wrong-think, which is precisely what book burning are in 2023.
>Besides, if people only came here for the "freedom of speech" then all the hobby boards would be empty.
It's the conservatism that comes here for the freedom of speech. And, as you've obviously noticed, conservatives enjoy hobbies too, which is what made you conflate wimpy hobbies with conservatism in the first place.

>>15933266
>They don't help his case in any way. 4chan is full of losers by circumstance who lean right because at their core, they aspire to be men.
My man what do you think my point was
>Runts like him, i.e. genetic loers, lean left because they aspire to nothing
I aspire to be greater than the spiteful losers that make up 4chan's rank and file, and you're lowering the bar for me

>>15933273
>Not what I said.
It was.
Your views are determined by you, except when they are shaped by hormonal imbalances. But also, one half of the political spectrum consists entirely of people whose views are shaped by hormonal imbalances. Meaning only the other half is legitimately determined. Which part do you dispute? Because I would welcome your support in arguing against you.
>Notice how you've failed to show that I am acting irrationally by dismissing you.
You dismiss everything I do and say as irrational a priori. That is not rational.

>>15933279
Why do you even keep trying to argue with me? I don't disagree with you that losers lean left because they perceive the world as unfair. The world IS unfair. Their very existence proves that the world is unfair. They didn't choose to be runts. They didn't choose their own genetics. They were born to be physically weak, emotionally weak, facially deformed, prone to illness etc. all of which correlate with both leftism and mental illness. Is it any wonder that leftist politics revolves around catering to runts that should have been killed at birth?

>>15933283
>It was.
Not reading the rest of your post. Come back when you understand and can explain why it actually wasn't.

>>15933277
>Confirmed, not disproved. Leftists are the ones banning and silencing wrong-think, which is precisely what book burning are in 2023.
Conservatives are banning books from schools and libraries all over the USA including a literal book burning only recently, have you been under a rock?
>But I got a lot of backlash on twitter!
>And, as you've obviously noticed, conservatives enjoy hobbies too, which is what made you conflate wimpy hobbies with conservatism in the first place.
There's no conflation here. There are, factually, a lot of wimpy conservatives on this very website.

>>15933287
>Conservatives are banning books from schools and libraries all over the USA including a literal book burning only recently
Name those books in your next post. You can't. Honestly, they should simply start burning public schools.

>>15933289
>Name those books in your next post. You can't.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=conservatives+ban+book+school+library
>Honestly, they should simply start burning public schools.
Ah yes, the classic "we wouldn't do that but also we'd be totally justified in doing it", also employed by the OG book burners!

>>15933287
Conservatives removing transsexual porn from schools is not equivalent to book-burning. Banning conservatives and deleting their messages from twitter, reddit, facebook, however, IS.
>There are, factually, a lot of wimpy conservatives on this very website.
Yes, and that's still irrelevant to your claim of "people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism".

>>15933271
Which cliché would that even be?

>>15933292
You didn't name a single book. How did I know?
>Ah yes, the classic "we wouldn't do that but also we'd be totally justified in doing it"
What's your point, cripple? This is literally true. Morally, it's both justified and necessary. Tactically, that's probably not a good idea.

>>15933286
It was, though. I will not be browbeaten into a false confession. Either you will be honest about the implications of your words or you forfeit.

>>15933293
And the good ol' "it doesn't count when we do it!"
>Yes, and that's still irrelevant to your claim of "people who lack strength are drawn to conservatism".
You'll want to argue with >>15933284 then, especially since he feels like I shouldn't

>>15933300
Thanks for demonstrating the depths of your mental illness. I guess impotent rage is causing you to hallucinate things no one said.

>>15933298
>You didn't name a single book.
That's right, I pointed to the wealth of news articles and reports about conservatives banning books everywhere which can be easily found. If you want a name: the Diary of Anne Frank, in one notable instance.
Anyway, your hypocrisy is a direct confession that you are highly in favour of censorship, in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that conservatives love freedom of speech. You love censorship and consider it "justified and necessary".

>>15933303
People who are men at their core are drawn to conservatism because conservatism cultivates manhood. The fact that some of those people happen to be losers like you doesn't change anything. They are still superior to you on account of being men at their core and aspiring to transcend their weakness instead of trying to create a world that caters to it.

>>15933309
>That's right,
That's right, you didn't because you didn't know any. Your claim was based on feminine gossip.

>>15933305
I explicitly explained how your words imply exactly what I said they imply. You had no response and in fact pretended not to even see it. Am I enraged? Not really. Am I impotent to reach a hypocritical and unreasonable coward through words alone? Yes, naturally, but I do not consider the failing to be on my part.

>>15933303
>And the good ol' "it doesn't count when we do it!"
Okay. We've reached the point where you're trying to claim that keeping kids away from porn is equivalent to book burnings, so I don't have much interest in going on. I wonder if one of my middle school teachers was a fascist, when he took away my friends' Playboy magazine...

