Smex

>your personal attainment matters when critically assesing an argument

Yep, a retarded normalfag.

>has sexual partner
>has sex ONCE in a month

Your gf is either asexual or fucking every single dude in his work and school now that she got rid of you and is in another state.

Reminder that freedom is a spook and you're grossly retarded if it is the ultimate goal of your political convictions, prioritized even security or comfort

prioritized even before security or comfort*

Security and comfort are spooks

Security perhaps, but with more tangible effects than "muh freeedomz". Comfort/resulting contentment is a psychochemical reaction in the brain.

>chemical

?

It's wrong. You either get unwanted pregnancies (and abortions) or you get a bunch of women on the pill polluting the environment with their piss and shit. Not to mention cuckoldry/adultery, divorces, no loyalty, no trust. Basically moral and material destruction of society just because some people want to fuck like rabbits.

...

I wish I were dead

What's wrong, user?

It's right in the sense of "human liberation", but it was implemented very poorly and has been hijacked by ideological fundamentalists. The Genie is not going back in the bottle, tho, even when the social climate returns to a more traditional model, sexual freedom is going to be part of that "new" traditionalism.

>What's wrong
The thread. My bad.

Sorry m8s

retarded spook poster

cons
>you don't get laid

pros
>others do

Society is only in order, and women are only utilized under the absolute domination of men. That is the only environment where women function. That's what women naturally want.
Female freedom is simply unnatural, women are mentally, physically and morally inferior to men. Women are the equivalent of children. Only in the process of child rearing and house keeping can the women's natural gifts be best utilized. Women are wild hounds which need to be restrained and tied so the tenuous order of society is maintained.
As a symptom of the decadence and collapse of our civilization women have received increasing freedom as society is more feminized and men are weaker and unable to control their women. I believe you should be able to beat your women like you can beat your children.

>Women are the equivalent of children
>yet I trust them to take care of my house and my actual kids
Makes sense.

:^)

This. Just assume the worst and try finding another girl as a backup plan if your current relationship turns sour from distance.

>But my girl ain't no slut!

Tell that to all the military members on deployment while their self-righteous wives start sucking cocks for months before cleaning their act right before hubby returns from deployment.

The problem is that your wife is surrounded by people who don't see anything wrong in fucking other dudes, even if their husband is in some shithole working for his salary.

You can't reason with babies. You have to be a woman to get wrapped up in the game of nonsense noises and actual language in relation to a baby. Taking care of the house and taking care of the kid. Women literally tolerate nonsense like that better than men. Which makes sense as they usually act as the nurturer for a few years until their baby grows up into a child.

"Taking care of the house" isn't hard if you have an entire day to devote to that. Women might, emotionally, act like children but they usually have some experience in taking care of a home.

Daily reminder this sort of question is misleading as different evaluative systems will be employed by different persons,
with valid conclusions insofar that such arise from the premises of their system, which were selected by person such-and-such
for most closely aligning with their intuition qua mere assertion; offering no method of determining validity without arbitrariness
between competing systems, thus rendering the whole exercise pointless and a mere facade of debate.

From a secular point of view, it's right. After all, most of the arguments against it are extremely emotional and based on feels and religiosity rather than real effects on people. There are downsides but they happen because of a lack of sexual education, not the liberation itself.
>MUH SOCIETY IS COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF SEX
Pathetic. Apply yourself.

>>MUH SOCIETY IS COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF SEX
>Pathetic. Apply yourself.

AA communities are collapsing because dysgenic pressure from the combo of welfare and the idolization of dark triad traits and schemes which involve getting rich quickly.

Tyrone can impregnate La Tissue Queefa with 10 kids. Before we continue, imagine this. Imagine if you were such a piece of shit that you would have a double digit amount of kids but expect society/"whitey" to pay for it. Now imagine if you had a baby with a thuggish piece of shit. Now imagine you have 10 of those babies with shit-tier genetics but who are supported by welfare.

Whitey society has nothing on how bad AA society has degenerated. Partially due to dysgenic sex.

CONT.

And yeah, 3/4ths of AAs being born lack the presence of a father. That's apocalyptic IIRC. But because it "sounds bad", they won't tackle the issue. They being groups like BLM which might as well be a white supremacist group in how effective they are in trying to better AA society.

Security and comfort are spooks.

my system is nature

...

