Friendly reminded that if you don't vote for Trump you have low test levels and should probably see a doctor

Friendly reminded that if you don't vote for Trump you have low test levels and should probably see a doctor.

Wtf I hate dumbbells now

Trump is incredibly unaesthetic my guy.
That's why you never see him shirtless.
Obama had a much better body

More like Donald Pump am I right?

...

my test is through the roof and i'm not a shart in mart / plop in shop so won't be voting for the fat toupe man

So all of the people in the /nofap/ thread who can't afford to waste any test

You seem triggered az fuk

Is reddit down or something?

Why don't you go cry about it on tumblr, faggot

Libertarians tend to be fit, so I imagine a number of people here will vote for Gary Johnson.

stormfag actually comes from stormfront and /pol/ has distanced themselves from to the point where stormfront and /pol/ literally hate eachother so I gues this is just another guy who never went to /pol/

This image is 4 fucking years old.
/pol/ has way more power and people now

gary johnson boi
not lowtest enough to vote hillary
and a big enough mouthbreather to vote trump
so im gonna vote for someone who isnt actively shitty

He's literally the worst parts of T and C
>bake the cake goy
>freedom of religion is a black hole
>whites should pay reparations

...

I won't vote for trump because I'm not American should I see a doctor?

this
nobody on this site hates stormfront as much as /pol/

>I'm not American

You should fuck off from this board, Veeky Forums and the internet in general. Because you're irrelevant and your opinions don't matter.

Go watch YouTube or something.

>website owned by japanese
>copy paste code from a japanese site
>for the purpose of discussing japanese kids tv shows
maybe you should find a new safe space friend :^)

The image is still relevant because /pol/luters are still posting off topic shit on every board and are still confused on why every board hates them.

It's a four year old image.

Pol has only grown in that time. The basic point that guy was trying to make is that altrighters by whatever name are obnoxious, and when called out for it, think that they are being called offensive.

I don't care whether you call yourself stormfront or pol. I've been on different parts of Veeky Forums for 8 goddamn years (Fuck me I know), and I've literally seen what your communities have done. You bring down the level of discussion of literally every thread you're in.

I've been here since loli had its own board (like mentioned in your pic) and think /pol/ is one of the funniest boards on this site so I guess we're in a stalemate

I didn't post that picture. I just tried to explain it.

I get that you think it's funny. I want you to imagine your favorite comedy show, be it South Park or some stand up or whatever the Fuck. You've got this show on your phone, and you love it. It's edgy, but hilarious.

Now, instead of being like a normal fucking human being and recommending the show to people because it means so much to you, you just force everyone around you too watch it with you, regardless of what they want to do, and if they tell you to turn that shit off, you tell them that their stifling your free speech or too easily offended.

They may be watching a totally different movie, reading a book, lifting weights, talking about the Olympics, literally anything, but you burst in to show everyone your favorite show.

It's irritating as all hell. If anyone knew you in real life, they'd clock you in the fucking jaw fit being rude and narcissistic enough to think everyone wants to switch to your programming, not because they think it's offensive.

the thing is I've never seen any "/pol/ raids" or anything like that. this is the board I read the most and I barely ever see any /pol/ shit here. in my opinion the containment board works well and I feel like I can choose if I want to be exposed to it.

and even if people were to post things where they agree with the sentiments commonly expressed on /pol/ that's not the fault of the board. /pol/ as a hivemind doesn't encourage raiding or spamming shit elsewhere. just because these obnoxious posters you described happen to agree with /pol/s general idea that doesn't mean they're representatives of /pol/. bringing politics into unrelated discussions is NOT a /pol/ exclusive thing. go read the comment section of your local newspaper and you'll notice that any story from fucking science to fashion will have both leftist liberals and right wing people spouting unrelated shit.

> I've never seen any "/pol/ raids"

/tv/ is literally ruined and an unbrowsable mess because of /pol/

/pol/ is good

ever think that's because of crossposters?