At least try to be real here. Kids having access only to reasonable study materials is not equivalent to book burnings. Banning and permanently deleting wrong-think on the largest public forums there are, however, seriously is. If you think this is in any way hypocritical, you're beyond help.

>>15933309
>your hypocrisy is a direct confession that you are highly in favour of censorship
By the way, I did not speak a single word in favor of censorship at any point. You are a mentally ill troon and you are really losing it at this point. lol

>>15933311
I literally just named one. You are desperate to avoid the facts. Another irrational coward. None of you are exactly good examples of conservatism.

>>15933313
Your impotent rage is palpable. In your next post, quote where I said what you claim I did. You won't because you can't.

The funniest, most ironic part of all of this is that this guy flipped out over being insecure about his masculinity

>>15933316
>I literally just named one
>>15933292
>https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=conservatives+ban+book+school+library
That's not a book name. I challenged you to name one and you couldn't because your worldview is based on feminine gossip that you only bother to try to verify when you get called out.

>>15933309
>the Diary of Anne Frank, in one notable instance.
This is the kind of nonsense where you walk into a library, and there is a section called "BANNED BOOKS", and it has Anne Frank's diary, Harry Potter and 1984, and you can think of yourself a rebel when you read one of these BANNED BOOKS.

>>15933312
>We've reached the point where you're trying to claim that keeping kids away from porn is equivalent to book burnings
Actually, we've reached the point where you claim that being censured (not even censored) on twitter is equivalent to book burning, but actual book burning isn't. The fact that you also insist on conflating the mere depiction of a same sex relationship to be pornography is just a further indication of your dishonesty and irrationality. You complain about "banning wrong-think" and yet you use these blatant lies to hide the fact that that is what you are doing, when you have to use exaggeration to claim that it's what the other side is doing.
>At least try to be real here.
I am the only one here who's trying, in fact.

>>15933310
I am a man at my core. As it happens, I have often been explicitly assured of that fact by your fellow conservatives.

>>15933315
>By the way, I did not speak a single word in favor of censorship at any point.
You literally said you shouldn't just burn books but the entire schools and then doubled down that it would be morally justified and necessary. Frankly, if you don't consider that to be in favour of censorship I don't think I can trust your judgement on what is and isn't censorship.

>>15933320
Here >>15933247
Again, which part of my analysis in >>15933283 do you dispute?

>>15933326
Okay. You're an insane hypocrite.

Censorship is indeed what book burnings are about, and the ones engaging in it at an industrial scale in this day and age are leftists like you. Anne Frank's diary is still available for everyone. I, however, am not able to post on reddit. Modern book-burnings are entirely the domain of leftists.

I will be leaving this thread now. I don't think you're capable of admitting when you're wrong, and we've reached a level of insanity I can no longer tolerate.

>>15933330
>You literally said you shouldn't just burn books but the entire schools
Opposing indoctrination is not a form censorship. Teach your own children all about how to be a good leftist. The problem is that your likes don't HAVE children to pass this disease onto, thus they have to indoctrinate other people's children through the state.

>>15933247
>shaped by mental illness caused by hormonal imbalances.

>>15933263
>but leftists are influenced by hormones
Find the difference, yid.

>>15933323
Shit, I didn't think you'd be opposed to the very principle of reading itself
>>15933309
>if you want a name: the Diary of Anne Frank, in one notable instance.

Of course, I more than satisfied your demand for proof by any reasonable standard with that link anyway, so I was only humouring you by spoonfeeding you that, but then you start bitching without even bothering to read the entire post to check if I really didn't do what you said I didn't do?

>>15933345
I'm opposed to the principle of feminine gossip. Had you verified the information PRIOR to spouting rumors, you could have named a book instead of telling me to google it. Better luck next time.

>>15933325
Yes, I'm sure there are libraries and book shops that did that in response when it was banned in Texas and Florida earlier this year. There are entire conservative "concerned mom" groups that go around demanding books are banned from schools around the country.

>>15933338
>Okay. You're an insane hypocrite.
I am not, but you are an insane projecting hypocrite.
> Anne Frank's diary is still available for everyone.
Except school children in Texas and Florida
>I, however, am not able to post on reddit.
Truly it is anudda shoah
You are, however, able to post here
>I don't think you're capable of admitting when you're wrong
I am not in the habit of doing so when the facts suggest otherwise, no.

>>15933353
>There are entire conservative "concerned mom" groups that go around demanding books are banned from schools around the country.
So what? No one's stopping you from reading them, or from reading them to your children for that matter.

>>15933339
>Opposing indoctrination is not a form censorship.
Glad you agree. That is why children should be exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints.

Less facetiously, this is of course exactly where censorship starts: by declaring that it's not "really" censorship to censor certain materials because of course those things have to be censored and censorship is only when things that shouldn't be censored are censored.

>>15933344
>yid
Another irrational assumption. Somehow conservatives just can't seem to help it, can they?
Anyway, how do you figure one of those is not a paraphrase of the other?

