Here we share our darkest sentiments that would rub the general leftist community the wrong way
204 posts and 26 image replies omitted.>>798917Is that good or bad? And do you really care or is it just a gotcha to show that leftists arent that different?
>>798904Yes, and their leader killed himself after seeing how inept the mustard race is, google Nueva Germania.
>>799082What’s up with this bad faith persecution complex with this board lately?
>>798386>if you were to establish socialism in your country and then try and isolate yourself from the rest of the world, congrats, your country is now a backwards shithole.you're retarded. what happens is a socialist revolution happens and then porky countries sanction and embargo them.
>>798386>dystopian hell like north koreamaybe they're like that because the US destroyed every single city, bombed their hospitals, schools, and sanitation infrastructure, and then they were forced to rebuild their entire country from scratch while under heavy sanctions. Ameriburgers would literally become backstabbing cannibals under the same conditions.
>>799175that guy didnt get the memo. the financial times of London said north korea is booming.
>>799176any time someone says north korea is cringe without mentioning the history of what was done to them I get very angry.
>>799177This but unironically
>>799215why are you like this
Pol Pot dundu nuffin
Socialism may never happen within our lifetimes. It may only come about as an aftermath of the collapse of capitalism
>>799354Ethiopids are a Caucasoid-Negroid contact/transitional subrace (Orientalid
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Orientalid.html mixed with Nilotid
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Nilotid.html ) and Indo Melanids are a Caucasoid-Australoid contact/transitional subrace (Indid
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Indid.html mixed with Veddid
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Veddid.html ), so it is not accurate to say either group is fully “White”/Caucasoid, though I do believe that Middle Easterners should be considered “White” because they are genetically 90%+ West Eurasian/Caucasoid and the Orientalid
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Orientalid.html and Armenoid
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Armenoid.html subraces of West Asia are very similar to the Mediterranid and Dinarid subraces of Southern Europe, respectively (as seen in the pictures I posted), which combined with the fact that Italians and Greeks have up to 48% and 31% Semitic/“Roman Middle Eastern” autosomal DNA ancestry, respectively (due to Jewish Slaves being sent their after the Roman Jewish Wars expelled the Jews from Judea, with many of them mixing with and assimilating into the Italic/Roman and Greek populations), as shown in the charts I posted at
>>798455 , is the reason why many people (even myself occasionally) confuse Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans, thus showing that the only reason why many people call Middle Easterners “Non-White” is purely because of Religious and Linguistic differences between Europeans and Middle Easterners (ie. Islam versus Christianity and Semitic, Turkic, Berber, Caucasian versus Indo-European Languages, with the important caveat that Armenians, Georgians, and a noticeable minority of Arabs in the Levant and Egypt are Christian, and Persians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balochs, ect. speak Iranian languages which are a subdivision of the Indo-European language family), and in an Alt-History scenario where Islam never existed, and most Semites stayed Christian and the Iranians stayed Zoroastrian, West Asia probably would have been considered part of Europe, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️🧬!
>>799354I think there is a very notable facial feature that is different from europeans !
Marxism is correct.
>>801904How is this an unpopular opinion?
Virgin shaming is worse than slut-shaming.
Homophobia is biased against men more than women.
Women are also low key more disgusted by gay dudes than men.
They only like gay men as glamor figures
>>790286neoliberals had a lot of good ideas, postwar keynesianism was a busted flush and a lot of their proposals were necessary. they get a bad rap for three reasons
- almost everyone who prominently associated themselves with it is some kind of horrible sociopath freak, ranging from the merely selfish to the actively satanic who latched onto it only as a means of expanding human misery.
- people really really really do not like trade-offs between bad options. e.g. sweatshops are bad, therefore we shouldn't have sweatshops, without considering that sometimes sweatshops are the only plausible way a country is going to go from dirt-poor to middle income. this really isn't helped by the fact 90% of the people who'll argue this really are just pro-sweatshop creeps, but a lot of people who really ought to think more seriously will go "uh no [country with no notable leftist movement and no state capacity] should just do AES developmentalist revolution!" instead of accepting that sometimes the least-bad option is to let nike have their shoe factory.
