>>13168

It's a news source from the BBC

OMG far right armageddon

>>13169
What seems to be the problem, lad?

If they're holding torches whilst doing Nazi salutes and chanting things like "white lives matter" and "Jew will not replace us" then it seems reasonable to label them as far right.

>>13168
"Americans"? What? You seriously cannot recall any far-right marches taking place in this country?

>>13173
It's the way Americans do things. It's just so... American.

At least when we have a far-right march it's proper skinheads rather than 4chan basement dwellers having a day out meme-spouting and ploughing cars into crowds of people.

>>13172

>What seems to be the problem, lad?

Men with beards raping vulnerable girls where I live. Labour councils ignoring this to get votes and nothing being done.

Lad

>>13175
Yeah nowadays all parties are chasing the pro-child abuse vote aren't they.

>>13174
Fuck me. They really want to go back to the Klan days and lynchings. Did anyone carry a giant fire cross?

>>13168
>Virginia
They aren't trying hard to get rid of the racist south image anymore, are they?

>>13177
I don't think so, but it wouldn't surprise me. Plenty of Confederate flags.

I think it said there were around 6,000 of them last night (>>/shed/14291).

>>13175
>Men with beards raping vulnerable girls where I live. Labour councils ignoring this to get votes and nothing being done.

>Lad

I lived to see "white working class" become just another pity-me minority group. Identity politics poisons everything.

>>13168
The fucking tiki torches and everything. How do they not see how laughable this is?

>>13175
Good grief.

I'm glad British culture doesn't allow for this kind of political fundamentalism. Imagine if on the news we had to deal with people shouting memes at one-another because of a Cromwell statue and then someone gets run over by a neo-cavalier in a shagged out Polo.

>>13169
>OMG far right armageddon

Carmageddon surely?

>>13178
In fairness the reason these protests are happening in the South has to do with Confederate war monuments being removed as state demographics flip. Looking at US history you notice that when this happens it sparks instability.

So it is more like the American South is starting to get its act together and we are seeing a reaction. Incidentally the flip to Republican in the American rustbelt is commonly credited with Trump getting elected last year.

>>13185
Is it safe to say that the American south is as divided as Norn Iron?

Silly really - for erecting statues for the people who lost the rebellion. One can only imagine how divided Germany would be were it not for the de-Nazification policies.

>>13186
The only equivalence is that they both lost.

http://www.esama.ca/warning-signs-that-you-are-in-a-cult

Oh, the driver was a 4channer alright. You can tell a mile off.

It was quite funny watching /pol/ on the other place shit themselves last night over this, using their usual tactics of spreading disinformation and then mental gymnastics to claim the driver was an antifa protestor who'd targeted the wrong crowd or panicked when they started banging on his car.

>>13193

I don't get it, he spends tens of thousands on the car, and then about fifteen quid on his threads? This surely should have told someone he was off his rocker?

>>13194
I believe they spend most of their money on shields and whatever other LARPing equipment they need.

>>13193
Seems odd they'd try to blame the opposition instead of just cheering him on. Beta uprising and all that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40914748
>The members of the "new-right" are being unfairly branded as "Nazis and fascists", she said in Charlottesville ahead of the rally. "We stand in confidence in our convictions, irrespective of what others think of that. And I absolutely believe that we have been misrepresented."
>"The heat here is nothing compared to what you're going to get in the ovens," shouted Robert Ray, a writer for the white supremacist website Daily Stormer. "It's coming," he spat.

>>13209
>being unfairly branded as "Nazis and fascists"

She said, surrounded by a group of men wearing German WWII style helmets.

>>13210
I wonder what it would take to fairly brand someone as a nazi?

>>13212
You don't, you just stand by and let them do it for themselves.

>>13210
There were Nazi flags there. You'd have thought he could have given it a quick iron first if you're trying to make an impression.

They seem to love cargo trousers and khaki shorts.

>>13186
>Silly really - for erecting statues for the people who lost the rebellion. One can only imagine how divided Germany would be were it not for the de-Nazification policies.

It may surprise you to know that even in Germany you can find war memorials. The issue varies from case to case (some statues are new for instance) but if people, especially outsiders, started talking about tearing down our war monuments and even committing vandalism against them my piss would boil over.

The thing is the bad blood was largely forgotten by the actual veterans. The Confederates swore an oath to their state and fought for their home, the idea of evil white slave owners is a recent idea that tends to forget the line about it being a “rich man's war and poor man's fight”. It's not only an attack on history but something that is just designed to fuck people off.

>>13221
Even if that's true it's irrelevant now. The post above yours is showing those marchers proudly displaying a Confederate flag alongside a Nazi one. The symbol has been intentionally appropriated in this way.

>>13221
>The Confederates swore an oath to their state and fought for their home, the idea of evil white slave owners is a recent idea that tends to forget the line about it being a “rich man's war and poor man's fight”

How does it? The war can be about slavery even if it was the lower classes that were sent to the slaughter. Name me a war that could fairly be described as a "rich man's fight". (That said, if you actually read about the American Civil War, you'll learn just how many rich boys signed up to fight - see William Sprague IV.)

The war had many triggers (as do all), but the underlying source was economic: the North - and, for that matter, the world - was industrialising and making redundant a way of life the South depended on. It was essentially feudal in nature, and African slaves were the foundation of that system. So, like it or not, the Confederates were fighting to maintain slavery. Their leaders were explicit about this, and added the racial element to the mix.

>Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.
Vice President Alexander Stephens

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
Mississippi's Declaration of Secession

>The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States
The Constitution of the Confederate States

If you're still a partisan of the "Northern Aggression" nonsense myth, why don't you explain why the South fired the first shots?

>>13222
Fuck off, Emily Thornberry. There is no intrinsic connection made between Nazi Germany and the Confederate Battle Flag until shits like you crawl out of the woodwork and starts browbeating people about it.

>>13225
Calm down, you're not making sense.

>>13223
The rest of your post notwithstanding, don't get hung up on who fired the first shot. In 2008 Russia were clearly the aggressors despite Georgia having technically fired first.

>>13223
Oh fucking hell, here we go. Imagine if you had spent a little more time analysing the point of the post instead of reflexively aping the debates you see from Americans.

>So, like it or not, the Confederates were fighting to maintain slavery.

The Confederate states fought over slavery but how about we skip the theatrics where we go back and forth quoting the likes of Robert E. Lee and get to the point: These monuments are dedicated to people who died in wartime and are owed respect like the bodies of every son and daughter - a dead body is not racist. Even the Jerries can manage this distinction.

Now with the immediate reason they sprang up established, history has moved on and the monuments have taken on a historical value that shouldn't be done away with simply because that history makes people uncomfortable. The movement to protect the monuments is not even monopolised by the Alt-Right:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXRbIdaLD4Q

>>13228
>Oh fucking hell, here we go. Imagine if you had spent a little more time analysing the point of the post instead of reflexively aping the debates you see from Americans.

>>13221 included an error:
>The Confederates swore an oath to their state and fought for their home, the idea of evil white slave owners is a recent idea that tends to forget the line about it being a “rich man's war and poor man's fight”. It's not only an attack on history but something that is just designed to fuck people off.

If that poster is you (and the tetchiness suggests so), you can't retrospectively decide your "point" had nothing to do with something that makes up about half of your post.

It kind of looks like you wrote something stupid and ignorant, realised you are entirely unable to defend it, and am now trying to obfuscate.

>>13225
'Shits' like him aren't the ones waving it beside the swastika though are they?

>>13229
You seem confused lad. State =/= State in this sense, ordinary soldiers on both sides of the conflict fought under the flag of their home - bringing the pronouncements of state legislators into this is largely irrelevant because we're not discussing the politics of war but the common humanity of people who fight it.

>>13231
All sides are wrong. Simple.

>>13233
They can't both be wrong if they're using the same symbol to mean the same thing while communicating with each other.

>>13233
You're an odd fellow.

>>13228
>These monuments are dedicated to people who died in wartime
The statue at issue isn't a memorial to the Confederate war dead. It's a statue of Robert E. Lee, which forms the centrepiece of what was until recently Robert E. Lee Park. It is no more a war memorial than the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square.

He has a Trump Pepe frog on his lapels.

>>13248 On that subject, I would like someone to tell me about how Pepe the Frog has become a symbol of racism. Like how does a cartoon frog end up being used in such a way?

>>13236

Surely it's more like having a statue of Hitler in the centre of Munich?

>>13249
Yeah you're the only person to ever ask that question so Googling it would be useless.

But to not take the piss out of you for a second I think the basic evolution goes like: feels good man > feels bad man > general symbol of social awkwardness > general symbol of awkward white men > general symbol of alt-right.

>>13250
Quite, which is why in modern times it's rather inappropriate.

Meanwhile, ARE JEZ picked up the spade and got digging.

>Corbyn: Trump comments on Charlottesville 'not enough'

>Mr Corbyn said that "any president... should be able to condemn" white supremacists.

>But on Monday he insisted "there is no equivalence between white supremacists trying to kill somebody in Charlottesville" and the situation in Venezuela.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40927317

As is often the case, Are Nige is the voice of reason.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/896445864398520321

Despite the poor wording of Trumps tweet I think he has a point that the rhetoric from both sides are exacerbating the divides American society is seeing. You can't wave a sign saying that people should be killed and even physically attack people yet still claim to be the good guys. This is all feeding the cycle of violence.