>>15933362
>That is why children should be exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints.
You have no business deciding what other people's children should be exposed to. Nothing to do with censorship. Next.

>this is of course exactly where censorship starts
It starts with public schooling being used as a tool to indoctrinate children and triggering opposition that culminates in "banning books" in an extremely specific and limited context? If you think that's a slippery slope, maybe you should agree with me that public schools shoudn't be a thing in the first place. Then we won't have to ban books.

>>15933368
>. Next.
You're one of those guys. Figures

>>15933365
Everyone is "influenced by hormones", you disingenuous little weasel (colloquially known as a 'yid'). If you can be influenced by hormones to be mentally ill and have retarded political beliefs, the logical flip side is that you can be influenced by hormones to be clear-headed and form political beliefs rationally.

>>15933350
>Had you verified the information PRIOR to spouting rumors, you could have named a book instead of telling me to google it.
I did, in fact, do both, nor would I have directed you to google had I not been highly aware already of all the information that you would discover there. That YOU had not yet verified it is beside the point, because of course, that was exactly what you were asked to do. And you're still avoiding it because you are a coward. So many excuses to just avoid admitting verifiable fact.

>>15933358
>So what? No one's stopping you from reading them, or from reading them to your children for that matter.
No one's stopping you from reading your reddit posts to your children either, on the weekends you have them.

>>15933371
My point stands completely undisputed. If you think the self-defense measures public schooling forces parents into are a slippery slope towards actual censorship, maybe you should join me in opposition to public schooling. That way no one has to fight for control over something that no one should have control over except for the parents. But you won't, because you need the state to have control over this, because you need to indoctrinate other people's children, because mentally ill, ugly, low-T men die childless. Public schooling is how you reproduce.

>>15933377
>I did, in fact,
Then why couldn't you name one?


>>15933379
Incoherent and mentally ill babble. I don't use reddit and I don't care about reddit censoring its users.

>>15933368
>You have no business deciding what other people's children should be exposed to. Nothing to do with censorship.
How is censorship not exactly "deciding what people are exposed to"?

>>15933387
>How is censorship not exactly "deciding what people are exposed to"?
How is it that? Explain in your next post. You literally can't.

>>15933373
All right, thanks for clearing that up. So, in the end, you're still saying exactly what I was saying save for one minor point that makes no semantic difference. Everyone is influenced by hormones, but still, right-wingers are influenced the right way and get to determine their own views regardless of hormonal influence, whilst the left side of the spectrum is invalidated.

>>15933392
>Everyone is influenced by hormones, but still, right-wingers are influenced the right way
Not what I said, yid. How many times are you going to try to lie about it and get stomped immediately? lol

>>15933385
>Then why couldn't you name one?
I could and did. Anyway, you seem to think the point of asking for evidence in a discussion is not so that you can consider it, but to make someone dance for you like a trained monkey.
>I don't use reddit
That's right, the other guy conflated being banned from reddit with book burnings. You haven't given any example, though you can't possibly do worse than he did.

>>15933399
>I could
You need help. I'm not even insulting you at this point. I seriously believe you have mental issues that cause severe dysfunction.

>>15933390
What is censorship other than preventing people from being exposed to certain materials, thus deciding what they should be allowed exposure to? If you think that shouldn't be decided for others, then how is the solution not to allow them access, rather than prevent it?

>>15933373
>you can be influenced by hormones to be clear-headed and form political beliefs rationally
>>15933397
>right-wingers are influenced the right way
>Not what I said

>>15933404
Censorship is shrinking the pool of ideas independent adults have access to, not sanitizing a safe puddles intended to be safe for children while they're outside of their parents' supervision, you vile parasite.

>>15933408
Those are two very different statements. The degree of your delusional mental illness is really showing now.

>>15933401
I have literally named a book. You can look it up. I broached this topic because I was already aware of this book being banned previous to me mentioning it, which is why I was confident in bringing it up. I knew there were in fact many cases, which is why I pointed you in the general direction of a large collection of news articles on the topic. Your denial of this phenomenon based on your refusal to consider this wealth of evidence because I didn't jump through the precise hoops you instructed me is what's severely dysfunctional here.

What exactly is your complaint at this point? Not that I didn't name a book, that I named it too late? You have what you asked for, and then some. And instead of conceding anything at all you're on this weird tangent of pretending that the evidence is unsatisfactory because I first alluded to some 400 cases without naming them directly, and only afterwards named one book as you asked? You are on a baffling level of self-delusion and denial of reality.

>>15933417
Again redefining censorship! No, censorship is censorship, you're simply in favour of it in this case, and many others. I would at least somewhat respect you if you could own up to it, but I suppose the cognitive dissonance is far too great to overcome when your self-image is reliant on supporting "freedom of speech".