Make a thread about videogame movie and see just how fast it spins out of control

make a thread about anime, guns, general advice, women and see just how fast it goes

all blaming it all /pol/ is stupid. "for you" and "bane" took the last drop for this board.

It's not /pol/

If the "containment board" theory worked, this thread wouldn't exist. I don't think raids are common, as far as I know I've seen 2 or 3, all on Veeky Forums, and it could have been b just as likely as pol, but as far as I'm concerned, pol.a simple existence made way more posters much more likely to post simple racism or Anti-Semitism that I never saw outside of b before then. Now, it's probably a Pandora's Box situation.

If mods/janitors did their jobs, there would be no problem.

>he fell for the alt-right meme
Btw sorry about Bernie, bro

>he blames pol for the constant spamming of blacked, cunny and waifu threads

Game of thrones reddit cross posters killed /tv/ also the show became a joke after LOST ended because there was no good film or tv to discuss. No one wants to talk about all je shitty superhero films that come out these days so people just meme it up

Trump's face morphed into HHH's body
What a time to be alive goddamit

OP is probably fucking around, but yeah if you have liberal beliefs as a 20 something male get yourself checked.
Obama was a vain son of a bitch who wouldn't let anyone photograph him topless without airbrushing abs onto him. Some Polish guy filmed his workout and it leaves a lot to be desired.

The containment obviously doesn't work well if there's "Vote for Trump" shit on Veeky Forums.

I'm not even fucking American, m8y. Spotting you altrighters is painfully easy though. Any community of white men brought up to expect the world, disillusioned by its changes, believing themselves to be sincerely smarter than everyone around them, yet painfully underachieving (never their own fault thought), those people who think they're being "silenced" when really, others are just trying to point out that they are insensitive, semi-thinking assholes--no name for it but the altright.

but just autistic enough to vote for a libertarian

I've never gone to /tv/ because television is degenerate waste of time and kills your mind and soul but how can you tell those aren't just other people like you who like to watch television and thus post on the /tv/ board and like to express their opinions? Why is it /pol/'s fault?
>If the "containment board" theory worked, this thread wouldn't exist.
/pol/ posters aren't the only people who care about politics.
>a simple existence made way more posters much more likely to post simple racism or Anti-Semitism that I never saw outside of b
the world in general has gotten a lot more racist in the past 10 years, at least where I live. it's not limited to Veeky Forums and it's certainly not limited to /pol/. nationalism is on the rise all across europe and it started long before the recent crisises
the latest polls say 38% of american voters plan on voting for trump. that's approximately 66 million people (holy fucking shit the US had a voter turnout of 54% in the last election that's crazy). do you think there are 66 million posters on /pol/ not including the foreign supporters?

Off topic (shit thread anyway), was "debating" an alt-righter the other day. Was trying to say that being gay had no genetic basis, and that it was social.

I explained to him that while there were social factors, it's widely accepted that there is some biological basis for homosexuality. Pointed out a couple studies done on twins with certain genetic markers, male birth order, etc. One study was even able to predict homosexuality based on a combination of factors, biology and genes included, to a degree of 70%.

Alt-righter called me a libtard (I'm actually Conservative lel), said that 70% accuracy was insignificant in science, and that despite my biology degree with a focus on genetics, that "you don't know science, I know science".

>the latest polls say 38% of american voters plan on voting for trump. that's approximately 66 million people (holy fucking shit the US had a voter turnout of 54% in the last election that's crazy). do you think there are 66 million posters on /pol/ not including the foreign supporters?

What do general statistics of the entire US population have to do with an International imageboard?

We're talking about correlation of Trump supporters and alt-righters to /pol/ usage. And I can guarantee that the majority of people on Veeky Forums who are supporting Trump or call themselves alt-right use /pol/.