Maybe I'm just a dirty centrist though, being all reasonable.

>>13236
I was clear that the cases tend to vary. The thing you need to look at is the sense of outrage in the American South that extremists have been able to tap into for their own ends.

In this way every inch can be presented as a battleground in a culture war between the traditional South and interference from the North with sides clearly drawn. It's the stereotypes at work that you saw in King of the Hill.

>>13282
So, you're distancing yourself from the argument you previously threw in? >>13221 When you claimed that the "Confederates fought for slavery" narrative is both recent and bunk history?

You being a sensible centrist an' all.

>>13281
The culture war is heating up. Good.

It's about time the fascists came out in the open, we can hardly shoot them deep in their lairs.

>>13284
>we can hardly shoot them deep in their lairs.
Just like rabbits.

>>13281

That guy going off on him is the definition of triggered.

>>13284

Calm down, Quentin. Save it for your imaginary riots.

>>13283
I can see nothing in that post that corroborates with your assertion.

>>13284
Whose 'we'?

>>13287
>The Confederates an oath to their state and fought for their home, the idea of evil white slave owners is a recent idea that tends to forget the line about it being a “rich man's war and poor man's fight”. It's not only an attack on history but something that is just designed to fuck people off.

Is my assertion corroborated?

>>13289
Not at all. It ties very well into my observation that the fiasco around confederate monuments has people angry and that anger is being exploited.

>>13290

You're being a cock.

>the idea of evil white slave owners is a recent idea
No, it isn't. Look at Union propaganda from the time.

>that tends to forget the line about it being a “rich man's war and poor man's fight”
Again, name me a war that can be described as rich man's fight. (Nor, for that matter, do the class inequities of conscription prevent a war being about the right of some men to own other men.)

>It's not only an attack on history but something that is just designed to fuck people off.
What does this mean other than what it says? Basically, you're saying - or you've said and not realised - it's an attack on history to frame the war as one fought against "evil white slave owners"? Well, 1) as you can now see, it was framed like that at the time, and 2) slave owners are evil, there's no other way of talking about them, and 3) the Confederacy was fighting to, among other things but primarily, maintain slavery.

You're trying to pitch yourself as some stolid pillar of the centre ground, and that doesn't quite fit with the radically ahistorical bias underlying your posts.

>>13292
>Look at Union propaganda from the time.

Union propaganda is irrelevant to the reasons confederate soldiers fought, by definition if a propaganda cartoon makes the other side choose to fight it has failed. I'm not sure what you are stuck on here, perhaps you're just pig-ignorant of the myriad reasons someone might volunteer to fight in a war or that someone might attach another significance to their father corpse.

>Again, name me a war that can be described as rich man's fight. (Nor, for that matter, do the class inequities of conscription prevent a war being about the right of some men to own other men.)

The description “rich man's war and poor man's fight” does not necessarily entail that only rich men should fight (much as arguments are often made in this sense). It refers to the criticism that the rich can avoid fighting through their wealth as happened in the civil war.

Again though you seem stuck on the concept that political aims of the war don't translate into why people on the ground fight.

>>13294
Just come out and say you hate black people.

>>13295
Who doesn't.

They should tear down the statues of America's founding fathers. They were also evil slave owners, after all.

>>13302
Nice whataboutery there, lad.

>>13303

It's just logical consistency m78.

>>13304
2/10 SEE ME

Typical bloody muslamics. They can't be out of the limelight for more than five minutes without having a hissy fit.

Someone steals their thunder by driving a vehicle into a crowd of people in America so they've got to go and do the same in Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40965581

Bloody drama queens. They've got to be the centre of attention.

>>13311
Savage Moors were brought over to fight in Franco's rebellion: they pillaged, tortured and murdered their way across southern Spain. There are Catalans who have vivid memories of this terrible episode (and the scars to prove it), and now they have to deal with cunts like this.

Is there a chance all this angry shouting is going to cross over here?

>>13344
Black lives matter or white supremacists?

You've got to remember it's double standards. Trump can't pander to white movements but Obama was given a free pass to pander to the racists in Black Lives Matter and occasions like the chimp out in Ferguson after Michael Brown was shot for attacking a police officer.

>>13345
Alright that's it. I'm drawing a line in the sand here. I'm not going to let .gs turn into another imageboard where it's just OK to be casually white supremacist because it's funny or freeze peach or whatever. It's just not fucking cricket, OK?

>>13346
Is it really a white supremacist position to say that both sides are cunts, although only one really gets called out for it?

>>13348
Not him, but yes, it's a false equivalence.

>>13349
How so?

>>13350
Neither of them, but:
1) One side fights for equality, the other for supremacy.
2) The leadership of one deplores violence, whereas the whole point of fascism has been, and will always be, violent means toward violent ends.
3) Obama, as much as I dislike him, never "pandered" to racists - ever. Find me one example of him doing so.
4) Phrases like "chimp out" belong in the darkest recesses of the other place, and you don't get to take claim the apparently sacred (to you), sane "middle ground" if you do use such expressions.

>>13345
You're an actual dick. Have you ever even visited the US?

>>13352
Does Disney World count?

>>13346
I can agree with >>13345 getting a ban for using 'chimp out' but if you think casually censoring people for holding a radically different viewpoint is okay then maybe imageboards aren't the place for you.

What I think you're missing is that posts should be eloquent and not resort to the kinds of language you see on 4chan. That simple rule is enough to keep barbarians at bay while still allowing for discussions to run their own course. It is the simple difference between having rules in place to ensure quality and enforcing political orthodoxy. Or to continue your Sancho Panza impression 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

>>13351
>>13344 here, I think it is fair to call people on both sides massive cunts (to a greater or lesser degree) and we should be honest that they both feed on one-another.

The image I posted actually shows the reality of what went on in Boston where a free speech rally unrelated to Virginia (Boston is in the North) was labelled as white supremacist by the media to whip up outrage when the reality was more generic. It says something that an Indian speaker has racist abused hurled at him by anti-racist protesters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QToJYeKD1I
(his speech is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X2ZRB9GCU)

It's really a wonder nobody has been shot so far. This is why I don't want it to cross over because it is so toxic that normal people are pushed to extremes because they find one side or another is shouting at them.

>>13354
Chimp out gets infrequently used here. Maybe less so than "ape-like fists", but this place has always had an element of jovial casual racism. Bongo enricher. Spear chucker. You get the picture. Tongue in cheek stuff. Mud in their blood. Shit on their skin.

>This is why I don't want it to cross over because it is so toxic that normal people are pushed to extremes because they find one side or another is shouting at them.

I believe it's already happened. It's part of the reason why Brexit won. The likes of Britain First and Are Nige were happy to welcome with open arms, whilst dragging them further to the right by slowly drip-feeding their rhetoric to them, people who'd been branded racist by "the regressive left" for having any concerns over immigration.

My so-left-it-hurts mate is pissed off with me because I said these weren't neo nazis or white supremacists, just fat retards who took memes too seriously.

What are your thought? My mate thinks I'm trying to excuse them somehow. I find it painful to watch someone treating them like the KKK.

>>13354
>a free speech rally unrelated to Virginia (Boston is in the North) was labelled as white supremacist by the media to whip up outrage
If you say so, m7.

>>13356
>just fat retards who took memes too seriously

I agree with the gist of what you're saying - the problem as I see it, is that a lot of chan culture normalises extreme right wing behaviour and gives those people a home to explore those views and the arguments that go with them. It is pitiful to me that we see the same talking points and arguments rehashed over and over, particularly around SJW and BLM - there is a lot of the same old groupthink, on both sides. Some of this is because people want to belong to a tribe, and if you're a lonely fat retard sitting at home in front of a computer, who hardly leaves the house, that sense of belonging and camaraderie is very powerful. See also ISIS.

Whatever happened to people thinking independently? Where is the original thought coming from?

>>13358
>groupthink
I don't think that means what you think it means.

>on both sides
We've been through this before, lad. Stop that.

>>13357
Lad. Don't fall for fake news.

>Tens of thousands of anti-racism protesters opposed a far-right "Free Speech" rally in the US city of Boston on Saturday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40990834/boston-demonstrations-how-the-day-unfolded

Nothing says far right extremism like an Indian bloke speaking in front of placards about education, Black Lives Matter and against Monsanto.

>>13360
>Nothing says far right extremism like an Indian bloke speaking in front of placards about education, Black Lives Matter and against Monsanto.
Nothing says far right apology like appropriating a discredited Indian bloke speaking in front of placards about education, Black Lives Matter and against Monsanto as if he was a part of the same cause.

>>13357
I've literally posted both pictorial and video evidence of what really went on.

>>13358
>Whatever happened to people thinking independently? Where is the original thought coming from?

I think these things only come later in life when experience has given you the self-confidence and grit to hold your own views. The thing I have to remind myself when I see these activists is how young some of them really are and how the older ones are obvious losers who just never grew up.

France24 interviewed a punk who called himself 'Frosty' today and while he recited his memorised script like he was in a movie I couldn't help but be reminded of SLC Punk! It's like Momentum I suppose.

>>13361
What cause would this be then you fucking idiot because it looked to me like he was talking about free speech while fronting his own (Republican supported) run for Senator. Maybe the hooded men who prowl the streets of Boston managed got a rope around this immigrant and dragged him to the podium?