There will never be sexual freedom in the terms you are using it because it is to no ones benefit aside from losers with good personality.
Women are ultimately the ones who decide how free sex is so you have to examine it from their perspective. There is a large demand for pussy and an even larger supply of dick. Women giving pussy away for free takes away a huge social advantage they have of getting what they want. Look at todays society. All the music, movies, comedy, stories in western culture are about loose easy women. And yet women in general are still just as prudish as ever. They go to clubs in groups and actively try to cock block any approaching suiters. They talk about not being hit on by random guys as its gross, and that is understandable. So despite our society projecting an image of loose free sex, it was probably easier for a man back in the day to approach a woman formally and then just get married. Sexual freedom would also diminish the value of successful males and make it easier for the bums of the world to reproduce.

tl;dr I am not against sexual freedom, but I do not think it will ever be achieved because women ultimately don't want it. They can already have sex with who-ever, when-ever. Giving up control of that would be stupid.

...

Freedom is right.
Is freedom "wrong" from a "non-secular point-of-view"?

?

my post was about AAs in general. And your image is fucking retarded.

I'd rather have hicks be ignorant of the clitoris than pay taxes for the 10 children of Tyrone and La Giss Scenta.

People have different visions of freedom. A lot of the time, it's mere naked, and grotesque, forms of selfishness and manipulation. You know, the freedom of the modern Mandarins of occidental states. When people denounce freedom, they mean those fucks who collect good money and try to be social engineers while being stupid and incompetent in practice.

>>MUH SOCIETY IS COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF SEX

>What is the african american community

>muh negroes on welfare
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2740095
Sherman's only crime was not going far enough. Lincoln's biggest crime was being a compromise pussy.

Pros are pleasure whenever, you can make love with whoever, and you can do whatever when making love. Cons are sexually transmitted diseases, boredom of love once you've done it so much, unexpected pregnanies (especially teenage girls becoming pregnant), and no morals.

You do realize that African American birth rates are pretty fucking stable right? That they're only slightly higher than white birth rates?

Shaniqua having ten welfare children is about as big an outlier as Cletus having ten welfare children.

Except 3/4ths of those births are to single mothers. Who had these kids with Tyrone. But Tyrone is in prison because some whitey wouldn't cooperate in a mugging. But in lieu of Tyrone, the government is willing to give welfare that scales with the number of dependents aka kids.

So the government pays for the kids of criminals who are raised in single mother households. That's almost a comical mishmash of factors that correlate pretty damn well with the life histories of most criminals.

>Shaniqua having ten welfare children is about as big an outlier as Cletus having ten welfare children.

You've never seen dysgenics in action like in Los Angeles. You've never seen a woman shitting in the middle of a busy street...and nobody does a damn thing. It's a terrible thing.

Your gf is also all for sexual freedom while shes in another state without you.

...

>Praise themselves for being one of the most intellectuel boards.
>No one posts statistics.

That does absolutely nothing. It's not criticizing it on any basis other than "Blah blah social systems whitey racism blah blah".

The thing is, I've been homeless. I've been to the welfare office. I know it's ancedotal but I'm racist based on experience. People act far more true to their stereotype when lacking all the (exterior) trappings of being an individual in our society. The horror is that most of those people haven't grown up. The black kids who act tough become adults who act tough. There's no introspection. It's all about blaming ills on "the other tribe", at least on a level surpassing that of other groups.

You can talk to the asian dude wheeling a cart and learn he wasted his money on gambling and cocaine. But he won't blame anybody but himself. He puts a standard on himself.

Blacks don't put standards on themselves. Only when prodded by superior force do they practice the exterior forms of such and such standards. This doesn't mean that I have to be an idiot and not consider individual merit. There are a lot of hardworking AAs trying to make a living. But every fucking ghetto nigger makes life tough for them by prepping the reaction to skin color.

To me, the best strategy is to be racist towards populations but leave yourself open for individual exceptions. But again, being literally racist doesn't mean you go KKK. It means you navigate using a heuristic that's more likely to be true than not. And then interact with individuals amiably. It's almost like I'm using actual intelligence instead of ideology...

>But Tyrone is in prison because some whitey wouldn't cooperate in a mugging.

Do you shove race into everything? The vast majority of crimes perpetrated by black people are against black people. Realistically, the most likely victim of a black mugger is going to be a black mugger.

