The Death or Reversal of Human Civilization
- Thread starter UltraDolphinRevolution
- Start date
- Views 6,559
- Replies 64
- Likes 1
I never called women bad. I said in the beginning it's not their fault to be attracted to alphas. Just as it is not men's fault to be attractive to young women. It's nature. As Fates-Blade-900 has just pointed out, it forces betas to better themselves. Competition improves gen material and men favoring young women increases the chances of healthy offspring. Both things are positive.
I'm simply an agent in in this world, observing things. I do not advocate for any measures because I do not think we have any political power. It is cute that Americans still do because they voted Trump into office. But that's off-topic.
As a woman it's your "job" or more correctly: It is in your best interest to find out which men are dangerous for you. Bad alphas might toss you aside after having slept with you. Bad betas might stalk you after the break-up or become violent.
Both alphas and betas can be bad.
So your concern that some men think less of you (I'm not one of them) is real. You have no idea how men talk about women in their absence. Trump's p*ssy grabbing is only a mild tip of the iceberg. But not all men are like this. Find a decent, successful man (if you have not done so already) who does not think of women as less.
The fact that you seem to think of me as indecent is rather sad, but I don't care because this is an anonymous forum. Maybe you just read the insults many here flung against me.
Aye, that's the point I was trying to make. you're saying if there's a population of women being taller than men, it must be because of a lack of nutrition of the women. That's the unfortunately large leap I'm suggesting not to take. Could simply be a trait pressured by a isolated group, a cultural pressure. Or something else. Point is, all the data tells you is what the data tells you. To assume the why and how without testing is making a leap not available in the data. That part is a guess and has to be tested directly.
The important bit I'm trying to convey is the data doesn't necessarily say what can seem obvious to someone it is saying. Each thing presented as "this is the way things are" has to be tested.
I did say the alpha/beta thing isn't really seen how it's being presented. The populations you're talking about, and similar kinds of "alpha male of the pack", aren't really translatable to humans. When i said we don't see them in nature, I was more referencing the framing of the alpha male being presented. In nature, it's one stronger-than-the-rest animal, and other equally not-as-strong creatures. It's simple, and it's purely a "fight-me-bro" scenario.
There are environmental and contextual reasons there is a stronger animal. The fight for supremacy is used to weed out weaker animals. because physical strength dictates the survive-ability of that population, at that time. Change the context, the pressure for what would give offspring with better chances of survival? The practice would change over time. Also to note, humans don't have the same contextual pressures of wild animals. Humans are not like this. Humans rely on their social structure and not on pure strength to attract mates. silver-back Gorillas, for instance, were thought to only have one primary male. But we've discovered there are some groups with two. why? We're still figuring it out, but signs point to a cultural shift from what we know. Point is, this "alpha" and "beta" thing shouldn't be applied to humans, and is just a lens being used by those who don't understand it well enough to try and simplify a far more complex situation. it ignores the depth and complexity inherent to the entire discussion on human sociology. it's far, far too simplistic.
or to sum it up: We're human. We get to decide most everything we do. Our inclination toward recklessness in youth and desire for safety in older age is something systemic to our entire lives. Culture is going to have a lot more to do with our mating rituals than genetics. As social creatures, it's how we roll. And it's something we can choose to change, if we feel the culture is having a negative effect on individuals and the population as a whole. And we have, a lot. And it'll keep on changing, as it should, to be more equitable and to remove this concept of gate-keepers and genetic superiority.
I'm not trying to offend you or insult you. What you presented is fairly offensive, and I'm trying to point out why it is offensive. I was more trying to aim it at the people who push this stuff, less that you were the one lied to about it.
You're right.
It's silly to talk about averages in this context. On average, males are taller than females, but that's not a justification for the prejudice exhibited by the OP. Some women are taller than a lot of men, which throws out the entire argument.
Next, he will be arguing from the premise that the average human has one testicle, one breast, and half a penis.
Tbh no one really takes incels seriously. It's pretty fun to laugh at them, and its definitely important for more gullible people to see and understand how incels work and the lingo they use so they can naturally understand this way of thinking is blatantly retarded and really only for the most broken of guys.
