Topic: Liberal whites are by far the biggest group of emasculated pussies the world has ever seen.
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #34,173
Discuss
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #471,944
THE WORLD OUTSIDE IS SCARY I CANT MAKE MY OWN CHOICES GOVERNMENT SAVE ME!!Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,945
mfw ShitArse is still lurking and posting
Anonymous C double-posted this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,946
mfw I don't have a face.Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,947
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,949
i onde if shitass ill eve povide a souce fo anything
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,952
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,953
@previous (Metæ)
Squeegee does, generally. They may be debatable, but there are actual citations from credible sources. ShitArse's citations are uniformly:
Squeegee does, generally. They may be debatable, but there are actual citations from credible sources. ShitArse's citations are uniformly:
*The Jews did this.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 12 years ago, 56 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #471,954
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 8 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #471,979
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #471,985
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #471,986
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #471,987
Liberals aren't even 'liberal' anymore. Gun control proves it.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 10 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,027
White liberal men actually seem to be stuck pretty fucking deep in their own masculinity - trying to reform masculinity as somehow not being based upon domination and oppression, when it's actually a completely ethically bankrupt, useless narrative of maleness.
Maleness is alright. Masculinity a trash structure built around the worst detritus that can be found in white maleness, shoved upon other cultures.
Emasculation is a good thing. Emasculate everything and everyone.
Maleness is alright. Masculinity a trash structure built around the worst detritus that can be found in white maleness, shoved upon other cultures.
Emasculation is a good thing. Emasculate everything and everyone.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,031
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,032
@472,027 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> Masculinity a trash structure built around the worst detritus that can be found in white maleness, shoved upon other cultures.
So... whites invented masculinity? PoC were emasculated (and presumably "efeminated" as well, if such a word exists) until white colonists forced gender roles upon them? I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Masculinity goes back even before race was a thing.
> Masculinity a trash structure built around the worst detritus that can be found in white maleness, shoved upon other cultures.
So... whites invented masculinity? PoC were emasculated (and presumably "efeminated" as well, if such a word exists) until white colonists forced gender roles upon them? I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Masculinity goes back even before race was a thing.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,041
What is entirely wrong with liberals?
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,042
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,043
@472,032 (Metæ)
i think he means the modern concept of masculinity, not masculinity all through history.
In fact "patriarchy" is fairly new, humans for generations determined lineage though matrilineality, and there's plenty of evidence to show that many pre-historical societies had matrifocal families.
men just didn't used to be all that important to the hierarchy, we probably went out and played a lot of sports and hunted lots of game while the women sat at home and bickered about how organize society to raise children.
i think he means the modern concept of masculinity, not masculinity all through history.
In fact "patriarchy" is fairly new, humans for generations determined lineage though matrilineality, and there's plenty of evidence to show that many pre-historical societies had matrifocal families.
men just didn't used to be all that important to the hierarchy, we probably went out and played a lot of sports and hunted lots of game while the women sat at home and bickered about how organize society to raise children.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,046
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I think it all depends on the tribe and culture. And it used to be that the mother stayed at home to raise the kid. Now we expect families to be dual income even though the second income merely breaks even.
I think it all depends on the tribe and culture. And it used to be that the mother stayed at home to raise the kid. Now we expect families to be dual income even though the second income merely breaks even.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,047
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
> I think it all depends on the tribe and culture. And it used to be that the mother stayed at home to raise the kid.
nope, that's just wrong. women were the primary food gathers in stone age cultures it didn't "used to be women," it used to be the elderly that primarily "raised" the kids.
so basically even stone age paleolithic cultures were "dual-income" earners, they just earned food, not money
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
> I think it all depends on the tribe and culture. And it used to be that the mother stayed at home to raise the kid.
nope, that's just wrong. women were the primary food gathers in stone age cultures it didn't "used to be women," it used to be the elderly that primarily "raised" the kids.
so basically even stone age paleolithic cultures were "dual-income" earners, they just earned food, not money
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,048
so men played sports while women organized the elders to raise the children while all the young adults, men and women, would go off to hunt and gather.