I can also pull out anecdotal evidence to. I've done a lot of work for Habitat for Humanity in both nigger infested ghettos and trailer trash crawling backwater holes. For every PCP black dude I've seen some meth head white dude with teeth falling out.

>increased risk of venereal diseases
>increased risk of unwanted/teen pregnancy

Prove it. Remember that remnant promiscuous sex happened before 1960, it just wasn't talked about.

I shove race because it's a useful construct, especially in relation to crime. I will be far less likely to be mugged, assaulted, murdered, raped, or all four, in neighborhoods where blacks are a minority than the opposite.

It doesn't work because of whitey magic. It works because ignoring race means ignoring behavioral diversity. The asian dude who wasted his money on cocaine and gambling? Asians apparently only stand out in crime statistics in relation to gambling. It seems to be the primary vice.

>For every PCP black dude I've seen some meth head white dude with teeth falling out.

But the problem isn't necessarily drugs. It's that most AAs are going to be raised by single mothers. And single mother households generate a majority of criminals. It's almost an inverse of the explanation for Ashkenazi IQ.

Most of those criminals are going to be petty but. in terms of crime, the bell curve of criminality is shifted to the right. Most criminals do a minority of crime. "Super criminals" commit a majority of the crime. The rightward shift in average IQ for Ashkenazis means that there's drastically more "geniuses" on the right side. The rightward shift in average criminality means a lot more "super criminals" than if it weren't shifted.

>. I know it's ancedotal
At least you admit that it's useless and based upon a fee-fee you have about human society

please do not post this image anymore

Ancedotal evidence isn't useless. It's the crystallization of what otherwise might be autistic, and psychotic, mental models. The problem with ancedotal is trust. That you trust me not to be a tribalistic scumbag who badmouths other ethnicities/racial/whatever groupings out of that tribal instinct.

I'm only "racist" because of my experiences. The reality of my experience meant that I couldn't use pity-justificaton models for AA criminality. I saw an entire community pursue terrible strategies for stupid prizes.

Would a Stalinist decry the ancedotal evidence of someone who went to a gulag? Of course, only a graph of a function with data is valid. Of course. Obviously.

But tell me, what are your thoughts on the issue?

> fee-fee you have about human society

Yes, because different groups of different people are going to have the same exact traits and attributes and the same stable strategies regardless of facts on the ground.

>decline in moral values in women
what would happen to the moral values of men?

More pathetic, simpering, and sniveling for the majority. Not only do we have women's lib but we have little "frontier" for men, who might be stuck in a lower social status because of calcification of social mobility to a very few, to migrate to.

While I think more men are catching onto the game, that women are sluts for 10% of men and hagglers for 90% of men, most men are still naive to the concept of women as pragmatic beings who pretend to be idealistic. They thought sexual freedom was for them and sounded cool.

What they forgot was that Stacy would rather be "4th" to an alpha than exclusive to a beta. Who wins in this game? Alpha males have a pussy buffet. 8/10 chicks and below have a cock carousel of novelty. And pursue such novelty almost as moral imperative.

Who loses in this game? 90% of males who either get woke or get cucked. Funny enough, the 9/10-10/10 Stacy loses because she no longer has exclusive access to her top man.

I bet you think that babies are stupid and you don't even need to speak to them until they reach a certain age

Babies are stupid because they don't have as much experience. But they're geniuses in soaking up their environment and mimicking adults. Which makes it very important to speak to them.

But mothers use nonsense language to bond with their babies. It's something you can see in every (nuclear) family with a newborn. But the play of nonsense language and gestures requires a lot of patience for verbalization. Women can talk about nothing for something hours and something minutes but still fulfill the actual function. Which is to strengthen social ties. Not to actually resolve the content of the conversation.

tl;dr: Mothers use nonsense words and nonsense noises to bond with their kid. Which isn't exclusive from using words and trying to get a baby to make connections with words and mental pictures.

Why do people in threads like this always blame women for being "whores" who only seek to have attractive and rich man, while no one talks about how 90% of guys consider girls who have long legs, big tits and good looking face to be superior relationship partner to women who have some decent income or career?
This kinda makes females look smart while making guys looking like morons who just want to see some excessive fat in tits or ass

Because it wouldn't be so terrible if women were merely whores. But they're not only whores, they're whores who attempt to beguile men with shitty copy+paste idealism but act pragmatic (aka whores).