>>15933421
Take your meds.
>What exactly is your complaint at this point?
That I said "Name those books in your next post. You can't" and you didn't name any books in the next post. lol

>>15933420
I can see that they are different, yes, syntactically and lexically speaking. Semantically, however, they denote the same idea. If you're only going to bitch about the exact phrasing then I'm not sure what you expect me to do except quote you directly.

>>15933423
Ok. I am in favor of "censoring" school libraries intended for children outside of their parents' supervision. So long as this doesn't prevent competent adults from sharing and discussing whatever they think is relevant, nor prevents them from sharing any information they deem necessary with their children. Your little yidlike word play has zero effect on me.

>>15933425
So literally that I provided you with more evidence than you requested and not in the form that you specifically requested, though readily accessible with a simple click? Because again, this is simply about making monkeys dance? And when I humoured you anyway literally one post later you refused to consider it because...?

It's already evident that you're pathologically dishonest, I just wonder how you justify it to yourself.

>>15933427
>Semantically, however, they denote the same idea
You only think so because you have serious mental issues. For starters, one doesn't mention or involve right-wingers, nor does it imply there is any "right way" beyond suggesting that literal mental illness is not a good vantage point.

>>15933431
So then would it not be better to let children check out those books with parental supervision? The only point of removing them entirely seems to be to prevent access to them entirely.

>>15933436
>For starters, one doesn't mention or involve right-wingers, nor does it imply there is any "right way" beyond suggesting that literal mental illness is not a good vantage point.
So now you're going to make me go back and dig up all those posts where you harped on the correlation between low-t, mental illness, and leftism?
>I didn't mention it by name in *this post* so it couldn't possibly be what I meant!
You're simply amusing yourself, aren't you? This is like masturbating, to you.

>>15933434
>I provided you with more evidence
You couldn't name a book. You told me to google it. I had zero interest in the subject, I just wanted to demonstrate that you operate on feminine gossip, which is why I specifically highlighted the fact that you will NOT name a book. You behaved exactly as predicted. You fuck up repeatedly but you never own up to it. Classic little bitch behavior. Hope you write a long reply. I will hide it immediately but you're still gonna do it, even though you know no one will read it, because you are an ape with no prefrontal cortex.

>>15933445
>And when I humoured you anyway literally one post later you refused to consider it because...?
I also could've predicted you'd refuse to consider evidence that you're wrong and start acting aloof.

>>15933437
>would it not be better to let children check out those books with parental supervision?
They can take their kids to a regular public library or buy the book or find it online or anything else. The point of a school library is to be appropriate for children so that they could explore without adult supervision.

>>15933447
>you'd refuse to consider evidence that you're wrong
It's not evidence that I'm wrong, you literal looney, because there's not a single post ITT where I take any position on this issue EXCEPT that I have no problem with banning vile drivel from children's schools.

>>15933444
>So now you're going to make me go back and dig up all those posts where you harped on the correlation between low-t, mental illness, and leftism?
No, because that all still stands, as does everything I said in the post you just replied to. You are unironically very stupid. I don't know what to say. I don't know how to communicate with such a simple mind.

>>15933449
All right. And the point of websites like reddit and twitter is to please advertisers and appeal to the lowwest common denominator by creating a moderated space free of abuse. And you can easily take your opinion somewhere else. If literal book bannings by the right aren't censorship then people being banned for violating twitter's terms of service also isn't.

>>15933454
It's evidence that you're morally wrong and a hypocrite, but anyway, why'd you ask for it then in the first place?

>>15933459
These social media websites do what they do with the intent to stifle the exchange of information and ideas between ADULTS, which I've already stated that I'm opposed to. I don't know why you keep trying these worthless yid tactics. Either mental retardation or absolute desparation. It's never gonna work. I am simply smarter than you. Try it on someone dumber than you.

>>15933455
>No, because that all still stands, as does everything I said in the post you just replied to.
So then, according to you:
>leftists are influenced by hormones to be mentally ill and this is what makes them leftists
>It is also possible to be positively influenced by hormones into taking up a rational political position, which by implication is not leftist
>In the latter case, the political position is self-determined, in the former it is not
Which part do you deny?

>I don't know how to communicate
True.

>>15933467
>It's evidence that you're morally wrong and a hypocrite,
No, I'm not. I've already stated what my principle is, and I have not contradicted it. You're desperately trying to ague retarded semantics to prove that I'm a hypocrite under your definitions which I don't subscribe to or care about. It's embarrassing.

I don't think I saw any source other than the vice article (lol) try to disprove the OP

>>15933468
>These social media websites do what they do with the intent to stifle the exchange of information and ideas between ADULTS, which I've already stated that I'm opposed to.
Yes, well, your opinion on it doesn't really affect whether or not it's censorship. You think censorship is okay in some settings but not in others, even though in both situations there is an intent to create a space that does more than merely facilitate the free exchange of information and in both situations there are alternatives available. To say it's LITERALLY FIGURATIVELY book burning in one case but entirely justified in the other is inconsistent.