>>13362
>because it looked to me like he was talking about free speech while fronting his own (Republican supported) run for Senator
The US has some of the strongest protections for free speech anywhere in the world. Any protest for "free speech" in the US is almost certainly a front for something else. He looks like he's a token minority invited so the organisers can say "We're not racist, we've got a brown speaker!" particularly since his Senate bid is very obviously not going anywhere.

>>13355
>this place has always had an element of jovial casual racism. Bongo enricher. Spear chucker. You get the picture. Tongue in cheek stuff. Mud in their blood. Shit on their skin.

I know, I've done that myself. But >>13345 is evidently not being tongue in cheek, or trying to take the piss out of the likes of Simon and Nige. When I read his post I felt chills. Not because it's something we haven't seen before; it's because in the context of recent events and the current climate, imageboard fascists aren't something you can take lightly anymore. He could easily have been one of those cunts marching in Virginia. Why should we allow scum like that to sully our doorstep? Why do we apply rigorous standards when it comes to grammar and reaction images, but not genuinely believing non-whites are subhuman? You genuinely wouldn't ban Hitler from posting about der Juden on 1930s .gs? There's something wrong there. Anyway I won't say more about it given the mod team is prepared to give them a platform.

>>13364
Is this post serious? Is it actually serious?

>>13364
I think you're overreacting to a relatively moderate post.

>>13363
>The US has some of the strongest protections for free speech anywhere in the world. Any protest for "free speech" in the US is almost certainly a front for something else.

That's an awful big leap you're making there for someone not providing a shred of evidence. Maybe Americans have some of the biggest protections of free speech precisely because so many people are willing to defend it and who might even dare to want more.

What's wrong with him anyway, are you struggling to get your head around why a minority might have the autonomy to take an opposing political position, even one as apparently dangerous as the right to free speech? Maybe the real problem is people like you whose frankly childish viewpoint leads you to harassing ordinary people who want to be left alone.

>>13364
>Anyway I won't say more about it given the mod team is prepared to give them a platform.

Maybe you should leave and find somewhere more accommodating to your feelings. Can't have all those mean sentences corrupting your mind can we?

>>13364
>Anyway I won't say more about it given the mod team is prepared to give them a platform.

The mods aren't here to police peoples views or remove things that you might find gravely offensive. They're to remove illegal, spammy or repetitive content and stop us all getting locked up. Please don't bait them like that.

Will PREVENT stop young white men getting radicalised? It will be nice to see a white six year old being questioned by the police and MI5 for a change.

>>13367
>people like you whose frankly childish viewpoint
Says Mr They-Can't-Be-Racist-Because-They-Invited-A-Brown-Guy-To-Speak.

>>13370
You leave those strawmen alone. I'm sure we're all well aware that you have written him off as the Indian equivalent of an Uncle Tom but you'll have to somehow justify this attack on his character and that of the organisers with evidence.

>>13372
>you'll have to somehow justify this attack on his character
I don't think so, mate. If you can't be bothered to put his name into Google, I can't be bothered to risk us getting sued for millions of dollars like anyone else that dares provide the details.

>>13373
Uh-huh, so you've got nothing.

>>13374
How's that googling going, lad?

"I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.

- Bobby Lee in 1866 in response to a letter from Lord Acton

What do you lads make of this? Is there an argument to be made in support of States' Rights in spite of all the evil slave owning stuff?

>>13368
>They're to remove illegal content
You do realise incitement to racial hatred is indeed illegal in this country?

>>13377
Of course I do, more than you might realise.

>>13376

> Is there an argument to be made in support of States' Rights in spite of all the evil slave owning stuff?

Certainly, and we've been seeing it in action since. While I believe there's some merit to be had for federal law, the US is far too large and diverse — ethnically, politically, and otherwise — for all laws and regulations to be enforced from D.C.

While it was certainly one of the catalysts for the Confederacy to rebel against the Union, a lot of leading figures were actually neutral or unspoken on the matter of slavery (obviously not the same as being vocally pro-abolition but certainly not as dichotomous as these acrobatite armchair historians will have you believe.) Piss-poor factions of the US now stereotyped as being overly racist, uneducated, or otherwise apprehensive of "progression" would've been much better off under the proposed devolved system, not least of which the Native Americans who were and have been absolutely fucked by the Union's centralised power structure.

There's no telling for sure if a devolved system would've even survived until the present day and what the ramifications would have been on the development of a First Nation or the American empire but all evidence suggests it would've been a largely fairer system, even if slavery did last a couple more decades until international pressure forced abolition.

tl;dr: Nobody knows for sure. Fuck the "union gud, confeder8 evil" rhetoric. They're both a bunch of bastards in their own right.

>>13376
>Is there an argument to be made in support of States' Rights in spite of all the evil slave owning stuff?
In the historical context, not really. Anything reasonable is already guaranteed by the Constitution, and the instances where it had been asserted basically came down to slavery and discrimination. In modern discourse, it comes into play with issues such as drug policy, where you have states that are allowing cannabis to be prescribed or openly sold and the DEA going after people for it because it's still illegal under federal law.

>>13384
Nice revisionism, m7.

Can't believe Amerifats are still whinging about a war from 150 years ago. It's should make about as much sense as trying to start shit with a Pole because "they" were on Napoleon's side.

>>13386

They don't have very much history so they elevate to an absurd level the little they have to give them a sense of cultural identity. It is the same reason why Argentina is so obsessed with the Falklands.

>>13387
See also today's "Great American Eclipse". It's almost as if these things don't come around every few years.

>>13384
The subject of Native Americans is an interesting one, with regards the Civil War. Many tribes - particularly the so-called Civilised Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, etc.) - in fact sided with the Confederacy. For one, they owned African slaves (although the relationship was a far more egalitarian one); and two, they feared the North, which they saw quite rightly as dangerously expansive and forceful. (It was the Union that was responsible for the Trail of Tears and Homestead Acts, after all.)

Things, as ever, are complex.

>>13389
I don't think it's that silly though. Taking into account the fact it is a total eclipse, and its path is right through the middle of the continental United States, it makes it a very rare occurrence.

>>13406
Everything is a rare event if you qualify it enough. There's another total eclipse coming their way in 2024, and predictably the town near where the two paths intersect has already declared itself "the Eclipse Crossroads of America".

Toronto attack: Facebook post may link suspect to misogynistic online subculture

Shortly before a rented van ploughed into a crowd of pedestrians in Toronto, killing 10 and wounding 14 others, a short and cryptic message was posted on the Facebook account of Alek Minassian, the man accused of carrying out the attack.

The post referred to another mass killer – Elliot Rodger, who shot dead six people and wounded 13 others in Isla Vista, California, in 2014 – and said that the “incel rebellion has already begun. We will overthrow all the Chads and the Stacys”.

Minassian’s Facebook account has since been deleted and police have yet to suggest a motive for the attack, but the post appeared to connect the alleged killer with the so-called “incel” movement, which has made collective sexual frustration the basis for a deeply misogynistic online subculture.

Incel stands for “involuntary celibate”, and the people who identify with the label are almost exclusively male. On incels.me, the subculture’s leading online forum, an incel is described as someone who “can’t have sex despite wanting to”, and is thus also denied the pleasures of relationships. (In incel lingo, sexually successful men are known as “Chads”, and attractive women are called “Stacys”).

Self-identified incels have used the internet to find anonymous support and develop an ideology whose central belief is that the modern world is unfairly stacked against awkward or unattractive heterosexual men. Incel websites argue that society is set up so that some men have numerous sexual partners, others have none and women get to take their pick in what is often described as a “sexual marketplace”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/toronto-van-attack-facebook-post-may-link-suspect-with-incel-group

I'm finding reality stranger by the day.

>>14847
Still, I bet that taught your alt-right types who were determined to label him a mujahid.

>>14847

Jaysus.

I know this nutter has killed a load of people but I can't help feeling deeply sorry for all these lads who get sucked into that sort of thing. It's undeniably a symptom of modern society that they feel like outcasts, they have a point. They might go about resolving it in the wrong way, but they do have a point.

But then they just get labelled as woman haters and everything all the time, which is only going to make them worse- And that's often by the same people who are supposed to be all about solving social inequalities.

so yeah I guess what I'm trying to say is #victimblaming

>>14849

They are women haters, you daft sod.

>>14850
I just popped onto mumsnet for a bit of healthy lunchtime rage.
Apparently we're all woman haters, every last man (and most women, and definitely trannys). Not sure if that means we're all likely to go mowing people down in a rental van, or some of us more successfully control our hate?
Fuck's sake.

>>14850

They are, but it's interesting how they get that way. They're led to believe that 'theres someone out there for everyone' or 'just be yourself' or even 'just be nice' is the solution to getting gash, and by the time they're about 25 and their dick's still dry they discover this isn't true, and they feel like they've been cheated and lied to, and of course they direct this at women, because that's what feels most comforting.

It's not really excusable, but I understand the process. It's kind of their own fault they never learned how to talk to women, I'm a horrible socially awkward nerd but even I figured it out, but they, like many others, are trapped in a prison of their own design, in their little echo chambers, and I have sympathy for that. Until they start running people over in vans, at least.