- the implementation of "actually existing neoliberalism" differed greatly from the theory, which incidentally is also what sank keynesianism. e.g. most of thatcher's privatisations were into fake LARP markets rather than the real deal, reagan engaged in obscene protectionism against japan, tony blair personally promoted anti-EU and anti-immigration sentiment in a failed attempt at political triangulation, and basically everyone everywhere put too much emphasis on short-run fiscal rectitude (in the third world) or tax cuts (in the first) instead of long-run deregulation. in welfare terms, what should've been a move from provision in kind to provision of cash-benefits just became cuts in provision.
ironically public choice theory would predict this very well. people in a regulated industry will lobby for tax cuts (to keep more of their profits), but not for deregulation. (because that would let in more efficient competitors who'd threaten their profits), the IMF will lobby for fiscal rectitude (because lenders want their money back) much harder than for free trade (which might flop anyway given the US and EU remain protectionist), thus their movement dwindled into an obsession with tax cuts while all sorts of insane non-market mechanisms were invented to try and cook the books or deliver new public services without tax rises.
anyway, their time is at an end and while people will continue to call a corporate-captured state "neoliberalism" we're heading into an illiberal anti-trade warmongering era that will make 90s high neoliberal austerity privatisation as nostalgically appealing to leftists and socdems as postwar keynesianism / AES is today.
>>794381Upon birth, all infants, male and female shall have their DNA drawn for a forensic database for when they come of age and start mating. It could help with a lot of paternity fraud.
>>790627Most discourse about gender roles seem to have this sort of contempt for masculinity, treating it as a spook or an inherently negative essence or a defect.
On the other hand, they glorify femininity as “the default state of nature” as “divination in the flesh”.
Never mind the fact that most of their impressions of femininity is often just youthful looks, slender builds, and cutesy gestures.
They dismiss women whom are over forty or not cutesy/girly in manner
To start, I'm more than a little cynical about the quality of conversation that'll come from attempting to have this conversation. It isn't an intellectual conversation to other people, it's one where emotions take over and any number of terrible logic and bad arguments are slung. Hopefully here can change my opinion on that. This is a reddit account made for the sake of arguing this position here (and probably elsewhere if nothing productive comes from it here).
I think that children are capable of consenting to sexual contact with adults, and it's actually incredibly harmful to take that right away from them, and a violation of human rights. The normal arguments you hear against it are that the adult is always going to have more power in the relationship so it's inherently abusive, the child isn't ready for sex, developed enough, etc., and that there's too much risk for harm and anyone who isn't traumatized is an exception.
The idea that power dynamics makes a relationship inherently abusive is just outright wrong. Power dynamics only matter if the party with the power exercises it, and laws are an equalizer because they make there be reasons not to exploit power dynamics if empathy and compassion wasn't enough of a reason already. We only extend this idea of power dynamics to sexual situations with children, in all other areas it's actually expected and socially acceptable to exercise power against children (using hierarchy to get them to do what you want, physical punishment as deterrence, lack of consideration for their will, etc.).
Any sort of argument about development and puberty ignores the reason people have sex, people don't have sex just because hormones compelled them to do it, they have it because it's a pleasant and meaningful experience to achieve sexual release and increasingly so if someone you want to be involved is involved to. The idea that children aren't sexual creatures is to say they can't receive pleasure and have positive sexual experiences.
This is probably going to be the meatiest counter-argument that I have. I'll say it bluntly, no scientific evidence that uses unbiased samples (samples that represent the population as a whole) comes to the conclusion that willing sexual participation, or EVEN unwilling, is incredibly traumatic by itself. A study into the most impactful combinations of abuse on a child's happiness, finds that sexual abuse (defined as unwilling) isn't even in the top ten combinations of the most harmful abuse (Ney, Fung, & Wickett, 1994). Countless other studies find that early sexual experiences with adults are incredibly unlikely to cause lasting harm (Rind & Tromovitch, 1997; Rind et Al, 1998; Clancy, 2009) and other studies show that children who are willing participants in sex are statistically identical to the control group when it comes to issues of mental health (Arreola et Al, 2008; Arreola et Al, 2009). There's research that shows that minors who have first time experiences with adults have nearly indistinguishable experiences as minors with peers and adults with adults (Rind & Welter, 2014; Rind & Welter, 2016; Rind, 2017) and a study done of Finnish children that found that children are far more likely to report forced sexual contact than willing because they don't consider the willing sexual contact abuse (Lahtinen, 2018).