It pains me that the world knows about Americans shame

I would think by definition it couldn't be genetic, as it effectively prevents them from reproducing.

What about the genetic disorders that render people sterile then

Can't stump the Trump. GTFO numale

>hillary voters are literally in this very thread

Disgusting

Keep political stuff in pol. People come to fit to escape it. Not everything has to be a 24:7 political argument. Give it a rest

>What do general statistics of the entire US population have to do with an International imageboard?
they mean there's a whole lot more people supporting trump than there are people who go on /pol/. trump is not a /pol/ exclusive thing.
>I can guarantee that the majority of people on Veeky Forums who are supporting Trump or call themselves alt-right use /pol/.
majority sure. but /pol/ is a very active board where threads expire is less than an hour and the 10 pages of threads constantly reach bump limits.
one or two trump or right wing politics threads a day outside of /pol/ wouldn't affect the majority either way

this is the dumbest shit I've seen in a while

Firstly, you wrongly assume that gay people don't have children. This is just wrong, as many gay people, especially in repressed countries like the US, take up opposite gender spouses and families in an attempt to repress themselves. As well, sexuality is a huge spectrum, and the statement doesn't factor in bisexual men and women, who may still be attracted to the same gender, but have families with the opposite gender. But even assuming gay people NEVER had children...

Genetics don't work like that. Because there is no specific "gay gene", and being gay can theoretically be caused by multiple different genetic codes, it can be passed multiple ways.

Pic related is an example of an autosomal recessive disorder. To make things simple, imagine that there is one set of genes that will result in a person being gay. If a mother and father carrier both have children, there is a chance that the child will have the set of genes (be gay), be a carrier like their parents, or not be affected at all.

This is just a simple model too. It gets even more complicated when factoring in other genes, and how they all interact with each other.

As well, there could also be spontaneous mutations in the genetic code that cause gayness.

It's a similar statment to saying "Why do we have Down Syndrome people? It's genetic, but they don't reproduce.".

>only candidate supporting TPP
wew lad

>sexuality is a spectrum

Read about the "gay uncle" theory. Apparently some of the alleles associated with homosexuality in males are also associated with greater fertility in females.

>12 inch cocks
I wish. Even a six incher is rare.

Not that guy but you have to explain the people who like traps and women

Sexuality is a spectrum, it's literally different for everyone. There's even a spectrum in heterosexual preferences. Everyone is attracted to different things. But I'm not debating this with you, the point still stands, gay people are capable of and do often reproduce.

Don't ever fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread.

liberal logic caves in on itself. if gender is a social construct and entirely arbitrary and meant to be manipulated and changed at will, how can homosexuality be genetic in anyway? if you define a man however you want to, you are choosing to have sex with a man purely due to relative social context, which means its a choice. and even then, genetics play a role in almost everything. there has been found genetic correlation for people who take risks, but there is no séance or choiceless ultimatum where someone HAS to perform an action that is risky. people have the choice to say no.


also, there is a plethora of support suggesting sexuality is NOT genetic, sexualtiy is NOT genetic but rather EPIGENETIC (which essentially means you choose it), and then also support showing that it is genetic. as a biochemical researcher, i can guarantee you all of these researches are biased.

Muh gender binary keepin da bisexual man down

Just accept the fact that at best your mother consumed too many chemically altered products while preggo and your brain chemistry is imbalanced, at worst you're a licentious, perverted wretch who wants to "challenge the narrative" because its makes too much sense for your

>liberal logic caves in on itself. if gender is a social construct and entirely arbitrary and meant to be manipulated and changed at will, how can homosexuality be genetic in anyway? if you define a man however you want to, you are choosing to have sex with a man purely due to relative social context, which means its a choice. and even then, genetics play a role in almost everything. there has been found genetic correlation for people who take risks, but there is no séance or choiceless ultimatum where someone HAS to perform an action that is risky. people have the choice to say no.