It's almost like a cult created for the sole purpose of comforting themselves for being so socially inept and instead of bettering themselves, take on a mindset that shifts the blame to basically everyone else.
I'm sorry... when did I ever imply I considered you indecent? I apologize if I genuinely have, people with similar viewpoints have attacked people like me in the past, so maybe accidental hostility jumped out.
Look man, I'm trying not to be rude, but saying that the fall of civilization was caused by giving women the same rights as men, I'm not so sure this statement has much water.
You also didn't, uh, tell me where exactly you're getting your statistics from. Regardless of if you tell me or not, I'm wasting my time in this thread and am going to dip.
Well it seems his information is from observation "I'm simply an agent in this world, observing things." Post #42, I think he's talking about his opinion of his observations, or am I wrong?
D
Deleted User
Guest
The lowering of labor costs by almost doubling the amount of workers is not an unintended consequence. At least not by decision makers. In the 1960s the "economic miracle" in Germany would have resulted in a significant increase in wages (due to high demand of labor). Millions of migrant workers were invited instead. The German labor party (SPD) used to be against it. Ironically, said migrant workers are now the only people who still vote for this party.
Anyways, thank you for the intersting information. Maybe you could open an economy thread (if there isn't one already).
Andrew Yangs proposed 1000$ for every American could be used as an introduction.
-different user-
If you deny it is a problem, have a look at Europe: Most refugees are male and young and obviously have trouble succeeding financially (in a foreign country). Why would a priest publically call for free prostitutes for them? Why would the a local government in Germany try to make female students get to know male refugees better? Could it be that males who don't get laid are more dangerous to social stability?
Equal rights, increased female income, no fault divorce laws, late marriages, social welfare for single mothers etc all have decreased monogamy and therefore naturally (due to females desiring alphas; which is totally fine) the availabilty of women for the rest of the male population.
Increased female income (and the natural desire to marry up) has already decreased the number of alphas.
The final nail in the coffin for (my definition of) civilization might be AI sex robots. Can you imagine how many men will opt out of dating alltogether? It would propably decrease the number of alphas yet again.
Anyways, thank you for the intersting information. Maybe you could open an economy thread (if there isn't one already).
Andrew Yangs proposed 1000$ for every American could be used as an introduction.
-different user-
Maybe you feel offended because civilization has a positive ring to it. As a moral nihilist I do not tell others whether civilization is good or bad. It depends on the perspective. Western civilization has (so far) successfully managed social unrest usually caused by unsatisfied betas. Maybe you define civilization as stability or social progess. As I said in the beginning, I define it as "social justice or communism between men regarding the resource women". If you do think that civilization has something to do with stability, then you must logically accept that a large number of unsatisfied men is a potential powder keg.
If you deny it is a problem, have a look at Europe: Most refugees are male and young and obviously have trouble succeeding financially (in a foreign country). Why would a priest publically call for free prostitutes for them? Why would the a local government in Germany try to make female students get to know male refugees better? Could it be that males who don't get laid are more dangerous to social stability?
Equal rights, increased female income, no fault divorce laws, late marriages, social welfare for single mothers etc all have decreased monogamy and therefore naturally (due to females desiring alphas; which is totally fine) the availabilty of women for the rest of the male population.
Increased female income (and the natural desire to marry up) has already decreased the number of alphas.
The final nail in the coffin for (my definition of) civilization might be AI sex robots. Can you imagine how many men will opt out of dating alltogether? It would propably decrease the number of alphas yet again.
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
This is the funniest thing I've seen on the forums since Valwin, with some luck it will never die. Everyone involved should be very embarrassed, especially those who should know better.
I want to know more about Valwin or his thread.
A) Do females prefer alpha (i.e. strong, successful) males YES NO
B) Are males ok with having multiple females? YES NO
C) Can alpha males afford to have many sexual partners (at the same time or one after another) YES NO
D) Does monogamy limit the naturally occurring pattern of one men + multiple females YES NO
E) Does monogamy give more men access to women? YES NO
F) Does more men having access to women tame male aggressiveness? YES NO
G) Have we moved away from monogamy in dating and family planning in recent history (let's say decades compared to a hundred or a thousand years ago YES NO
If you answered with yes to each question, we are in agreement. The rest are semantics or emotions.