The biggest difference i see between today and yesterday is that the breakdown of the modern family doesn't include extended family for much more than occasional babysitting leaving the primary responsibilities on the two parents. Since we don't typically live with and care for our elderly they don't have as much a role in raising kids as they used to. Now they just move to florida and go on cruises.
The biggest difference i see between today and yesterday is that the breakdown of the modern family doesn't include extended family for much more than occasional babysitting leaving the primary responsibilities on the two parents. Since we don't typically live with and care for our elderly they don't have as much a role in raising kids as they used to. Now they just move to florida and go on cruises.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,049
@472,047 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I guess that would explain why women have a better sense of color than men. They're the ones that had to pick berries and make sure they're not the poison or unripe ones.
> Linguistic experts research how language is developed and conveyed. Children basically learn their words from their mothers and only secondarily from their fathers. Socialization of children usually takes place more with females than with males through the need to organize care, meals, play and rituals.
Things haven't really changed that much in that regard. Nice find!
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> Now they just move to florida and go on cruises.
LOL. And they seem to love to go camping/caravanning.
I guess that would explain why women have a better sense of color than men. They're the ones that had to pick berries and make sure they're not the poison or unripe ones.
> Linguistic experts research how language is developed and conveyed. Children basically learn their words from their mothers and only secondarily from their fathers. Socialization of children usually takes place more with females than with males through the need to organize care, meals, play and rituals.
Things haven't really changed that much in that regard. Nice find!
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> Now they just move to florida and go on cruises.
LOL. And they seem to love to go camping/caravanning.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,056
@471,944 (Metæ)
> THE WORLD OUTSIDE IS SCARY I CANT MAKE MY OWN CHOICES GOVERNMENT SAVE ME!!
is that why conservatives and republicans constantly fight to have fun stuff banned and/or regulated if at all? you're stupid as shit
> THE WORLD OUTSIDE IS SCARY I CANT MAKE MY OWN CHOICES GOVERNMENT SAVE ME!!
is that why conservatives and republicans constantly fight to have fun stuff banned and/or regulated if at all? you're stupid as shit
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,057
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,063
"Liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning beyond being snarl words, they used to refer to interpreting the Constitution. The DP and GOP are literally just different flavors of neoconservatism.
Anonymous E replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,065
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,070
@472,032 (Metæ)
You're confusing the concept of maleness in general with Western European white hegemonic masculinity. <_<
You're confusing the concept of maleness in general with Western European white hegemonic masculinity. <_<
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,143
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
So PoC masculinity is inherently better?
So PoC masculinity is inherently better?
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 15 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,200
@472,043 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Matrilinealty≠matriarchy. Judaism is matrilineal but I don't think anyone would consider it (especially Orthodox Judaism) to be a matriarchy. Even if some societies were truly matriarchies, it still doesn't mean that concepts of masculinity and femininity didn't exist within them. You can make an argument that the modern, western version of masculinity is good or bad but to claim that white males invented the entire concept of gender roles is absurd. It would be like saying "white people invented the symphony so they invented all music, everywhere".
Matrilinealty≠matriarchy. Judaism is matrilineal but I don't think anyone would consider it (especially Orthodox Judaism) to be a matriarchy. Even if some societies were truly matriarchies, it still doesn't mean that concepts of masculinity and femininity didn't exist within them. You can make an argument that the modern, western version of masculinity is good or bad but to claim that white males invented the entire concept of gender roles is absurd. It would be like saying "white people invented the symphony so they invented all music, everywhere".
squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,201
@previous (Metæ)
i didn't equate the two and i never claimed white people invented anything. i merely said that prehistorical societies, such as the protojews even, practiced matrilineality and some had matrifocal families. basically women had a more prominant role in society than they did in, say, the middle ages.