That paragraph was a clusterfuck of about a half dozen different arguments, not getting anywhere near it. You're also going under the assumption that gender is a social construct, which is a debate entirely different from whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not. Regardless of whether or not gender is a social construct has no relevance on whether genes play a role in what types of people you find attractive.

>also, there is a plethora of support suggesting sexuality is NOT genetic, sexualtiy is NOT genetic but rather EPIGENETIC (which essentially means you choose it), and then also support showing that it is genetic.

Firstly, never claimed that sexuality is solely genetic. It has genetic components, as well as environmental, as well as social. Secondly, you don't choose epigenetics. By definition, epigenetics is the modification of gene expression, that is, external factors turning genes on and off. If the genes for homosexuality are there to be turned on and off in the first place, that means that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

Somehow I doubt you're a biochemical researcher.

Still a much better body than Trump's, even by itself being unimpressive.

>Ad hominem; the post

>changed at will
Nobody except tumblr teenagers think this.

>you are choosing to have sex with a man purely due to relative social construct
No, you are experiencing attraction based on physical characteristics. This is sex, not gender. This does not imply your attraction is a "choice".

>EPIGENETIC (which essentially means you choose it)
That's not what "epigenetic" means.

>power
power to what? the power to shitpost on a cambodian truffle hunting advisory board?

I like traps and women.

I also think identity politics are completely fucking retarded and a massive waste of time.

AYO BISMARCK WAS BISEXUAL

GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A GAY WOMAN

What are you trying to argue by shitting on your keyboard? What does any of that have to do with sexuality being genetic?

>Why try to learn more on an interesting and socially relevant subject when I can just act like a retard?

You seem smugly convinced that you cannot be proven wrong as science is conveniently on your side, why should I bother to argue?

Do you guys ever meet people that get worked up over politics or use the terms cuck and sjw unironically in real life? That would just be really strange to me. There's a guy at work that talks bad about indians sometimes but that's usually work related because they're shitty programmers. Like I honestly wouldn't know how to respond to someone going on a weird trump rant or jew media diatribe at the gym or something.

no because the society runs around shaming you into line so you have to hide your power level in public

>You seem smugly convinced that you cannot be proven wrong as science is conveniently on your side, why should I bother to argue?

What are you trying to argue exactly? What argument is

>AYO BISMARCK WAS BISEXUAL
?

I'm not arguing user, I'm presenting the facts. In respect to the question "Does homosexuality have any basis in genetics?", it's widely accepted that it does. There are many studies that implicate certain genes as being partly responsible for homosexuality, with up to a 70% success rate in prediction. There are studies that show twins that share a certain genetic marker, when one twin is gay, the other is 40% of the time. Science is only "conveniently" on my side because I am deciding to agree on what the majority of the biological community agrees on.

If you're trying to argue that sexuality is not a spectrum, this can be solved more logically. Do you find a certain person attractive? Are there people that are attracted to different people than you are? If there are people that are attracted to different people than you are, that is by definition a spectrum of sexuality.

You haven't really defined what you're trying to disagree with, you just posted a meme image and started saying ridiculous statements.

Perfect.

>no because the society discourages retards from interacting with the general public

ftfy

heh

GaryJohnson2016 you faggots

>people who disagree with me are retards
and your mum's an idiot for making you go to bed on schoolnights?

>literally Hillary-lite
>anti gun VP
>no chance in hell

Why the fuck would I do that?

Show me the sane guy who runs around shouting about how Jews are evil and goes around calling people cuck and SJW. One would think that if such a person were morally and logically correct, they wouldn't be discouraged by society, as someone with such intellect would be running society, no?

I don't argue the homosexuality genetic point, I'm sure it is genetic. That's someone else. I'm rejecting your spectrum idea

>If you're trying to argue that sexuality is not a spectrum, this can be solved more logically. Do you find a certain person attractive? Are there people that are attracted to different people than you are? If there are people that are attracted to different people than you are, that is by definition a spectrum of sexuality.