>>14851

If men were targeted by women at the same rates women are targeted by men, you'd probably get a bit uppity too. Also:
>Mumsnet

You should check the DM's comments for a sensible take on Brexit next, maybe.

>>14852

It's no elses fault but their own that they think "being nice" and "being yourself" means being a try hard, fawning, push over with the emotional intelligence of a shellfish. Fuck them. They aren't "echo chambers" they're just having a perpetual hissy fit and I've got no time for anyone too thick to realise it.

>>14853
Posts like these is why a lot of them turn to these extreme views. Most people can't/don't/refuse to understand the problems these people have, shaming and deriding them.

It's like being in a maths class where everyone else in the class understands the problem but you, and everyone else is openly mocking you for not understanding it; the dunce in the corner is saying "if I can get it you can too", and then the only advice the maths teacher gives is to you is "be yourself".

Okay, yeah, they might not be going about it in the right way but to a lot of these people, it's like trying to speak Chinese without ever having looked at a dictionary. When all they are met with is derision any time they even *try*, it's going to fuck them up.

They become lonely and isolated, and they go online. The only people they find that understand them and don't dismiss them off hand then start feeding them these silly stories about "Chads" and "Staceys", red pill, MGTOW etc and it spirals out of control.

I think it does boil down to two categories though; I'll call them Type A and Type B.

Type A choose to blame themselves, they understand they have problems not faced by most people and although it's frustrating and at times soul-crushing, understand that typical people aren't able to empathise with their situation.

Type B are the 'incels'. They refuse to blame themselves, instead lashing out at anyone else, anyone to avoid having to accept their own fate.

I speak here from experience, and a few years ago I was heading down the Type B path, but I hope that now I fall into Type A.

It's easy to get sucked in to these things, in the same way people fall into abusive relationships, cults, religion, whatever. You find a group of people or a person that doesn't dismiss you off hand, and the base, core, thing that we as humans crave is validation. They validate you, gain your trust, and then mould you.

Didn't Mark Conditt, that bomber in Texas from the other month, post a load of warped bollocks online?

The impression I get is that this sort of thing started as a bit of a joke. If you take /pol/ on 4chan as an example then it was largely people dicking around for a laugh. However, the problem with this is:-

a) You always get people who take this seriously. They're either somewhere on the spectrum or they're the annoying neckbeard meme spouter types. A few years back they'd have been espousing the virtues of My Little Pony. Before that they'd have been wearing the mask of shame and be out protesting Scientology whilst chanting about being legion. These days they're into opposing whatever offends them; women, black people, eskimos, lefties, etc., sort of loosely tied together. I don't know if it's they want the camaraderie or what.

b) At some point it stops being a joke and you start taking it seriously, even if it's just on a subconscious level. It does seriously start clouding your judgement and the way you interpret things.

c) They're very effective at getting their claws in people. There's a not insignificant number of people on the left who try to gloss over inconvenient facts rather than addressing them and explaining how they fit into the wider picture, so those drawn to the so-called alt-right lose trust in them and become suspicious of what they have to say. The likes of /pol/ are very good at pointing out this hypocrisy and drawing people in this way.

>>14853

Tangenital but since you made this claim...

>If men were targeted by women at the same rates women are targeted by men, you'd probably get a bit uppity too.

Female on Female relationships are the most likely to be physically abusive.

In female to male relationships females are more likely to be the physically abusive one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hrHUo70nY

>>14854
The answer to your image is "All of them, this isn't Hollywood you muppet!"

>>14858

How much bomb making/disarming experience do you have?

>>14859
Probably as much as you.

Apparently the usual first assessment is if it's small enough and you can evacuate, get everyone the fuck away and let the robot blow the fucker in place.

>>14850

Yes, I know they are, but my point was more about the hypocrisy applied to them. The same people who endorse the belief that injustice to a social group disempowers them, also share the view that these guys have nobody but themselves to blame. It's clearly self contradictory.

Even regardless of that, from a view of sheer pragmatism- We need to accept that it does nobody any favours to perpetuate alienation and deepen divides. It propels a vicious cycle. It's the same with radical Eskimos, and I'm pretty confident that the underlying issues are not altogether dissimilar in the end.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the "empathy gap". Some decent articles written on this: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201708/young-men-and-the-empathy-gap%3famp

>>14864

For fuck sake, Google... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201708/young-men-and-the-empathy-gap

>>14863
>We need to accept that it does nobody any favours to perpetuate alienation and deepen divides. It propels a vicious cycle. It's the same with radical Eskimos, and I'm pretty confident that the underlying issues are not altogether dissimilar in the end.

Same with that Angus Deayton look-a-like who killed Jo Cox.

He was a loner with documented mental issues and he clearly fell in with the wrong crowd. If they get their claws into regular people then that's bad enough, but it's a recipe for disaster when they indoctrinate those already doolally.

Toronto van attack: Inside the dark world of 'incels'

The idea that all women are money-grabbing, promiscuous and manipulative comes across strongly on incel threads, where attractive women in particular are referred to as "Stacys".

"Stacys" are objects of both desire and ridicule. In their world, incels believe "Stacys" will always choose so-called "Chads" over them. A "Chad" is a caricature of a sexually successful man. And comparisons are not just about personality or confidence. Many incels believe they are genetically inferior to "Chads".

Chad is often depicted as a successful guy with swathes of blonde hair and pulsating muscles (which he shows off in neon green trousers). He has a sports car, but more than that, he also possesses a physical attribute incels envy - a chiselled jaw line. These crude caricatures seem laughable - but they are important because they create an "us v them" mentality. Incels believe that sex, love and happiness are out of their reach, available only to others.

They're particularly drawn to the nihilistic "black pill" theory - the idea that they are the only ones who realise that the game of sex and attraction is rigged from birth.

Self-help or positivity is frowned upon on incel forums. Anyone who successfully interacts with women is instantly branded a "fakecel" - meaning "fake incel".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44053828

>>15132

Things aren't going to improve for those incels, if they're really "a thing" to begin with, for as long as they keep engaging in what seems to be perpetual self-pitying circle jerks.

We think the way we speak. And the verbal constructs that these people think in appear to be just as bad in their own way as all the PUA rubbish.

>>15136

You know, if I was a tiny bit more tinfoil than I already am, I'd be starting to suspect that these incels, the alt right, the lot of them, are much like Al-Qaeda and TSCIS before them. They are pretty much a non-entity, that the media is all too eager to exaggerate and paint as a bogeyman. A corruption festering inside our society to serve as a nudge towards virtue. Angry young men have been perfectly capable of psychopathic rampages for years without the corrupting influence of some nefarious online community.

>>15136
I think it's largely about externalising blame. They can't face up to taking personal responsibility for their lives and find it more convenient to blame others for their shortcomings or to take the mentality that they have little control so there's no point in even trying.

Throw in a super secret club where they feel camaraderie by revelling in being rejected by society, so they'll start doing things which they think will make them more accepted by their group, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

>>15148

That isn't a quality unique to incels, the difference between them and most other blame cultures is that society doesn't even humour them in their percived systematic problems because they are white men, and because of that incels have doubled down on their us vs them mentality.

>>15148

>I think it's largely about externalising blame. They can't face up to taking personal responsibility for their lives and find it more convenient to blame others for their shortcomings or to take the mentality that they have little control so there's no point in even trying.

It's like in that stand up routine by some young nameless comedian I saw at a festival a few years ago, on the subject of self doubt during his asexual teenage years. He said something like,

"Seven billion people on the planet. That means, roughly seven billion times, somebody got laid. And I really couldn't even get laid once??".

I thought that was a fucking brilliant line.

>>15153

> because they are white men

What is true enough is that white men, whether angry or old or neither, have been getting a lot of stick in our society. White men are the new unpersons, who are told to check their privileges and who serve as little more than bogeymen who allegedly try to maintain and cling to patriarchy, class systems and racial inequality.

What nobody factored in was that at some point, those disparaged white men would turn into angry white men. And angry white men who aren't angry "just because", but for legitimate reasons.

On the other hand, it's still up to you if you get your arse up in this world or if you blame your life's misfortune on fishpersons and the global diversity conspiracy for (as you see it) turning white males into the new black.

And loser subcultures like incels or any other denomination of manchild basement dwellers can really only help themselves overcome their misery. The unhealthiest thing they ever could have done was get in touch with each other online.

>because they are white men

Watch out, lads. The incel sympathisers are here.

>>15159

I'm not going to pretend I don't see their point of view. They are obviously misguided in how their achieve their goals and in fact what their goal is, but it isn't like there is a good support network for them. I consider them a direct result of the masculinity crysis. If I could I'd sit down with them all and make them watch Clint Eastwood movies till they learned not to give a shit what others think self confidence derived from inner strenght and personal code and to be assertive as all fuck.

>>15160

>If I could I'd sit down with them all and make them watch Clint Eastwood movies till they learned not to give a shit what others think self confidence derived from inner strenght and personal code and to be assertive as all fuck.


It's funny, from what I've seen of Red Pill, their main, overarching goal seems to be exactly this. It's a shame it's all inextricably linked with the rest of their 'women haters club' doctrine, and their weird ideas about manipulation and psychology, as it radicalises followers and opponents alike.

If there was a forum called "be more assertive and that" it might well have been a positive force in the world.