>>15933471
I don't deny any of that. A clear and peaceful mind is a prerequisite for genuine self-knowledge, which is a pre-requisite for genuine self-determination.

>>15930037
>Also does this mean that people who aren't politically conservative are low-T sissies?
They consistently clock at lower T and many other embarrassing statistics,like >>15932931 It's not usually brought up because, when you take leftists out of the account, people aren't generally neurotic enough to try and dunk on others over something that variable.

But we prob should, since now they gassed themselves up and convinced that their opposition is the incels. This projection can only lead to further deteriorating the dialog.

>>15933473
I know you don't subscribe to consistent moral standards, no.

>>15933483
>You think censorship is okay in some settings but not in others
Ok. I am in favor of "censoring" school libraries intended for children outside of their parents' supervision. So long as this doesn't prevent competent adults from sharing and discussing whatever they think is relevant, nor prevents them from sharing any information they deem necessary with their children. Your little yidlike word play has zero effect on me.

>To say it's LITERALLY FIGURATIVELY book burning in one case but entirely justified in the other is inconsistent.
It is perfectly consistent with the above principle, although you are too retarded to tell different posters apart since I didn't compare social media censorship to book burnings. Social media censorship is something far, far more malicious.

>>15933485
>I don't deny any of that.
Then why'd you deny it before? Had a sudden burst of self-knowledge in the meantime?
>>15933486
>It's not usually brought up because, when you take leftists out of the account, people aren't generally neurotic enough to try and dunk on others over something that variable.
Present company excluded, of course.

>>15933459
>you le ban books
>how? You're not paying me for promulgating them to kids

>>15933489
My standard is that it's bad to prevent competent and independent adults from freely exchanging information and ideas. This is my standard. If yours is different, I shit all over your standard. Get over it, yid.

>>15933495
A clear and peaceful mind is a prerequisite for genuine self-knowledge, which is a pre-requisite for genuine self-determination, yid. Suffering from a mental illness impedes if not outright prevents this. What's your objection?

>>15933492
>I didn't compare social media censorship to book burnings. Social media censorship is something far, far more malicious.
Oh, my mistake for accidentally conflating you with someone marginally less ridiculous. Yes, you are consistently hypocritical. What you are not, however, is against censorship, or indeed actual book burnings, in spite of your initial claims. You have redefined your stance continually whilst pretending it is still the same, and call that consistent. No, I had to coax some coherence out of you, and you're still putting "censorship" in quotation marks like a weasel because you fundamentally still believe in double standards.

>>15933486
>They consistently clock at lower T and many other embarrassing statistics
Like mental illness, facial deformities, general proneness to disease, low birth rates, you name it. Anything dysgenic is associated with leftism. It's almost like genetic waste gravitates towards an ideology that wants to build a friendlier world for genetic waste.

>>15933502
1. Ok. I am in favor of "censoring" school libraries intended for children outside of their parents' supervision. So long as this doesn't prevent competent adults from sharing and discussing whatever they think is relevant, nor prevents them from sharing any information they deem necessary with their children. Your little yidlike word play has zero effect on me.

2. My standard is that it's bad to prevent competent and independent adults from freely exchanging information and ideas. This is my standard. If yours is different, I shit all over your standard. Get over it, yid.

>>15933501
I firstly do not believe that all non-leftists lack mental illness, nor that all leftists are mentally ill, nor that being impeded in self-determination invalidates that self-determination.

>>15933502
Under your concept of censorship, a mother who blocks porn sites on her 7 years old son's computer is also engaging in censorship, which is apparently bad and if I think otherwise, I'm a hypocrite because it's a double standard. Stuff like this is why I automatically dismiss anyone who sounds like you right off the bat. In a sane, rational world, you would either be segregated or killed on the spot.

>>15933508
>Your little yidlike word play has zero effect on me.
Because you are a proud hypocrite. It is you who insists on playing with words, however, by insisting censorship is not censorship when you agree with it.

>>15933517
Obscenity is indeed one of the widest commonly accepted uses of censorship. This is what happens when people take up proud opposition to "censorship" as a political slogan without being cognizant of its exact meaning.

Anyway, that's all moot because you're a hypocrite for wishing me dead for saying something you disagree with.

>>15933515
You disagree with three things I don't actually believe and two of them are made up from whole cloth. Have fun "debating" the voices in your head.

>>15933520
>>15933527
Didn't read. Under your concept of censorship, a mother who blocks porn sites on her 7 years old son's computer is also engaging in censorship, which is apparently bad and if I think otherwise, I'm a hypocrite because it's a double standard. Stuff like this is why I automatically dismiss anyone who sounds like you right off the bat. Your idea of censorship is meaningless and retarded. My principle is rational and consistent regardless of your yidlike kvetching about labels. This is the final say on this matter.