I personally see no reason to disallow child from having sexual freedom given all the research (there's more even) and find it immoral to deny them sexual freedom. I hope that having a conversation on a sub about reasonable discussions will bring me some actual solid and impactful evidence/arguments against rather than the usual moralistic squabble and argument avoidance of other places. I want an actual discussion about this and reasons why, in the presence of immense evidence that I believe is contrary, that children shouldn't be allowed to consent to sex, reasons the research is flawed, skewed, biased, or in anyway "junk science", or research that uses non-biased samples (i.e. not samples with a disproportionate amount of clinical patients) and come to the conclusion that sexual contact the child is willingly involved in is going to cause them some kind of lasting harm or problems. Thank you.
>>804251Thats a thing for any thread on here.
Marxists aren't that radical they agree with most liberal thinkers like Smith and Locke they just think they can run the industrial system better than the capitalists.
>>804199If anything I see it the other way around, masculinity is natural, feminity is fake. Women in hunter-gatherer tribes, peasant farmers, they aren't "feminine" although they still have masc/fem roles in their society, but just from our view a hunter-gatherer woman would be considered masc. There's that old feminist quote about feminity being fake BS that fucks women up.
Eugenics is good if done in a non-racist way
>>804298
This mentality is not an unpopular opinion and if anything is oversold
Mens grievances aren’t invalid and to stereotype them as gooner crybabies is hypocritical considering that women also indulge in porn as well.
Redfs are right that men are flaws but they’re projecting
>had no idea things were so bad. Most men aren't hapless victims of hypergamy where all the women just want tall and powerful men. They really are fucking losers gooning out and even when they have a girlfriend they treat her like shit. They have no point of reference for how to be a caring human being. Even their conceptualization of hyper masculinity is all fucked up. Men aren't out here building, writing, contemplating, they're just lifting weights and making pretend situations about how women bad.
Again another strawman.
Most men aren’t degenerate crybabies that treat their gfs like shit. That’s a minority.
And you’re reinforcing the expectation that men are supposed to be tall and powerful and accuse men of being losers for not conforming to that impression.
>>804298
This is a common strawman that’s promoted to guilt trip cishet males.
Most men aren’t rapist wife-beating crybabies
Most gooning men aren’t looking to rape women. They prefer to be left alone in peace.
Also women are gooning as well.
The men whom are masculinity poseurs are less than you think.
Men are still out having to build and write and contemplate.
Also most men do have a reference point for compassion.
All these negative generalizations about men as a general species are based on you being stuck with outliers of scum.
Once again proving that Leftypol has a serious misandry problem
>>804298
what lead you to this conclusion? i am interested but not convinced i can get a real answer, because what i really want to know is what psychological role such a conclusion fits for you, rather than superficial nonsense like your reasoning behind it. (the conclusion always comes first, then the reasoning.)
some of your reasoning strikes me as nonsensical: what does "has porn accounts" mean? "makes pornography" (obviously false unless your sample size comes from viewing too much porn yourself) or "views pornography" (close enough to true to be true, but that's basically a universal of the internet age. there are lots of countries where women - cis women - consume more pornography than men!)
if they "go after women or at least other trans" why is a key part of blanchardism the figure of the homosexual transsexual? why leave that out when you've already got a get-out clause for that one (homosexuality is fascistic!)
i've said similar things myself about cisgender men (although far from seeing them as the dominant gender, i see them as clearly on a downward trajectory. male status ain't what it used to be…), but the anti-trans part fascinates me. in my experience transgender women are substantially more likely to have a creative hobby than cisgender men. they are out there building, writing, contemplating… and of course, attracting the ire of deranged institutions like the British government.
>>790437bwahahaha
>>790410Dogs are bourgeois though
>>804313>i've said similar things myself about cisgender men but the anti-trans part fascinates me.Lol. Of course, you would've given him a round of applause if not for talking about the trans.