>>15160

>but it isn't like there is a good support network for them

They have each other for support though, and whine collectively every day on web forums and image boards about their pitiful existence as unfucked and unfuckable hard done by gits.

As I said yesterday, the worst thing that many of those basement dwelling manchildren could have done was get in touch with each other online. While it may occasionally help knowing that there are others out there with your kind of affliction or predicament, they really should be getting out there and taking a leaf out of the books of those who succeed in life.

It's not that complicated. I, for example, was a shy, socially awkward teenager who was struggling to get girls' attention in any way, shape, or form. That is, until I became friends with somebody at my school who even at 15 was pulling more tail than a mong at a petting zoo. He gave me countless tips on how to improve my standing with girls, and many of them worked and I pretty much became a normal teenlad who was dating girls and having sex, if still not as much as my friend.

>>15160
>it isn't like there is a good support network for them.

Half agree with your post, but I think this is the most important point that you make. Things like this happen for a number of reasons, but I don't think anyone could deny it would have been totally preventable at several stages.

Imagine having so few paths to a happy, dignified life that you'd be willing to throw it all away this senselessly. Or having such a warped image of yourself and society that this is the standout option. Imagine being stuck in such a mental and emotional cul-de-sac that you think lashing out violently is the preferable course.

>>15162

>He gave me countless tips on how to improve my standing with girls, and many of them worked

Which ones worked then? We need to tell the incels.

>>15164

In short, incels need to stop complaining that nobody wants them. It's not the world's fault that they are going unfucked. One of your body's main purposes is to have sex with another person during sexual maturity, so it's not as if that's such an alien concept to begin with to humans. You yourself are the result of billions of years of human and pre-human life forms having had sex one generation after another. So tell me again why you find it so hard to carry on that tradition.

If they're not having any sex, then they are the ones who need to stop complaining about it and start doing something. And that will also involve leaving behind certain categories of thinking, for example that all women are money grubbing self centered bints, or that men who woo them are idiots. Yes, some women and men are that, but again, being in that frame of mind will not help you pull.

Some incels appear to be much too happy to carry on their moaning and self pity than wanting to actually get out there and get some action. And if they've tried it and it didn't work, well, then they will just have to keep trying, and keep trying to become an interesting person that women will find attractive enough to have intercourse with.

It's like being in sales and complaining that nobody wants your product. You can either keep watching your product collect dust on the shelf, or you can think about how your product needs to be changed or how it has to be advertised to become a success after all.

>>15165
Not necessarily relevant to an individual today, but some historical context:
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

>>15165
Having strayed dangerously close to the incel path, I can perhaps provide a little more insight. I'm not, by any means, defending their actions -- just trying to describe why it's not as black and white as you seem to think.

Most of people on these forums are at best socially anxious, and and worst fairly far on the spectrum. What seems like breathing to most neurotypical (aka 'normie' (fuck I hate that terminology)) people, is like hitchhiking to the moon for a lot of people in these communities.

As a result, through no fault of their own, normal people do try to give advice that they think is helpful, because as I say, to most people it is.

"Just be yourself"
"It'll come when you least expect it"
"Put yourself out there, it'll happen"
"Just be more confident" - as if you can just increase your confidence in a system that (in your mind, anyway) is completely rigged against you.
Et cetera.

As you say, the main purpose of us as humans is to bone, and while that lizard-brain boning desire is still present, in most of the people in these communities, the human aspect just isn't wired right. These people never developed the base skills for relationships, and many struggle to fundamentally understand their fellow humans.

Being a Burger myself, I know the feeling of ostracisation that happens because normal people don't really enjoy your company. Especially as a younger person or teenager, you can't understand why this is happening to you. It then snowballs because even though you need MORE time and experience to develop your social skills than more people, you actually get less.

Myself, it's a source of absolute frustration every day that I can't read people and I don't know how to initiate romantic endeavours, but I fully appreciate that I am fundamentally broken and it's not anybody else's fault. Nobody owes me sex or a relationship and I just need to find a way to square that off with my base desires as a human - i.e. it's not going to happen.

However, many of the people who reside in these communities haven't - or refuse to - accept that it is they who are the problem. Most have heard the 'advice' that others have on getting into relationships and have found that for them, it simply doesn't work. When you're that frustratingly lonely, and that down in the dumps, with no support network - where else are you going to turn?

>>15165

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As you rightly point out, the more you assume you're worthless, the worse you're going to do socially, and particularly sexually. But if you do truly believe nobody will ever want you, at what point do you suddenly decide to walk about acting like everyone does? Confidence is hard to project for those who have not had normal social lives, especially if they were isolated as children. They'll rightly feel like they're not quite normal, and it's not necessarily immediate obvious that you can 'learn' to be normal.

It's easy for you or I to see a very clear and obvious path that these lads can take, because we're miles up that path and far clear of the undergrowth. I suspect it's very, very similar to someone who has no experience or concept with a mental illness telling a depressed person to 'just cheer up'. It's a far deeper issue.

>>15165
>So tell me again why you find it so hard to carry on that tradition.

You don't know, I don't know. I've never had a relationship or sex, and I'm reasonably well adjusted. These lads don't have a chance.

>>15167
>Being a Burger myself, I know the feeling of ostracisation that happens because normal people don't really enjoy your company. Especially as a younger person or teenager, you can't understand why this is happening to you. It then snowballs because even though you need MORE time and experience to develop your social skills than more people, you actually get less.

You remind me of somebody in school who my parents said I had to be friends with because our dads were coworkers and that lad was struggling to make any friends. Back then, the concept of Asperger's was unknown, and quite likely his parents weren't even aware that he was on what would later be called "the spectrum". They just knew that he was a bit weird and a loner. But looking back, he ticked all the Aspie boxes. He had very few interests and pursuits, about which he would talk incessantly, and he would always go and complain to teachers when he did find somebody to play with and that other kid wasn't adhering to the agreed upon rules to a T. As we became teenlads, he then chose to spend most of his free time in the school library and at home playing video games or out trainspotting (one of his few and far between pursuits, about which he would talk all the time in more detail than anybody would ever care about). He never got invited to parties, he never had any dates, let alone girlfriends. When I started dating girls, he began complaining that I was spending more time chasing girls together with my other friends who were chasing girls than playing video games with him. So I said, more or less aware that it was a cruel joke, "Well get yourself a girl too then, and we'll double date". Some time later, he opened up to me and said, he just had no clue how I was doing it. How I was engaging with girls at all. How I knew (if barely) how to talk to them, spark their interest (again, just barely), and just be somebody that a handful of girls found interesting enough. He said it was as if other people were in possession of higher maths and he was stuck with simple arithmetic. Which was again kind of an Aspie way to put it, but there you go.

>>15168
>It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As you rightly point out, the more you assume you're worthless, the worse you're going to do socially, and particularly sexually. But if you do truly believe nobody will ever want you, at what point do you suddenly decide to walk about acting like everyone does?

By just looking around yourself. Nearly every person who thinks of themselves as the greatest thing since sliced bread is really just blagging it through their whole life. And just think back to the lads at your school who got all the girls. Were they all really such outstandingly beautiful human beings that none of the girls had a choice but to completely fall for them? Well, at my school, the lads that got the most action were very usually the biggest dickheads. They had very few redeeming qualities about them as human beings, and yet, they were pulling like mad.

Looking back, I think they were just brilliant examples of the idea that "thinking makes it so". They were sexually desirable blokes because something inside their heads had given them the unshakable conviction that they were lads that women wanted.

One way out of your vicious circle as a socially awkward incel might indeed be to just get out there and try yourself out. See if there's really no way of turning yourself into a person who will maybe not bang women left, right and centre, but who will appear interesting enough to a small but sufficient number of women. And take even the tiniest indications that there's hope for you after all as the possible beginning of a positive feedback loop that could see you make significant progress over time in that area.

>>15167

The kind of 'advice' that normals give to Incels reminds me of the kind of comments you often hear from millionaires in regards to the poor, things like "If I can make money, anyone can!" "Stop watching telly, pull your socks up and put yourself out there!" ie. the kind of advice that shows a fundamental lack of empathy as it completely ignores the privileges you were born with and the circumstances you grew up in.

If you grew up in a happy, supportive household, were blessed with reasonably good looks and spent your schooldays snogging lasses behind the bike sheds, then you are never going to have much trouble attracting partners later in life, as your positive experiences in childhood have imbued you with a confidence that results in women perceiving you as attractive. I was pretty much the opposite, a full-on hand-flapping autist who grew up hiding in their bedroom listening to Mum and Dad scream at each other, who went through school being called 'freak' and 'spastic' in the playground, and was considered as 'lazy' and 'weird' by a family incapable of understanding my issues.

My utter lack of confidence due to my upbringing has profoundly affected my interactions with women throughout my twenties; I am resigned to forever ending up in the role, at best, of 'gay best friend' or 'shoulder to cry on', and that no matter how much effort I put into trying to get closer to women they are never going to see me as 'relationship material', whatever that is. Despite what the self-help industry would have you believe, confidence is not something you can attain by reading a book or attending a weekend seminar, it is a result of the accumulation of positive past experiences and interactions with people, which those in the Incel community will have had very little of.

>>15171

>The kind of 'advice' that normals give to Incels reminds me of the kind of comments you often hear from millionaires in regards to the poor, things like "If I can make money, anyone can!"