i did not use the word matriarchy, as the idea of a matriarchy among prehistorical societies is not supported with much evidence. of course, neither is there evidence for "patriarchy." what is supported is the concept of equal opportunity amongst hunter gatherers.
if a female could hunt, she would have. that skill would be too important to ignore simply based on gender. likewise if a male was a terrible hunter he would have gone gathering or held some other job more fitting to thier skills.
i'll put up a source later, i'm working so can't dig it up atm.
i didn't equate the two and i never claimed white people invented anything. i merely said that prehistorical societies, such as the protojews even, practiced matrilineality and some had matrifocal families. basically women had a more prominant role in society than they did in, say, the middle ages.
i did not use the word matriarchy, as the idea of a matriarchy among prehistorical societies is not supported with much evidence. of course, neither is there evidence for "patriarchy." what is supported is the concept of equal opportunity amongst hunter gatherers.
if a female could hunt, she would have. that skill would be too important to ignore simply based on gender. likewise if a male was a terrible hunter he would have gone gathering or held some other job more fitting to thier skills.
i'll put up a source later, i'm working so can't dig it up atm.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,203
@previous (squeegee)
Fair enough. In the hunter gatherer era, humans were probably more concerned about avoiding starvation and living past age 25 than they were about gender role narratives or the patriarchy.
I just think dBm's belief that everything bad in the entire history of humanity, everywhere, is because of white men is absurd. Can't we just accept that people can be horrible to each other regardless of color? Hate is an equal opportunity employer.
Fair enough. In the hunter gatherer era, humans were probably more concerned about avoiding starvation and living past age 25 than they were about gender role narratives or the patriarchy.
I just think dBm's belief that everything bad in the entire history of humanity, everywhere, is because of white men is absurd. Can't we just accept that people can be horrible to each other regardless of color? Hate is an equal opportunity employer.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,229
@previous (Metæ)
> Can't we just accept that people can be horrible to each other regardless of color? Hate is an equal opportunity employer.
sure, this is true. But when one specific type of hate is so prevalent i find it hard to dismiss it as "just another kind of hate." racial prejudice constitutes a large portion of social hatred, i really can't think of anything that comes close to racism as being more widespread and deeply rooted. Sure i can hate someone for being a jerk, or hate someone for their wealth, or their laziness, and i would avoid those people. but when people hate race it inspires genocide, slavery, violence and contempt.
so i will agree that there are other kinds of ways to be horrible to each other, but race specifically is something people use to validate causing harm to other humans, and that's not something we should just, "meh."
Now i don't think that the white man has caused all problems in human history, that's ridiculous.
but i do think that for much of the last few thousand years race has been the primary "social stratifier," to make up a word.
for example the Roman views on foreigners as being barbarian or less civilized.
another, you didn't see many black kings in england (i think it's zero)
so what i'm saying is that as societies grow from small to large a particular race tends to gain dominance over the hierarchy. greeks look like greeks and rule greece. Chinese people rule china and look chinese. Japanese people rule japan and they look japanese.
during the era of the empires those racially "pure" social groups in power wielded a ton of control, and the last most powerful, england, happened to be full of white people. America, as the colonies, are also primarily white.
So white people happen to control the "superpower" of today which is going on close to 80 years of almost total dominance. it's no wonder that white people are blamed when it's the white race that happens to be insularly controlling the world.
but it won't be white people forever, just like it wasn't egyptians forever, or romans forever, it won't be whites forever.
whoever it is, let's say china, in 50 years every problem in the world will be blamed on them and in 100 it'll be blamed on the whole race of chinese people who are holding everyone else back so they can sit at the top and bask.
> Can't we just accept that people can be horrible to each other regardless of color? Hate is an equal opportunity employer.
sure, this is true. But when one specific type of hate is so prevalent i find it hard to dismiss it as "just another kind of hate." racial prejudice constitutes a large portion of social hatred, i really can't think of anything that comes close to racism as being more widespread and deeply rooted. Sure i can hate someone for being a jerk, or hate someone for their wealth, or their laziness, and i would avoid those people. but when people hate race it inspires genocide, slavery, violence and contempt.
so i will agree that there are other kinds of ways to be horrible to each other, but race specifically is something people use to validate causing harm to other humans, and that's not something we should just, "meh."