>while no one talks about how 90% of guys consider girls who have long legs, big tits and good looking face

Because only in an insane society do women think that income and career is respected by men. Think about this for a second. You have women as economic competitors that drive down wages by the fact that capital now has access to twice the labor. And then these women work until their fertility plummets and genetic errors skyrocket.

For most of human history, the good looking woman has been valued. Big tits meant that a male paid more attention to a female and her face. We're fucking sexual apes. A good looking face is simply a proof of overall symmetry. Errors in symmetry signal errors somewhere else.

The working females are stupid because they don't understand that men don't seek out women in the same way that women seek men. They finally enter the "marriage market" of dating at an age where their most visible value starts showing its age. Literally. And then they act surprised when men realize that younger hotter chicks naturally gravitate towards older guys.

>But she doesn't have an income or a career

Exactly. Why would men want a lesser version of themselves? They're looking for a contrasting femininity, not a knockoff of the average male.

Because like all right-wingers they believe in social hierarchy, and they're pissed because somebody took away their self-appointed privileges and are made to compete for women's attention on equal ground like everyone else

>>Because it wouldn't be so terrible if women were merely whores. But they're not only whores, they're whores who attempt to beguile men with shitty copy+paste idealism but act pragmatic (aka whores).
Plenty of women don't act like this, but you do have a point here.

Sounds like they have a very good reason to be pissed off then, and you can expect them to get their privileges back whether you like it or not.

>Sounds like they have a very good reason to be pissed off then, and you can expect them to get their privileges back whether you like it or not.
Except for the small detail that they're grossly outnumbered, and they're clinging to the dying embers of a society and culture which no longer exist.

They can get over themselves, stop carrying on like an over-privileged millennial, and join the real world like everyone else has too.

That's an utterly narcassistic and self-serving way at looking at the clusterfuck of factors that have led to an increase in right-wing thought.

If I had to boil it down to a primitive distillation, it's that most of our lives we had massive propaganda shoveled down our throats and treated by authority as if we were livestock. And then realizing that most of what we were taught about the world was literally ideological bullshit.
>outnumbered

But liberals literally have a breeding problem. Conservatives have more kids. Right-wing people are going to replace liberals. Do you think the millennial faggot with a beard, some stupid fucking earing, and, some stupid fucking tattoo, aspires to have as much children as possible?

> join the real world like everyone else has too.

The "real world" doesn't exist in a simulation where large banks can receive trillions of dollars when they fuck up. When the individual fucks up, the system is all too happy to fuck them some more. Why would you even use the phrase "real world" in our clown world?

>>Except for the small detail that they're grossly outnumbered
By whom? Nu-males like you? Doubtful and even if they were outnumbered nu-males can't fight worth two shits anyway, so the traditionalists will fuck your women as you lay bruised and bloodied on the ground.

>>and they're clinging to the dying embers of a society and culture which no longer exist.
Provided that sufficient kindling is available, embers can and will start new fires.

>>They can get over themselves, stop carrying on like an over-privileged millennial,
lol this coming from a millennial in the first case most likely.

>>and join the real world like everyone else has too.
They are already a part of the real world, and they are going to remake that world as they deem fit as the people who presume to replace them are both unfit and incompetent.

>Exactly. Why would men want a lesser version of themselves? They're looking for a contrasting femininity, not a knockoff of the average male.
thanks for admitting my point which said that males are retard who want their partner to have excessive fat on their breasts and ass

>thanks for admitting my point which said that males are retard who want their partner to have excessive fat on their breasts and ass

Excessive fat in the ass means they were able to eat enough to support said ass (the pragmatic explanation). It also evolved with our form of sexuality where our sexual appetites are constant day after day. To replace the swollen butt of female apes in heat, our females evolved the ass to mimic that signal.

It's also why shitting is messier for humans than other primates. Because instead of just dropping off the anus like a waterfall of shit, the turd also has to pass two reservoirs of fat.

>Excessive breast fat

To mimic the ass and force males to look at their partners face. Cultures which value tits tend to treat their women better than say middle of africa where all the men only care about that swollen ass.

>an increase in right-wing thought.
keep telling yourself this, it might even happen

Yes, because it was lefties who voted Trump into office. Because the failure of all communist regimes, viewed retroactively, would never make people question the project of "Leftism".