That's not really comparable though, is it. Going from poverty to being a millionaire is a much harder road to take than being a bit more upbeat about yourself and just trying yourself out and gauging what you could possibly do to slightly increase your luck with the opposite sex.

Millionaires who have actually risen to wealth from humble beginnings are indeed quite rare. Going by sheer probability, it is safe to say it doesn't usually happen. But again, you can't compare the two. It's as if you are saying you are expecting incels to become womanizers that will put the likes of Brad Pitt to shame. Nobody is asking that.

What can happen though, is that somebody pulls himself from poverty and manages to lead a modest lifestyle resembling that of an average person. It will still be hard, but it can be done. Otherwise, what use would all the government programmes be which promise to help poor people do just that. And again, these programmes don't usually aim to turn you into a millionaire as such.

Which is then the equivalent of finding at least one or two members of the opposite sex that will want to spend a significant amount of time by your side.

>>15172>>15170

>One way out of your vicious circle as a socially awkward incel might indeed be to just get out there and try yourself out

>Going from poverty to being a millionaire is a much harder road to take than being a bit more upbeat about yourself and just trying yourself out and gauging what you could possibly do to slightly increase your luck with the opposite sex

Not for someone with social anxiety, no.

You're still failing to see it from their perspective. It's incredibly easy to say 'fake it till you make it', and I'm well aware it works, but imagine having spent 18, 19 years with no real friends, with a fear of talking to people, and poor self confidence - every time you do try it feels like you fail and you regress further into your shell. Perhaps you have a perfectly okay interaction but because you haven't had many of them, or because your self esteem is so terrible, you assume it went awfully, and add it to your growing list of reasons why you should stop trying.

>And take even the tiniest indications that there's hope for you after all as the possible beginning of a positive feedback loop that could see you make significant progress over time in that area.

People with low self esteem or poor social skills simply don't see tiny positive indications of growth - they only see the bad. It's very hard to stop focusing on the negative in a mental state like that. Again, it sounds like you're just saying 'snap out of it', when it's far harder than that.

Most of these incel lads need professional help, to learn how to realise these little positive steps you're talking about. I feel sorry for every last one of them. That they have found other like minded people on the internet has allowed them to block out any possible thoughts of self improvement.

>>15173

> That they have found other like minded people on the internet has allowed them to block out any possible thoughts of self improvement.

That was indeed one of my original points. The worst thing they could have done for themselves was get in touch with each other online.

You don't need five other people like you in that situation who are all complaining that they can't have a normal (sex) life. You need to spend time with people who have a normal life, because some of it just might rub off on you.

>>15174
Another lad, but I have (had) quite a laddy, outgoing friendship group, but when it came to women I was just a spectator, the runt of the group.

>>15175

>but when it came to women I was just a spectator, the runt of the group

Then what kept you from dipping your toes into it? The step from being a sociable lad with friends who have lives to being somebody who has a dating life all of his own is kind of a bit more gradual than some shut in sitting in his basement with no friends, complaining that he can't and won't get laid.

>>15174

It's a pretty vicious circle because a lot, if not most of the involuntarily celibate are involuntarily friendless, so they're naturally going to gravitate toward any kind of group with which they feel a camaraderie.

t. not that guy

>>15174
The Burger from above here. Through trial and error I eventually got a fairly varied set of social groups, ranging from similarly spergic engineers to outgoing media types. It doesn't simply rub off.

>>15171
Exactly. I wouldn't say that normal people are 'privileged', as >>15173 says - it would imply that they are, well, above normal. His points are correct, though, and was the crux of what I was saying - the advice that normal people give out is meaningless platitudes because normal people don't need it - it's like explaining how to walk.

>>15170
And I'd just as much wager that he didn't understand why nobody invited him to parties, or that blaring on about the Class 142's bus lineage garnered no interest. I think it's something in a way an issue with British culture - we're too polite to tell ANYONE what we actually feel, which when you're an asperger is absolutely awful - imagine not being able to read and understand that when someone says "oh yeah, interesting", they could mean the literal opposite of that.

I use a similar example - I imagine everyone has a textbook inside their heads of how to react to things, but in mine all the pages about relationships are missing.

>>15177
>most of the involuntarily celibate are involuntarily friendless
No, they're not. They're almost certainly voluntarily friendless, but might have difficulty understanding that.

>>15179

Then by the same token, they're voluntarily celibate.

>>15180
Good, you're starting to get it.

>>15181
By the same token, depressed people are just choosing to be sad.

>>15178

> I think it's something in a way an issue with British culture - we're too polite to tell ANYONE what we actually feel, which when you're an asperger is absolutely awful


That's really a problem. British culture, more than many other cultures in Europe, relies really very greatly on unspoken messages and hidden or nonverbal cues.

You will realise that especially when you've got coworkers from other countries at your office. I worked with a German lad once for a while who had just moved to Britain, and their culture is much more direct, to the point of hurtful bluntness. Except, they don't see it that way. They don't think that being brutally honest with you is something that should offend you. If anything, they will think they're doing you a favour by not beating around the bush. They will see no point in telling you wishy washy things like "maybe you should go over your presentation one more time", as a British person more than likely would, when they really think your presentation is utter shit. Which they will then point out to you in great detail. But again, not out of malice, but simply because they think they are providing a valuable service to you. It really took me a while to get used to my German coworker's style. But he also toned down his directness a bit more, the more he noticed that people were taken aback by it.

Maybe in that respect, Germany is a better place for Aspies to live, I don't know. The few times I was there, I couldn't help feeling slightly intimidated by train staff or bank tellers, who all seemed to share that common trait of straightforward directness.

>>15182
Not really, but thanks for playing.

>>15184
Please, sneeringlad, enlighten me.

>>15188
The key difference being that, at the risk of stating the obvious, depression is actually a real thing.

>>15189
And autism isn't?

>>15190
Where does autism come into believing you've been involuntarily deprived of sex?

>>15176
I didn't know how.

>>15183

Absolutely, the reason it's so much harder to be an autist in the UK is because of the extreme indirectness of the way people communicate in our country. While Germans and other cultures will straight-up tell you if you are being weird/insensitive/an obnoxious cunt, every interaction between Brits is shrouded in layer upon layer of fake politeness and falsity to the extent where it can be almost impossible to decipher the difference between what people are saying and what they actually mean. If you have offended someone, they are more likely to respond with subtle signals like grimaces or false smiles (which can be almost impossible for autists to read) than to tell you that you have offended them, and you only find out that you have upset them when they start ignoring you or talking about you behind your back weeks later. Every interaction becomes a minefield of mixed signals, which is probably why most of my friends are foreigners; if I've been an arsehole to them, at least they're going to tell me about it rather than mysteriously ghost me the way people from this country do when they're too polite to tell someone they have a problem with to piss off.

>>15193

That's because we Brits aren't autistic, we're merely "eccentric". Downright weird and anti-social behaviour is accepted on every level of social strata from street drunks so far gone they can't even sell the Big Issue any more to the fucking Bullingdon Club.

>>15193

I'm very probably not an Aspie myself, but it does irk me when I know I've wronged somebody and all they will tell me while visibly keeping their composure is something like, "No, that's fine, don't worry about it". I mean, come on, I've just stepped on your toes verbally, the least you can do is seize that moment where you have every right to be mad at me. Call me a twat or an arsehole, anything to let out your frustration with me, just don't pretend what I just did to you never happened.

Maybe I'm weird that way, who knows.

If it's any help, think of programmes like Very British Problems, where quite normal Brits reveal that even to them, British politeness is shrouded in mistery and a constant source of awkwardness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49o_or_y8Zs

>>15195

This clip sums it up even better than the one I just posted -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ELuYfCyjM

>>15193

I think British culture is undergoing a gradual, creeping, insidious change, and it's making the apparent contradictions you describe become more apparent and unhelpful.

I've always thought that the thing about British mannerisms and social conventions are that they serve to create a kind of diplomatic immunity from faux pas. Those layers of abstraction, that almost competitive "No, it's quite alright!" "Oh but I insist!" "Oh, no, honestly, it's fine!" thing you get, is (or used to be) there for the express intention of rendering minor sleights and insults less meaningful.

It's a minefield because these days, we've grown up on a culture steadily drip fed with all sorts of sugary, heartwarming, honest American sincerity. The part that your average autistic lad isn't quite understanding is that it doesn't matter if you piss someone off- The Code of British Conduct is there to make sure they can't be too much of a cunt in return, they'll just "forget" to ask you next time they make everyone else a brew or some shit, and that's how you know you did something wrong.

An autist finds these things hard to reconcile. For an aspie it's nearly impossible to make the connection that you're supposed to just disregard the fact you offended them at all and simply carry on, safe in the knowledge that you will both be unfalteringly polite, British, and only mildly passive aggressive to one another, regardless. They have probably watched one too many glurgy Yank sitcoms where the nice music plays and everyone makes friends again at the end, and they've no hope of understanding why that isn't always a good thing.

I can't believe there's been a whole half-thread on incels and "the masculinity crisis" without anyone referencing the rat utopia experiments; we've had whole, utterly depressing, threads on them before lads. Pull your socks up.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/

If anyone honestly doesn't think that the current incel/masculinity/femininity crisis and the problems with rat utopias aren't linked then I'm stumped.