Now i don't think that the white man has caused all problems in human history, that's ridiculous.
but i do think that for much of the last few thousand years race has been the primary "social stratifier," to make up a word.
for example the Roman views on foreigners as being barbarian or less civilized.
another, you didn't see many black kings in england (i think it's zero)
so what i'm saying is that as societies grow from small to large a particular race tends to gain dominance over the hierarchy. greeks look like greeks and rule greece. Chinese people rule china and look chinese. Japanese people rule japan and they look japanese.
during the era of the empires those racially "pure" social groups in power wielded a ton of control, and the last most powerful, england, happened to be full of white people. America, as the colonies, are also primarily white.
So white people happen to control the "superpower" of today which is going on close to 80 years of almost total dominance. it's no wonder that white people are blamed when it's the white race that happens to be insularly controlling the world.
but it won't be white people forever, just like it wasn't egyptians forever, or romans forever, it won't be whites forever.
whoever it is, let's say china, in 50 years every problem in the world will be blamed on them and in 100 it'll be blamed on the whole race of chinese people who are holding everyone else back so they can sit at the top and bask.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 12 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,257
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> But when one specific type of hate is so prevalent i find it hard to dismiss it as "just another kind of hate." racial prejudice constitutes a large portion of social hatred, i really can't think of anything that comes close to racism as being more widespread and deeply rooted
I wasn't trying to dismiss racism, it is a real thing with real effects in society. What I meant was that racism and racially based atrocities aren't an exclusively white thing, but more of a universal phenomenon. Likewise, things like sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc, are not something invented by or exclusive to whites.
> another, you didn't see many black kings in england (i think it's zero)
You don't see many black emperors in Japan, either. What's the deal with that?
> england, happened to be full of white people. America, as the colonies, are also primarily white.
But that doesn't mean much. Europeans have slaughtered each other en masse over and over again. I guess they didn't get the memo that "white" people are a monolithic bloc of hegemonic power. See: pretty much the entire recorded history of Europe.
> but it won't be white people forever, just like it wasn't egyptians forever, or romans forever, it won't be whites forever.
> whoever it is, let's say china, in 50 years every problem in the world will be blamed on them and in 100 it'll be blamed on the whole race of chinese people who are holding everyone else back so they can sit at the top and bask.
Will they check their Han privilege, though?
> But when one specific type of hate is so prevalent i find it hard to dismiss it as "just another kind of hate." racial prejudice constitutes a large portion of social hatred, i really can't think of anything that comes close to racism as being more widespread and deeply rooted
I wasn't trying to dismiss racism, it is a real thing with real effects in society. What I meant was that racism and racially based atrocities aren't an exclusively white thing, but more of a universal phenomenon. Likewise, things like sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc, are not something invented by or exclusive to whites.
> another, you didn't see many black kings in england (i think it's zero)
You don't see many black emperors in Japan, either. What's the deal with that?
> england, happened to be full of white people. America, as the colonies, are also primarily white.
But that doesn't mean much. Europeans have slaughtered each other en masse over and over again. I guess they didn't get the memo that "white" people are a monolithic bloc of hegemonic power. See: pretty much the entire recorded history of Europe.
> but it won't be white people forever, just like it wasn't egyptians forever, or romans forever, it won't be whites forever.
> whoever it is, let's say china, in 50 years every problem in the world will be blamed on them and in 100 it'll be blamed on the whole race of chinese people who are holding everyone else back so they can sit at the top and bask.
Will they check their Han privilege, though?
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,260
@previous (Metæ)
> will they check their han privilege?
nope. not if history is to be a guide
> will they check their han privilege?
nope. not if history is to be a guide
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 12 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,295
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 12 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,299
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,322
EVERYONE FUCKIN RELAX