>Men aren't out here building, writing, contemplating, they're just lifting weights and making pretend situations about how women bad.How many fucking women literally have no hobby or interests whatsoever? I don't know in my experience, men always have some kind of obsession as if they're all autistic even if it's as lame as obsessively following sports. How many times I've talked to a woman and you ask them what their hobbies or interests are and they'll literally say "shopping." How the fuck is buying shit a hobby? Past that the only interests they might have is gossiping about celebrities or people they know personally. But you already know all that, you just have very low expectations of women and think men have to be a super accomplished renaissance man that massages his lady's feet and fights those who insult her honor or some other bullshit cliches or he's not even being worthy of being considered "a real man."
>>804317you make too many assumptions and appear to mostly be projecting hang-ups and insecurities when you accuse me of believing things i have not said.
i do not think men should act as you behave. i do not think being a "real man" is a real thing, and insofar as we force it to be "a real thing" it is not a
good thing.
to cut a lot of pointless writing: i think men should act in ways that are interesting
to me. men simping for women
isn't interesting to me and men whining because they think they need a woman to complete them but can't get one is
even less interesting to me. all of these people should be trying to beat mario 64 in half an a-press, none of them are free from sin. the underlying psychological motivation for my actions is that i am constantly seeking to be interested.
>>804328The second paragraph wasn't directed at you. Meant to tag the original post we're all replying to. The being some expectation of what he thinks a man should be was the general gist of his rant. Of course he goes and includes a photo of the "real man" he gets himself hard to after he has his biblically mandated procreation with his wife.
I feel you on the boring part, I too tire of this subject yet I occasionally get baited enough into responding. Probably because I'm really bored as well and that's the only thing people on /siberia/ want to discuss.
>>804313>i've said similar things myself about cisgender men (although far from seeing them as the dominant gender, i see them as clearly on a downward trajectory. male status ain't what it used to be…), but the anti-trans part fascinates me. in my experience transgender women are substantially more likely to have a creative hobby than cisgender men. they are out there building, writing, contemplating… and of course, attracting the ire of deranged institutions like the British government.Those trans women you mention are an outlier. Or rather that they're celebrated more for their gender status than their hobbies.
> cut a lot of pointless writing: i think men should act in ways that are interesting to me. men simping for women isn't interesting to me and men whining because they think they need a woman to complete them but can't get one is even less interesting to me. all of these people should be trying to beat mario 64 in half an a-press, none of them are free from sin. the underlying psychological motivation for my actions is that i am constantly seeking to be interested.Men already do interesting things but you're probably not paying attention to those. You're too fixated on the minority of whiny ass incels.
>>804296Eugenics should be exclusively for prenatal disorders/diseases.
So of course the jannies delete the post because it was ACTUALLY creating a dialogue and tension like I don't mind people contradicting me but mods can't have that. Can't have the goyim thinking.
>>804458They delete pedophilic apologia and allow anti-Zionism on here so it’s not like they’re allowing reactionary philosophy on here
>>804458>Can't have the goyim thinkingNo offense but can we stop with this line?
More often that, a lot of the “thinking” is just mindless visceral indignation over the same bullshit.
>why are le jews doing this?>why am I still a virgin while the opposite sex gets all the luck?And so on.
The white race needs to live on
The Worldwide Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the future Global USSR (All the SSRs and SFSRs of the future Global USSR are shown in the Map I posted) will flatten the Socially Constructed Reactionary Gender Binary, with all Women forced to have extremely short hair (Pixie cut or shorter, with a Shaved head being the most Historically Progressive), and Dresses/Skirts and Makeup/Lipstick banned in order to liberate Women from the chains of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity, while all Western Business Suits and Traditional Religious Clothing are banned as well with everyone wearing Mandatory Mao Suits. The Worldwide flattening of the Reactionary Gender Binary will ironically cause a noticeable Global decline in Transgenders (less Men will desire to become Women once the Aesthetics of Bourgeois Femininity such as Long Hair, Dresses/Skirts, Makeup/Lipstick, are banned for Women) in the aftermath of the Global Destruction of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity, though Sex Changes will still be Free and Legal to anyone who wants one, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️ 💇♀️👩🦲!
Additionally, any Woman who keeps her Hair longer then a Pixie cut (a Very Short Bob cut “might” be tolerated only if it is not a millimeter longer then the Chin, but I could change my mind on this very quickly, so it would be strongly advised that all Women keep their Hair no longer then a Pixie cut), wears a Dress/Skirt, or uses Makeup/Lipstick, will have her Head completely Shaved by the Female (mostly Lesbian) International Red Guards, who will march her through the streets wearing a Dunce Cap, force her to attend Struggle Sessions, and put her in a Re-Education Camp, where she will be taught how to become a Liberated Socialist Woman and embrace the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Highest Stage of Marxism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️ 💇♀️👩🦲!