Society as a whole is entering into a dance of decadence from which we will probably never recover. I know people having been predicting the end of Society since the Ancient Greeks, but what do you know, their civilization did perish, as has every great civilization before and after.

I wish I'd been around to involved in this thread all day today because I have response upon response to posts scores above this one which now seem almost pointless to make, as the original point I had to make, and the point to which I wished to respond have been lost in a sea of noise.

Anyway, read up on rat/mouse utopias and do your best to enjoy the kali yuga period of the Great Western Civilization even as it crumbles around your feet.

>>15199
The behavioural sink is quite interesting, but It's not an accurate model for human behaviour and they say that in the Abstract of the published paper.

>>15198
I've always thought this is the fundamental difference between British and American "politeness": a Brit who doesn't like you will be polite, but reserved and civil about it. An American who doesn't like you will be polite, but also effusively warm and welcoming and positive. To your face. And I just can't trust that kind of fucking insincerity.

>>15201

The differences between American and British politeness are indeed subtle. But quite noticeable still.

Americans will smile at you and say nice things even if they hate your guts (although their women more so than the men). Even if they have no opinion abot you one way or the other, the rule is to give you that trademark empty American smile. When a Brit strongly dislikes you, I think it's much easier to infer from body language and other nonverbal cues. For all its mysteriousness, the gamut of social interaction is much wider in Britain than in America.

Americans have always seemed a bit soulless and cold to me in that respect. Theirs is a culture that indoctrinates them from childhood to smile and be upbeat on the outside no matter what they really feel or think. And that is just something that can send quite a chill down your spine. Because nothing makes you feel more cold than a person being "American nice" to you when they really don't care for you at all.

>>15202
Yes thanks for just repeating what I've said back to me but with more words, it is nice when we can all agree on something isn't it*

* Which British hallmark of social interaction can YOU spot in this post? Answers to the usual address.

Here's a bit of useful advice for incels on how to talk to women, albeit in the form of what not to do -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcvdtEi2T_I

Although at the end, it really takes a hard nose dive when it turns out that the clip is really just a pitch for his snake oil seeming audio book on how to pick up women.

>>15204
Isn't believing PUA shit part of why incels are the way they are?

>>15205

The biggest problem with PUA stuff is that a lot of what they teach is more or less going to work, but the sorts of people who would be looking it up do not have nearly enough of the requisite charisma and charm for it to work. I don't think that part is something you can teach over the internet - though most PUA 'courses' focus heavily on getting yourself out there and trying the techniques they give you in real situations, so if you have the tenacity and understand it's not going to work right away, you'll slowly develop your 'game' (ugh) through a combination of rejection therapy, trial and error, and a general realisation that women are also people. But for every bloke who actually gets laid by applying PUA techniques there must be fifty who go up to one woman once, fail miserably and declare it hopeless.

>>15205

Before everyone was trying to sell something, back in the days of USENET, then there was a LOT of "PUA" (I don't think that was even a term then) stuff that was fantastically useful. I won't iterate them here for fear of being laughed at but for a lad who grew up with a single mother it was only through reading alt.seduction.fast that I ever managed to ever really get a handle on girls, while at the same time maintaining my steadfastness and inherent morality as a man.

In other words I learned (slowly and through practice) how to relate to women, how to make sure what I wanted was what she wanted, and from there really it's a done deal. The real trick is to do that while managing expectations and not allowing either of you to fall into a relationship that one party doesn't really want.

It might be worth pointing out at this point in time that even though I've had plenty, I still don't really believe in the concept of "casual sex" per se.

Sex is a physically, psychologically, and emotionally dangerous activity which should be treated with care and respect. Writing off the dangers with "oh it's just an abortion / week of antibiotics / broken heart" is to head into a black hole of cynicism that I would rather just not think about.

>>15207
That's probably quite wise advice.

>>15207

PUA is really just the attempt to hack the female psyche in order to get sex, and really not much more than sex. 

A lot of it works indeed, but it won't work because through self-teaching yourself pickup artistry you will suddenly have a way with women, but because everybody is a sucker for a good lie well told. PUA exploits women's weaknesses and overrides their safeguards and defence mechanisms just to get in the sack with them. 

All this has very little to do with meeting a romantic partner with whom you can build a relationship. It's probably safe to say that PUA, for all the clunge it can get you if executed well, is a big hindrance in that respect.

>>15206

Rules of the Game by Neil Strauss makes for fascinating reading. It's by far the biggest-selling PUA book, but it's basically a CBT and exposure course for social anxiety. I don't think that Strauss even realised what he was doing, making it a weird case of convergent evolution.

>>15222

You totally missed the point of my post and conflated pre and post "PUA" seduction material, again. The point of my post, as apparently I have to write it in Very Simple Words for the thickos among us, was that ASF on USENET used to be about a lot more than "sex, and really not much more than sex" and was actually useful in regards to "meeting a romantic partner with whom you can build a relationship".

Thanks for wasting both of our time, though. I always enjoy explaining myself twice for the benefit of the idiots in the back.

I don't want to risk turning this into one of those threads, but one thing I think gets overlooked is how much of a buyers market the world of sex, and relationships in general, is for women. It's sometimes frustrating for a good looking and confident lad, but nevermind a skinny, pasty anorak who spends most of his time on World of Warcraft.

All you have to do is visit any personals site and you'll find women who are not just ugly, but uninteresting and often downright unpleasant sounding, batting away offers from desperate men. The deck is stacked against these poor fuckers in a way that's so far beyond unfair it's not funny, but it's one of those double standards people tend not to talk about, and as blokes, tend to refuse to bring up lest we "stoop to their level" and end up sounding like a bitter Reddit emm arr ayy.

I'm not sure what my point is here but I think as we've all already agreed upon, these guys are pretty tragic. They do themselves no favours but they cannot be denied a sense of injustice, at very least.

Then again as my mum always told me when I was bothering her over something I wasn't allowed, life isn't fair now shut up and get on with your homework.

>>15248

> I don't want to risk turning this into one of those threads, but one thing I think gets overlooked is how much of a buyers market the world of sex, and relationships in general, is for women.

While overlooked by the general public it is the base fact that makes up the "revelation" of the red pill; that there is a sexual marketplace, women have most of the value, and will generally only choose to shag the top 10-20% of men until they feel like they've shagged enough and want to settle down and have kids once that biological uterine alert goes off at around twenty-seven.

From my own experience I would say that all or most of this is true, I've never lived in America only visited, but even in the UK, Europe, and South America so see the same things happening maybe with just slightly different variables.

> Then again as my mum always told me when I was bothering her over something I wasn't allowed, life isn't fair now shut up and get on with your homework.

Exactly. The unhealthy part of TRP etc, in my eyes at least, is the constant rumination over something that can't be changed. Any amount of time spent thinking, talking, reading, or writing something that can't be learned from is essentially pointless and oftentimes harmful to the psyche.

When you then combine that with a self-affirming internet community the shit really hits the fan.

>>15250

>constant rumination over something that can't be changed

I think this is the crux of the matter. The sensible amongst us know it's unfair, but have learned (or at least had the opportunity to learn) to overcome it. However, the same can be said about a great many things in life- Transexuals will never truly be the gender they desire to be, for instance, but a culture of acceptance and tolerance has grown up to support them.

These lads see all that, and wonder why it doesn't apply to them too. Society is a mess.

>>15248
>>15250

Things do change once people reach their 30s though. For women, once they've had a number of different knobs in their various body openings, time really starts ticking aroud the age 30 mark, and those who haven't played their cards right are under increasing pressure not just from their biological clock but also both from their female peers and from younger women to finally find a guy to settle down with. All the opportunity they had in their early to mid 20s will just increasingly be slipping away for them, and it really comes down to finding somebody who will be the father of your kids, and fast, because the next ten years will just zip by in a flash and every day that they'll get up, they'll be a day older and less likely to find a man to settle down with.

Whereas you often see men in their 30s who were more the geeky types in their 20s, and now they're financially stable with a decent career and salary and they're able to land spectacular girlfriends who wouldn't have given them the time of day ten years earlier.

It really sort of flip flops around the age of 30, where it's no longer a buyers' market for women, and increasingly becomes a cherry picking market for the men who are still unmarried and who have their shit together.

It doesn't come for free though just because you're a lad in your 30s who hasn't found somebody. If you have no career, no goals and no steady income, and if you maybe also look a bit shit, then there isn't much hope that you will be among that circle of early 30s eligible bachelors. You will probably be just as lonely and undesirable as you were in your 20s.

>>15253

> It really sort of flip flops around the age of 30, where it's no longer a buyers' market for women, and increasingly becomes a cherry picking market for the men who are still unmarried and who have their shit together.

One of the big complaints of TRP and MGTOW, though, is that they don't want the 30-somethings who've had a "a number of different knobs in their various body openings". If you've spent your twenties thanking your lucky stars if and when you ever got laid at all, do you really want to settle down in your thirties with a lass who's shagged her way into the triple digits?

Before someone cunts off at me, I'm not really arguing for or against this mode of thinking, merely pointing out that the same 80/20 rule of shagging that applied in your twenties still applies to shagging the mid-twenties girl of your dreams when you hit your thirties. It's doable, but like you say you need to have your shit together, well groomed, well dressed, a bit of cash to flash. The fact of the matter is not many men will have that, and (and here I reveal a bit of personal opinion) in fact even those that do may realize that early to mid twenties women just aren't that fucking interesting once you've fucked them a handful of times.