>>15933528
>You disagree with three things I don't actually believe
You're rather inconsistent on this matter. Fine, I'm going to take your word for it this time. You do not believe mental illness is the cause of leftism, nor that mentally ill people are incapable of self-determination. Leftism is a valid political position and people have good reasons for arriving at it.

>>15933534
>Didn't read but also let me reiterate what I said before
You know what, didn't read the rest, just going to assume you're congratulating me for being perpetually correct and offered me a blowjob.

>>15933534
>Didn't read.
You're impeding the free exchange of information between competent and independent adults. Well, I'm assuming on your behalf.

>>15933535
>You do not believe mental illness is the cause of leftism
Pretty sure it's usually the cause but I'm not an absolutist. It's a mark of leftist mental illness to interpret general statements as absolute statements. It's a tactic to stifle discussions.

>nor that mentally ill people are incapable of self-determination
Your capacity for self-determination is proportional to your mental clarity, of which mentally ill people have little.

>Leftism is a valid political position and people have good reasons for arriving at it.
People rarely arrive at it for any reasons besides mental illness. Leftism as a political phenomenon is driven by mental illness. Your individual exceptions are irrelevant.

>>15933495
>Present company excluded, of course.
In the context of the typical histrionics still deathly wounded by the s o y ak meme, some decade later, and pushing their no u! response, as they understood it - that is to be a personal attack on their physicality (it was really just a bogstandard wojak with a goofy attitude and bad facial hair lol) the constatation that the Left is actually the group with lower T had to eventually come into view again and be memed.

It kinda reminds me of left being incredulous at being called cucks after spamming cuck porn enough for people to catch on, circa 2013 or so. Of course your actions will eventually come back. All you have to is made sure you're not in the cast-stone-glass-house position. But I guess, since a lot of Leftists are media-struck and believe they're elite-adjacent because they, in their mass, replicate elite attitudes to who should foot the bill for social costs of various libertine social norms or reductions in industrial outputs, they really did presume they'd be the more impressive cohort. Not so. lol

>>15933542
>>15933547
Sorry, I just don't care about your weasly cuntwhining. Here's the rational bottom line that hasn't been disputed in any way:

Under your concept of censorship, a mother who blocks porn sites on her 7 years old son's computer is also engaging in censorship, which is apparently bad and if I think otherwise, I'm a hypocrite because it's a double standard. Stuff like this is why I automatically dismiss anyone who sounds like you right off the bat. Your idea of censorship is meaningless and retarded. My principle is rational and consistent regardless of your yidlike kvetching about labels. This is the final say on this matter.

>>15933551
Now even /lit/ is here to dunk on this homo.

>>15933548
Ah, you've regained the courage to once again stand behind your words, albeit with some qualifiers. You're not an absolutist, after all! But I was right to point out you think leftism is caused by mental illness. Maybe the fault is not with me misinterpreting you but with you being circumlocutory to a fault. Another tactic to stifle discussions? Not that you haven't found plenty other tactics.

>>15933562
Leftism as a social phenomenon is driven by mental illness. It doesn't matter if "not all" leftists are mentally ill. For all I know, every single one of them is mentally ill, it wouldn't surprise me, but this is irrelevant.

>>15933551
M8 that's a lot of words to ignore the fact that this entire thread (not to say board, not to say website) consists of a bunch of deeply neurotic people going to great lengths to dunk on people over something that variable. I say present company excluded because you literally didn't describe the people here.

>>15933568
You mean like someone willing to spend 150 posts being buttmad at a screencap thread because he feels like it took a shot at his masculinity?

>>15933553
Didn't read. Don't care. Here's the rational bottom line that hasn't been disputed in any way:

Conservatives are hypocritical whiners who can only claim to oppose censorship by redefining the word, and they are moral and intellectual cowards who give up engaging in rational argument when pressed too hard.

>>15933573
Shut up, chud. I had a full beard at 16.

>ummmm sweaty?
>did you just block pornhub on your 5 year's old computer?
>this is LITERALLY CENSORSHIP
>i heckin' hate conservative hypocrites
>this is why we ban you from reddit!!!

>>15933578
Was age 16 before or after you became the world's most homo-nous?

>>15933578
Goodie two shoes for you

>>15933567
>For all I know, every single one of them is mentally ill
Yet you were previously incredulous and indignant when I even suggested you implied something of the sort. Indeed, it doesn't matter to your claim. You are now saying exactly what you repeatedly denied saying. Now, I don't know, but that doesn't seem to be a great sign of mental stability.

>>15933584
I never implied it. I made a general statement. You tried to refute it by interpreting it as an absolute statement. I shat all over your attempt by reminding you that it doesn't matter if all of them are mentally ill or just most of them. Your yid tactic failed again.

>>15933573
No, several people spent 150 posts being buttmad at me because I took a shot at their masculinity when I implied excessive conservatism is not a sign of masculinity but overcompensation for a lack of it. Which understandably hits a little close to home for a lot of people on a Congolese fetish carving website.

>>15933589
You sure sound mad.