This kind of thinking can really knock the sense out of you, having already knocked the sense out of itself. It's the liberal fetishization and sentimentalization of outcast groups taken to the extreme. Logical in your advanced, high minded way of thinking, I'm sure.

You're taking a perversity of our nature, homosexuality and bisexuality, and asserting it's normal and conventional. That's like saying sociopathy is normal and that antisocial criminality is merely a spectrum and we're all a little sociopathic deep down, as your spectrum of sexuality suggests even heterosexual are a little gay. "Everyone is attracted to different things" I'm sure you thought that was pithy.

Your insistence on inclusion, which has no doubt stained your thoughts on other topics, is frankly making you look absurd and dogmatic here. You're creating a meaningless pastiche of what I'm sure you believe is nuance but is just another expression of corrosive moral relativism. I'm sick of it, kill yourself faggot

>One would think that if such a person were morally and logically correct, they wouldn't be discouraged by society
oh god you're adorable

There must be a lot of low test Americans, given how low trump is in the polls

he's 3.9 points behind clinton and half the population are women user

>tfw too oppressed to have a white male president

Its because everything gets mehr political (correct). Vidya, music, movies...thats why /pol/ spreads to other boards

Progressive liberalism is reaching a feverish pitch in all quarters because they're beginning to detect the tide that they've had since WWII turning against them

/pol/ cucks spread because they are cockroaches. It's in their nature.

>I'm objectively correct in assuming homosexuality and bisexuality is perverse

prove it
not even memeing. I'm genuinely curious

*are

reeeeeeee its late

Learn to speak English Mohammed

What evolutionary purpose would these traits serve? Asexuality makes more sense since not every make in the tribe necessarily needs to reproduce. It doesn't occur in chimps or gorillas, and its being genetic is not an argument in favor of it not being a perversion because there are plenty of things which are genetic and are perversions, again like psychopathy.

If that's the case then any sex that doesn't result in a healthy baby is perverse

Sex outside of a monogamous relationship in which procreation is intended is, in this understanding, perverse. Yes.

Believe it or not this was the convention for much of human history.

yeah but what gives you the moral superiority to categorize what two consenting adults of the same sex who choose to have sex with each other as perverse?

>monogamy
>human herstory
XD

it doesn't matter he's alpha as fuark and was an athlete in his younger years

Is he alpha in the realm of politics, in your fee fees, or in another instance?

>in your fee fees
what

> What evolutionary purpose would these traits serve
> Everything without a strict evolutionary purpose is perverse
Fucking retard

Shot in the dark here, but possibly a bronze age religion that views homosexuality (no clear evolutionary purpose) and menstruation (clear evolutionary purpose) as perverse.

>Everything without a strict evolutionary purpose is perverse
it actually kinda is. not perverse but flawed

> alpha as fuark
no

Shitposting on Veeky Forums has no evolutionary purpose but here you are, guess you're a deviant m8

In this case I was arguing on a biological imperative, not morality. It's clear that as a species we are geared for pair bonding and long, perhaps life long relationships to ensure nurturing of the young. It's clear that our a man's body is meant for a woman, not for another man. In this sense it is a biological perversion.

Morally speaking, a woman is a complement to a man, and sexual feeling between them is normal and healthy. Between man and man, it's not the complement but the simulacrum, in a sense masturbation since you don't explore a foreign flesh but one that's the same as yours.

Good b8

Good argument

>Christianity
>bronze age

About a thousand years off there

>It's clear that as a species we are geared for pair bonding and long, perhaps life long relationships to ensure nurturing of the young.
[Citation needed]
> It's clear that our a man's body is meant for a woman, not for another man.
Why? Because you say so? It would be a biological perversion under your rubric to have sex without the sole intent of procreation, or to get a blowjob, or do anal, or anything remotely fun within the vast, varied world of human sexuality.