:^)

And once again considering conservatives have far more kids, there would be an increase of interest just out of demographic destiny.

What is the "left" preoccupied with? Making fat people feel social validation so they can eventually develop, obesity induced, diabetes and metabolic disorders. So that a socialized medical machine can treat the symptoms and prolong treatment. Instead of simply telling the guy to lose some fucking weight.

For social validation, we are paying a price of trillions to take care of, effectively, victims of left social propaganda and technocratic hubris in developing the many forms of that fucking useless food pyramid/pentagon/whtever bullshit.

We would literally save trillions for our kids if everyone went on a keto diet. Instead we sacrifice our kids to very stupid gods who give out very stupid blessings.

>right win thought

Conservative and traditional values work, they've worked for thousands of years and they will continue to work when they have to. Western society as it is today is a weak, wealthy and spoiled child, its not gonna survive when shit hits the fan.

CONT.

>muh fast food

The worst part of fast food isn't the meat. It isn't the lettuce. It isn't the cheese. It's sugar.

Sugar literally prevents fat people from feeling "satiation". The same applies to other forms of sugar like bread and cereal and rolls and tortillas. Of course being made in America, they are also fortified with iron which is fantastically stupid. Iron reacts with blood oxygen to create ping pong balls that can crash into a bunch of shit, including cellular DNA.

But the primary thing is satiation. There are people with less and with more willpower than some and such. But willpower has nothing on the natural signal of satiation (Leptin). The problem is that sugar/carbs block Leptin from working as effectively.

Fat people have more leptin. But they also consume more physiological cuckery. It's why when fat people go on a diet, they usually lose a lot of it shockingly fast. Because their appetite is actually being regulated by Leptin. As opposed to being regulated by reaching the limits of their stomach.

If you stick with a high-fat high-protein diet beyond the "3 days of crap" initiation, you'll find it impossible to overeat. When you taste food, you'll find that fats and protein taste far better than grains. But as you eat, your tongue starts to get less and less sensitive. Then you simply stop because you're not hungry anymore.

The above is also why calorie counting is for retards. Because the actual practice of calorimetry has a wide range of error and because the body already has an autoregulative hormone in Leptin.

Calorie counting is adding stupid cognitive load for stupid reasons that ignore what the body already has.

Here is a post that will avoid the ad hominems that usually are common on this discussion.

The biggest issue is the way that people view sex and pleasure. The "mainstream view" (that is, what you see on MTV or Hollywood movies, or Men's Health or Vogue) on what leads to a good life is that pleasure is a good and that having a lot of pleasure is what leads to a good life. If you look at the arguments in favor of the Sexual Revolution, they are more or less like this. And from this view, comes the liberal sexual ethic. Since sexual acts give a lot of pleasure, you try to have as much of it as you can while making sure to minimize things like STDs (that bring pain) and pregnancies (after all, they can lead to a lot of work raising someone, which diminishes pleasure or to monogamy, which diminishes the number of sexual partners). So, in the end, the decision on "is the sexual liberation good or bad" depends on how you view a good life and how you view pleasure.

But the "mainstream view" is not eternal or self evident. I would argue that it is a poor view of life that leads to a bad life. If pleasure is what led to a good life, you would not have miserable rockstars or Hollywood stars, which are the world leaders in pleasure. They are rich, they can get the best pleasures, they can sleep with as many people as they want, etc. We would also not have people who live simple, rustic lives being happy. And there are many people who live simple lives and are happy.

Nowadays, most people don't think hard about what leads to a good life. But the ancient Greeks did. And the answer they found is that what they called "virtue" was what led to a good life. The happy man was the the one with lots of riches, but the one that didn't need riches to live a good life. The happy man was not the one that had lots of pleasure, but the one that didn't need pleasure to have a good life.

Will continue in another post.

Interesting

This. People gotta read A Voyage to Arcturus. Pleasure is rubbish, it's how malevolent ego-God lures you to destruction. Pain is unironically better.