When a Woman gets her Hair Chopped/Shaved off She is symbolically breaking the Chains of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity that Long Hair on Women symbolizes in the Patriarchal Superstructure of the modern Capitalist and historical Feudal Modes of Production (then it would have been called Aristocratic Femininity), thus meaning that Forcing Women to have extremely Short Hair (Pixie cut or shorter, with a Shaved head being the most Historically Progressive), along with banning Dresses/Skirts and Makeup/Lipstick and making everyone wear Mandatory Mao suits is the only way to Flatten the Reactionary Patriarchal Gender Binary and create Liberated Socialist Women, as Mao said “The times have changed, Men and Women are the same”, and the only way to create a Superstructure of Gender equality that reinforces the Socialist Mode of Production is to purge the Superstructure of all vestiges of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity that symbolize Patriarchal Female Subjugation and the Reactionary Patriarchal Gender Binary (ie. Long Hair, Dresses/Skirts, Makeup/Lipstick), and before people say “why not force Men to look like Women”, the reason why the Liberated Socialist Woman must have the aesthetics of Proletarian Masculinity (ie. extremely Short Hair, wearing Mao Suits instead of Dresses/Skirts and Makeup/Lipstick, etc.) is because the Aesthetics of Proletarian Masculinity symbolize Strength, Independence/Autonomy, and being a Liberated “Subject”, while the Aesthetics of Bourgeois “Femininity” symbolize Weakness, Dependence, and being an Oppressed “Object”, so a Liberated Socialist Women must have Aesthetics that symbolize Strength, Independence/Autonomy, and being a Liberated “Subject”, in a Socialist Superstructure of total Gender Equality resulting from the Flattening of the Reactionary Gender Binary and the destruction of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️ 💇♀️👩🦲!
Most of our fictional representations of ethnosexual minorities is just eye candy for cishet males and females so they can be fetishized and therefore be accepted as “precious pets”
Most LGBT folk in real life aren’t these drop dead gorgeous semi-bohemian folk whom are well read on philosophy/politics.
Nor are they automatic empaths that are colorblind or open to any and all kinks.
Most are just average academic intelligence, are vanilla, and some may have serious lookist biases against ethnic groups just like their cishet counterparts.
Reactionaryism is a thing in leftist circles.
Always was.
The whole “take the high road” is must for putting up a sycophantic front of decency.
Also, leftists need to stop acting like everyone who rejects their political opinions are chauvinists.
Unless you live in a shithole where it takes half a day to get through a polling place line, there's no reason not to vote. It's one day every 2-4 years, it's easy as fuck. The system doesn't give a FUCK whether you support it or not. You can have <20% voter turnout and it still counts. So "rejecting electoralism" doesn't mean anything. You just have to be aware of the fact that it has a limited impact and is not the end-all be-all solution to our problems.
>>804458Ok, nobody can reply to your first post anymore, but we have created the dialogue, so respond to your replies to continue the "dialogue."
Trans women are 100% women because they get more lefty ad they transition and far-left bleeding heart progressivism is the most womanbrained ideology of all time.
Trans men aren't men and never will be as they start out as and remain commie and anarchie chics instead of becoming conservative, chuddy or far-right.
>>805637Wrong.
You're using genders as indicators of political orientation/aesthetics.
>>805637Men are more likely to be commie/anarchy than women. Men in general are more inclined towards political action than women.
The bleeding heart progressivism isn't really woman brained. It's more man brained.
As is the bleeding heart trad worship.
Women will go for either that puts them on a pedestal as media darlings
Women aren’t inherently “progressive” by virtue of their gender
Women aren’t automatically leftist just because they’re the fairer sex
And not all women are into leftism
Most will go into moderate liberalism or radical liberalism, some will go into leftism some into rightism and that’s okay.
>>804534Forcing women to give up their “femininity” is just another form of patriarchy
There’s nothing wrong with women having long hair and dresses.
But I do support free will options for short hair and female baldness
Unique IPs: 36