>>15933589
Do you have a source for your claims?

>>15933586
Here >>15933485 you explicitly assent to my absolute interpretation. You've been consistently inconsistent.
You also:
>Insisted that saying you can be influenced by hormones to be clear-headed and form political beliefs rationally does not imply that is the right way
>insisted you didn't imply anything about right-wingers by claiming there is leftism caused by mental illness and then there are rational positions
>Insisted that "a clear and peaceful mind is a prerequisite for genuine self-determination" then later insisted that wasn't an absolute statement
None of this is on me.

>>15933607
You sound deranged and obsessed. Get help.

Threadly reminder:

- Leftism correlates with low T
- Low T correlates with mental illness like depression, anxiety, mood disorders etc.
- Leftism correlates with same mental illnesses
- Said mental illnesses correlate with irrational behavior
- Leftism looks irrational to everyone but leftists

It's time to stop treating leftism as a legitimate political movement. This is literally a case of lunatics wanting to run the madhouse.

>>15933607
>insisted you didn't imply anything about right-wingers by claiming there is leftism caused by mental illness and then there are rational positions
Oh, I forget, this was after, of course, explicitly tying conservatism to higher t-levels and declaring anything less to be a hormonal imbalance, declaring hormonal imbalances to cause leftists to think and behave irrationally, THEN insisting you didn't say or imply anything about right-wingers.
>>15933611
lol
>>15933618
How is it a "threadly reminder" when it's the seventh in this thread? Also, how do you square "leftism is not a legitimate political movement" with "I didn't imply that people cannot legitimately arrive at leftism as a political position"? You say "well it's only a general statement..." but if it's not a rational position then how are you suggesting rational people arrive at it? You spent so long arguing semantics only to come out and say "oh yeah actually I do explicitly mean to invalidate one half of the political spectrum" which was exactly what I said you were doing and repeatedly denied

>>15933618
>How is it a "threadly reminder" when it's the seventh in this thread?
Oh yeah speaking of "deranged and obsessed"

>>15933626
>how do you square "leftism is not a legitimate political movement" with "I didn't imply that people cannot legitimately arrive at leftism as a political position"?
By rubbing your nose in the simple fact that leftist politics is powered by masses of mentally ill people rather than by real or theoretical exceptions to the rule.

>>15933634
You avoid the question. If masses of mentally ill people declare that the sky is purple, would a rational person agree?

>>15933636
No, I didn't. You simply keep demonstrating your severe delusional mental illness. Anyone can read my post and see that it answers your question directly.

>>15933641
No, your insistence that it does does not make it so. If leftism, as a political position, represents the cause of lunacy, then how can any rational person arrive at it rationally? You can say the words but you clearly do not consider their meaning. Your pretence at fairness and hedging falls rather flat, and I fail to see the point anymore after you've already come out in favour delegitimising leftism in its entirety anyway. At this point it just seems like sheer contrarianism keeps you going. I point out you're doing what you explicitly say you're doing, so now you have to at least give the appearance of denying it.

>>15933649
Are you seriously so mentally handicapped you can't fathom how you can arrive at a given conclusion either rationally or irrationally? By the way, you really should cut down on the pointless cruft in your posts. I barely skim through it.

>>15933652
>Are you seriously so mentally handicapped you can't fathom how you can arrive at a given conclusion either rationally or irrationally?
How does one rationally arrive at an irrational conclusion? You keep hiding behind "generalities" without considering the implications of your words.

>>15933656
Where did I say you can arrive rationally at irrational conclusions? Quote it. Give yourself a sanity check. Man, at this point I just feel like I'm bullying someone with a real, clinical problem. Should I stop?

>>15933657
>Should I stop?
Please God

>>15933657
Here we go, playing the same game again.
>Leftism is irrational
>So leftists are irrational
>No, I never said that, people can arrive at a conclusion rationally or irrationally, obviously!
>So they can arrive at an irrational position rationally?
>No of course not!
What'll your position have always been next, I wonder?

>>15933661
No one's forcing you to be here.

>>15933663
Where did I say you can arrive rationally at irrational conclusions? Quote it. How come you can't?

>>15933661
Don't call me God. Call me daddy. Then I'll seriously consider it.

>>15933670
>Are you seriously so mentally handicapped you can't fathom how you can arrive at a given conclusion either rationally or irrationally?
A "given conclusion" in this case must refer to leftism. Which you declare irrational. If not leftism, then you've violated the principle of relevance and failed to answer.
So, in response to the question of whether leftism can be arrived at rationally, you say "a given position can be arrived at rationally or irrationally"; yet, when pressed, you say "I never said you can arrive at an irrational position rationally". Only logical conclusion: you are saying what you denied saying, that people cannot rationally arrive at leftism.