So, (and here I'm back to playing devil's advocate) what's a man who fucked up top shagging years to do when he hits his thirties? Settle down with either a budding mad cat lady or someone who's had so much cock up her arse she barely notices when you switch holes, or do you commit to confirmed bachelorhood and just shag your way through a bunch of maladjusted twenty year olds until you hit forty and you're fucked either way?

You lads do realise that just because it's easy for a lass to get laid doesn't mean that she's been ridden more times than a Blackpool donkey, right?

>>15258

Even if it did, I don't really understand what's wrong with someone having slept with loads of people. Hopefully that means they're quite good at it.

>>15260
My worry would be that my inexperience would shine through.

>>15261

Perhaps, but at the same time, the more partners they've had the more likely it is they've encountered far worse shags than yourself. They'll also know what they like and will probably not be afraid to direct you in such matters. I don't see many downsides, apart from a higher statistical chance they have an STI, but that's not really how it works in real life, they're more likely to have been tested etc if they're shagging hundreds of people.

Also even a bumhole that can fit a baseball bat in it still feels tight around a knob, and there's basically no such thing as fanny slackening. The human body is wonderful.

>>15262

One thing that will probably always arise out of a pairing of somebody who has "been around the block" and somebody like you who has barely had enough shags to not be a functional virgin is that you will always think you can't measure up to the millions of world class shags she has probably had before she met you. If she really cares about you, it won't matter to her. She will enjoy having sex with you no matter what. But in the back of your head, there will always be the thought that she is faking it and that you can't possibly give her what she really needs.

I was in that situation once, albeit in my mid-20s, and I was dating a lass who was 21 and had had more boyfriends and shags than you'd care to know about. Her point in going out with me was to swear off her slag ways and be with somebody decent for a change, somebody who wasn't a burger flipper or an aspiring musician or a pot smoking skateboarder.

I had had sex before her, but I could never measure up to somebody like her. I confided in her once that it bothered me a great deal that she would probably always compare me to her previous shags and boyfriends and that I was worried I had nothing to really give somebody like her in bed. In the beginning, she just shrugged it off and said she was with me because she loved me as a person. Maybe I was just projecting, but the feeling that that couldn't be the whole truth slowly kept eating away at me.

We stayed together for about a year, and then for want of a better word, she reverted to her slag ways and dumped me for a leather jacket wearing lad with a motorbike. She said she had no idea how it happened, but that she just fell head over heels for that lad the minute she saw him. But I knew what the real problem was.

>>15267

>But I knew what the real problem was.

It was your crippling insecurity. Shagging isn't that complicated, it's mostly just mental attitude. You were too busy fretting about whether you measured up, instead of being present in the moment and focusing on creating a mutually pleasurable experience. Being with someone who is constantly seeking validation and reassurance is no fun at all.

>>15269

>It was your crippling insecurity.


Yes, but which I probably wouldn't have had if she hadn't had a whole world of more experience than me.

Even if you successfully shut all that out and are "in the moment", you can't ignore the elephant in the room. Not forever anyway.

>>15270

The problem was all between your ears m8.

>>15271

I am not disagreeing with you.

It wasn't her fault that she was an experienced woman at 21 and that I had probably had less minge than her (she dropped a few hints that way once). I am not blaming her.

My whole point is, it's likely that insecurity issues will arise if you're a sexually inexperienced lad and get together with a partner who is the extreme opposite.

And unless you are just a complete git, it's likely that you being inexperienced is a direct result of you also being insecure about yourself. And that "baseline" insecurity will not help when you're with somebody like that.

>>15267
>>15270

I've shagged an above average number of women (I'm hoping this reads as basic fact rather than me trying to be the big man top shagger on the internet) and honestly it's pretty hard to find a 'bad' shag. Some will just lay there like a dead fish, but if you're an active participant you're almost certainly not a bad fuck. There's really only so many 'moves' in your average shag session and honestly most real life women just want cock inside them for a bit and maybe some oral.

Watch some homemade/amateur porn and you'll soon see what I mean - it's not exactly varied or interesting compared to the professionals, and nobody - and I mean nobody - can be arsed to fuck like a pornstar every single time in real life. I'd argue that some of my most 'impressive' shagging was done as an inexperienced teenlad, as I just went for it like a rabbit on speed. I'm too old for that now, despite my far greater 'knowledge' of sex.

As has been said, confidence is the special secret ingredient in all things concerning sex. Confidence attracts women, it gets them into bed, and it allows you to put on a right good shagging. It's mostly instinct, and getting in your head about it will ruin that.

For me, now a virgin in my mid-20s, I can't reconcile that with any woman respecting me. I know I don't have to tell, but I think in the incredibly unlikely situation that it did happen it would become obvious.

I can't help but think "what woman in her right mind would NOT see a problem with a man in his mid-20s who is still a virgin?"

I'm not just "inexperienced", I'm "hopelessly weird".

[x]Autism

>>15278

Then don’t tell them you’re a virgin. People can have sex and still be hopelessly weird, so it’s not like you have it written on your forehead.

Dating for introverts is a game of set ups and blind dates. You get your friends to help you out, even if they go horribly you gain experience.

>>15278
As the post above, just don't let on, and they won't be able to tell. If you're asked outright, don't lie, but (again as above) exude confidence about the matter. If it seems like you don't care, neither will they.

>>15279
>>15280
> I know I don't have to tell, but I think in the incredibly unlikely situation that it did happen it would become obvious.

It would feel like, by not disclosing, I'm setting myself up for a more awkward situation.

Also
>Dating for introverts is a game of set ups and blind dates. You get your friends to help you out, even if they go horribly you gain experience.

I do engineering at university. The few people I could count as my friends do not have the resources to set that up, and when when I get into work it would feel awkward asking people set me up.

I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your points out of hand, it's just such an unlikely situation.

>>15281
Speaking as someone who was a virgin until his twenties, my first girlfriend had no idea. Being cautious with a new partner appears almost identical to being cautious because you've never done it before.

>>15282

It's also worth bearing in mind how awful a lot of supposedly "normal" men are. Most of my female friends have at least one horrifying one-night-stand story - guys thought that spitting and slapping would be well-received, guys who keep trying to "sneakily" go for anal, guys who take the condom off halfway through, guys who start sobbing hysterically then explode in anger because they can't get it up. A shocking number of grown men treat porn like an instruction manual.

If you're in bed with a woman for the first time, you're worried about being humiliated, but she's worried about being raped and murdered. It's a sad indictment of our gender, but you can pretty much guarantee that you won't be a woman's worst sexual experience just by not being a monstrous sexual predator. If you actually care about her pleasure, you're on the right side of average almost by default.

>>15262
> They'll also know what they like and will probably not be afraid to direct you in such matters.

In my experience it's quite the opposite. People who've had sex a handful of times with a lot of different people have never learned to build the intimacy required for even such basic communication / interaction. Sex for them has never really passed the, what I shall call for lack of a better term, awkwardness line.

On the other hand, people who've had a lot of sex with only a handful of people tend to be amazing in bed; confident, communicative, open, and oftentimes able to communicate sexually on that non-verbal level of intuition which is what creates truly amazing sex.

Like I always say, a good ballroom dancer can make anyone look good, but only when they practice daily with the same person for years at a time will they start winning championships.

School shooting in Texas, fatalities confirmed.

Must be Friday.

>>15284

That makes a lot of sense. Though a lot can be achieved in a weekend, even if you never see that person again.

>>15285
https://vine.co/v/MY0FzZz16XM

>>15286

Absolutely, although in my experience that has always been through the addition of drugs and the associated lowering of learned/developed psychic defenses.

Just on the topic of the whole women thing being a buyer's market, I don't necessarily think it is really the case outside of apps.

Anybody who has the vague level of confidence not to be on them (not saying that everybody using them is somehow unconfident and desperate), will probably already be shacking up.

This leaves people who are increasingly desperate and hence for men (who have huge societal pressure to do the asking in the first place) they will swipe pretty much anything that isn't hideous - whereas women can afford to be a bit more picky because they know that the chances are if they swipe they will match, and even then, the select ones they swipe will all make a huge effort with matches.

Somebody mentioned that men who are scrawny and play world of warcraft all day will struggle, but of course they probably will. It's a cruel world but realistically we take what we think we can get, but you need to at least have something to offer. The chances are somebody who hits the gym three times a week and goes out climbing mountains or sailing is going to want somebody who puts similar efforts into those areas of life. It's why outgoing attractive women, shock horror, will go for outgoing attractive men.

I had a girlfriend for years and she was quite attractive, so I just assumed all along that despite making no more than a minimal-reasonable effort I must be okay and an exception to the rule of trying hard.

She dumped me and I went through a massive teary and period of self reflection and took a real look at myself in the mirror. As a result I started going to the gym and doubled my haircut budget and got it cut properly for once instead of at the same in and out quick barbers. If somebody invited me to a social event, no matter what, I'd just say yes and pretend I was confident and nobody knew any different. The difference these little changes in my life has made is incredible, I just wish I'd started sooner.

If you want to get with attractive people or be attractive to anybody, you've got to make yourself so.