You only need logic and basic knowledge of the world. Just answer the following questions with yes or no.
A) Do females prefer alpha (i.e. strong, successful) males YES NO
B) Are males ok with having multiple females? YES NO
C) Can alpha males afford to have many sexual partners (at the same time or one after another) YES NO
D) Does monogamy limit the naturally occurring pattern of one men + multiple females YES NO
E) Does monogamy give more men access to women? YES NO
F) Does more men having access to women tame male aggressiveness? YES NO
G) Have we moved away from monogamy in dating and family planning in recent history (let's say decades compared to a hundred or a thousand years ago YES NO
If you answered with yes to each question, we are in agreement. The rest are semantics or emotions.
So if I can't or don't want to find you sources that we revolve around the sun or that men are taller than women, my words mean nothing to you?
My sources are my brain and the world around us. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist: "Where does it say that in scriputre?"
My sources are my brain and the world around us. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist: "Where does it say that in scriputre?"
It's a monument to the sillyness of everyone involved that must be preserved in a time capsule for future generations to enjoy.
So to sum up. Those who disagree with my observations.
(a) attacked my personally
(b) demanded sources
(c) warned of generalization
a) Ad hominem. Is used when somebody doesn't have arguments.
b) I'm not a college student anymore. Some of my knowledge comes from experience, some are obvious truths everybody knows (e.g. that men like young women, women like successful men), so I don't feel the need nor do I have the willingness to look for sources I may have read in the past. I don't catalogue news or write a diary. In addition, the censored internet at my current location makes looking for sources painful. Just like certain voices in this thread, many people what to shut up uncomfortable statements. Bravo. You are a disgrace to the US constitution (if you are American).
c) Generalization happens on a micro and macro scale. Our brain constantly catagorizes things in order to deal with the overwhelming amount of information. If you want to describe society, you obviously need to generalize. Maybe somewhere in this world there is a woman who actually prefers losers and there might be men who have a fetish for women who are much older than they are, but exceptions prove the rule.
Please somebody find fault with the following:
increased female income + hypergamy (instinctive female desire to marry up) = more competition for the top tier men (i.e. more women revolving around alphas)
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
People who live in a glass house...
(a) attacked my personally
(b) demanded sources
(c) warned of generalization
a) Ad hominem. Is used when somebody doesn't have arguments.
b) I'm not a college student anymore. Some of my knowledge comes from experience, some are obvious truths everybody knows (e.g. that men like young women, women like successful men), so I don't feel the need nor do I have the willingness to look for sources I may have read in the past. I don't catalogue news or write a diary. In addition, the censored internet at my current location makes looking for sources painful. Just like certain voices in this thread, many people what to shut up uncomfortable statements. Bravo. You are a disgrace to the US constitution (if you are American).
c) Generalization happens on a micro and macro scale. Our brain constantly catagorizes things in order to deal with the overwhelming amount of information. If you want to describe society, you obviously need to generalize. Maybe somewhere in this world there is a woman who actually prefers losers and there might be men who have a fetish for women who are much older than they are, but exceptions prove the rule.
Please somebody find fault with the following:
increased female income + hypergamy (instinctive female desire to marry up) = more competition for the top tier men (i.e. more women revolving around alphas)
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
You: "Sources, give me freaking sources!"
People who live in a glass house...
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
Can't access that. Sorry.
If I find you links for hypergamy and the fact that women earn more money than in the past, will you address my equation? The conclusion follows logically.
If I find you links for hypergamy and the fact that women earn more money than in the past, will you address my equation? The conclusion follows logically.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Sicklyboy:
@Xdqwerty, to answer your question, they're a fusion Brit-pop/J-pop/electronic band with a woman vocalist. Flamingo is hands down their best known song but they've got a ton of other really good songs+1 -
@
Sicklyboy:
For example, one of my other favorite songs from them, with some massive house music influence -+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