>>15933681
>A "given conclusion" in this case must refer to leftism. Which you declare irrational.
They are mentally ill and irrational, generally speaking, yes. Their stances are irrational. Now there may be some theoretical leftist out there who is totally sane, whose political acts are properly thought out and actually satisfy his values, rather than satisfy mentally ill impulses caused by a distorted perception of reality, but they will never be the majority in an ideology that, by design, appeals primarily to the mentally ill.

I distinctly remember a header that went something like "half of the liberal higher educated women have at least one mental illness"...

lol

>>15933688
There's a whole body of studies with similar findings. They consistently find that leftist ideology as a whole, or specific elements of it like views on religion, racism, relationships etc. always correlate with mental illnesses.

>>15933685
>Their stances are irrational.
>Where did I say you can arrive rationally at irrational conclusions?
>Now there may be some theoretical leftist out there who is totally sane, whose political acts are properly thought out and actually satisfy his values
No, there may not. You've excluded that possibility. You don't realise what you're saying. You keep trying to hedge it by saying "oh, that's just general" "hypothetically there may be exceptions" etc. but you've explicitly said that their stances are irrational and therefore cannot be arrived at rationally.

UNLESS your next move is to say that, when you said that I couldn't quote you as saying you can arrive rationally at irrational conclusions, you technically did not exclude that possibility, you simply hadn't mentioned it.

>>15933697
You have real mental and intellectual disabilities. 100%. No two ways about it. You can't comprehend simple English. lol

>>15933701
This is simple English.
Their stances are irrational. Irrational stances cannot be arrived at rationally. "Now there may be some theoretical blah blah blah..." - no. You've explicitly said there can't be. Why deny it at this point? Again, I can only imagine it's sheer contrarianism.

>>15933707
Every year tens of thousands of people run off into the wilderness, try to join far off monasteries or take other extreme actions. Out of all of them, a handful actually have a mental constitution befitting of such choices, and they are acting with clarity of mind; most are just miserable and deluded. This is not to say that something as inherently vile as leftism is comparable in any way, but just to help a mentally and intellectually challenged cretin like you understand how people can end up in the same place starting from perfectly rational or completely irrational positions.

>>15933718
So people can arrive at irrational positions rationally?

Whatever you say at this point, you'll have contradicted yourself multiple times over. You avoid giving straight answers to obfuscate it.

>>15933734
You are outright deformed. Someone should put you out of your misery and there should be extensive preventative action to stop children devolving into whatever you are.

>>15933740
You've got nothing but feigned outrage and indignance because you can see I'm right. You've blatantly contradicted yourself even as you were overconfidently daring me to prove it, and now that I incontrovertibly have, all you can do is call me crazy. You are confronted with your own irrationality, and you project it on me.

Seriously, this is just uncanny. Look at this poor cripple. Anyone who tries to inflict leftism on children should face some serious prison sentences.

>>15933758
See how he deals with the cognitive dissonance?
>Oh, he didn't just confront me with my own words in simple English which I repeatedly confirmed I stand behind, he's... he's a malformed cripple! It is a moral outrage that these people are allowed to go around proving me wrong!

I wonder if this dumb animal is always so mentally deficient, or if it's reduced into a drooling retard only when confronted with empirical data about leftism.

>>15933768
We're talking about nothing but your own assertions here, and the contradictions inherent therein. The baffling thing is, you didn't even have to contradict yourself. You could've just said "all leftists are mentally ill" and be done.

More generally speaking, I find it interesting how right-wing accusations of leftist mental illness always just devolve into
>Ugh, well, like, I shouldn't even have to explain, come on, it's so obvious, I mean, look at it!
even as people continue to point out the flaws in their reasoning. They also don't disengage; rather they keep butting in only to say "I obviously don't have to reply to you or refute any of your points!", as if they're trying to convince themselves most of all.

Anyway, having said that, I'm going to disengage.

LOL @ the dumb animal barking about the imaginary contradictions of the voices in its head. I wonder if this thing realizes that assuming all leftists to be mentally ill is actually charitable. The alternative is that some or all of them are members of some parasitical, subhuman subspecies rationally and intentionally destroying human societies to satisfy some subhuman bug values and agendas.

>>15933788
It's not an accusation, it's an observation.

>>15930037
>Also does this mean that people who aren't politically conservative are low-T sissies?
Obviously

>>15934561
‘Bioleninism’ describes a familiar phenomenon in Clown World – social rejects coming together to force their will on society at large. A feature of Clown World is that people who normally keep themselves hidden away out of shame are out and proud. Even worse, they are organised and controlling the narrative. Bioleninism is the thread that binds them all. The original Leninism was a kind of slave morality that attracted many of society’s misfits. Much like Christianity in the Roman Empire, which first became popular among slaves, Leninism first became popular among those at the bottom of society. In the case of Russia, it wasn’t slaves but drunkards, prostitutes, petty criminals and those shunned for cruelty. Characteristic of all popular slave moralities is that they bring together the resentful. Christianity did this, the original Communism did this, and now the bottom-feeders of Clown World are coming together to do it again – this is Bioleninism.