>The biggest issue is the way that people view sex and pleasure. The "mainstream view"

The problem is the simplistic nature of "pleasure" that these fucks use. But what people actually want is struggle between highs and lows. But that requires an insight that our brains rate stimuli in a relative way. When you're a powerless toddler, not being able to get the milk on the kitchen counter is the sum of distress

When you're a man, what "distress" means changes radically. Same thing with pleasure. Doing coke with hookers is massively pleasurable the first time. But the brain normalizes our memories. Which is an adaptive trait because beings, which would keep pressing the button in their environment, wouldn't mate. They're busy pressing the button.

All pleasure and all distress ends up being normalized. The man who seeks peak after peak will be faced with an impossible task. He has to seek stimuli exponentially more pleasurable which becomes hard. Because in the end, the brain normalizes those peaks.

The "happy" man is one who has been through a ratio of peaks and valleys and finds himself in an enviable position where he's able to separate the hedonic treadmill from his thought process.

Continuing And what is so bad about our mainstream thinking on pleasure?

1- If you believe that pleasure is the way for a good life, you are searching for a good life where you can't find it. Meaning that you are wasting your time.
2- If you try to get pleasure but fails, you will be miserable. That's what lead to some people being miserable. They believe something is missing in their lives and by doing so, feel bad.
3- If you succeed at getting pleasure, you still won't be happy. Pleasure is fleeting and lasts a moment. And when you indulge in pleasure, your desires for it grow. Think about people who drink, smoke or watch porn.
4- If your desire for something is great, you will always be unsatisfied and you will do bad things in order to get it. In a way, you become a slave for pleasure, who does everything in order to satisfy them.

That's why temperance and not seeing at pleasure as a good was considered by the ancient Greeks as important for a good life.

So, we have people seeing sex as something that should be made for pleasure and who over indulge on it. They have increasingly desires, that they can't satisfy and those unsatisfied desires lead to pain. They do things they will later regret in order to have sex. And so on. And those factors lead to a miserable life.

One thing that feminists sometimes forget to mention is that in the last decades, female happiness has declined.

nber.org/papers/w14969

You are not better if you get freedom of societal expectations, but become a slave to your base desires instead.

And this without talking about the negative consequences for families and the children who live in those broken families. Or the negative consequences of choosing partners by attractiveness and sexual skills, instead of choosing better ways to find partners (in my family, there are many examples of people who became miserable because of bad choices in marriage).

Yes, the brain of over sexualized people is not very different from the brain of drug addicts.

Veeky Forums has taught me that roasties are guilty of everything forever

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I'm sort of religious myself. I just want to the other side's point.

I don't care what anyone's gender is. Sexual degeneracy is a S I N

STOP SINNING

>believing in spooks
That in itself is a spook according to your dumb logic.

I hate the human race. I want it to end. The only way to do it is to stop fucking.

ITT: pathetic virgins blame everything else in the universe aside from themselves for why they've never been touched by a woman

what actually is and always has been the case

This is the kind of stupid post that makes me lose respect for feminists. Instead of answering any of the arguments here, they only are capable of this kind of insult.

I wouldn't say "this is fine" more like /r/SRS and /r9k/. Wonder if the old spinsters and loners ever wrote about it in ye old days.

the miserable life you must lead already stings worse than any insult the rest of society could give you.

>dude all women are whores lmoa
>wtf why won't you respect me

It depends on how people use their freedom.

If people have a hedonistic mindset and the freedom leads to people becoming promiscuous, society was not ready for this kind of freedom and will get worse. The same is true for drugs, for example.
Let's say drugs were liberalized and this led to a huge increase in drug usage, overdoses, etc. That means society was not ready for this.

Liberalism depends on self-governed people. If people are incapable of this, liberalism does not work.

Nice argument to someone in an anonymous message board that you don't know.

There are plenty of posts here arguing against the Sexual Revolution who did not say >dude all women are whores lmoa.
Why don't you try to answer them?

Race doesn't exist though.

the only reason you respond to these posts is because they threaten your ego, and the only way they could threaten your ego is if they were true.

There are no pros its just women acting like wild animals mindlessly chasing pleasure instead of contributing to civilization.

Or because I think they are a completely intellectually dishonest way of trying to smear people you disagree with and in no way contribute to the discussion. What is the point of trying to pretend someone you don't know is a "loser"?

>threaten your ego, and the only way they could threaten your ego is if they were true.
What kind of ridiculous psychobabble is this?

>implying you're posting for any other reason than self validation

Nice post, m8

There's literally no way that was skewed by conservitards on /pol/. None at all