~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[removed]
[–]aznredpill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Okay, I'll bite.
What are your thoughts about the dualistic mating strategy of females where it's inherently screwing over the bottom 80%'s ability to produce offspring in a secure family environment in today's world?
[–]roseattack-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's based on fear and perpetuated by fear.
[–]aznredpill1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's a cop out. Do you even know what I mean by dualistic mating strategy?
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Probably not, I'm not really an expert of mating strategies, but context clues informed me that what you were talking about was a strategy that ensured the overabundance of a few at the expense of many. I don't think it's easy to say no to biological tendencies but I know it's possible to do. It always starts with one individual stating that they don't want to live within the confines of the duality of the world and living their lives in a different fashion, which is exactly what I think many of the followers of the TRP have done and I applaud them.
Sorry for copping out, I just didn't feel like learning about the details of the mating strategy that you were referencing because I didn't really want to get into debates. For some reason I didn't think this thread would get such negative feedback.
[–]DontBeFredo2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I went back and read your posts and therefore have some things to say about your philosophy.
In an older post you write that women truly want "unconditional love and learning experiences". After that I stopped taking you seriously. Why? Nothing in life is unconditional. Just because you are a woman and have a vagina does not entitle you to unconditional love. You are not magic, nor special, nor deserving of anything simply because you are a woman. Moreover, what do you define as love? Because there are plenty of pathetic men who would willingly give their left nut to be with you if it is love that you are after. Unfortunately, when you say love you are using that term to umbrella a whole lot of other things: support, both emotionally and physically, children, experiences, etc etc. These things inevitably cost a lot of $ and effort - and you believe that you deserve them unconditionally? How about go fucking yourself. Also, learning experiences? Do you suppose those are free? Because a lot of women equate "learning experiences" with traveling, vacations, experimentation....oh shit, all those things also cost money!
So sure, if every woman wants to go out and earn every bit the man does, and risk every bit the man does in a marriage, feel free to preach your ideals. But whatever fantasy you live in, and whatever soft, fluffy words you want to use, like "unconditional love" and "learning experiences"...that shit doesn't fly in reality.
The fault with your logic is that you demand unquantifiable, intangible traits from men, which cost quantifiable and tangible things like money and time, in exchange for equality. And throughout the course of time these intangible traits - like "unconditional love" seem to shift meanings and expectations. You and all the other feminists don't want absolute equality. You want ideology driven equality while the emotional and financial tolls of life greatly fall on the side of the woman, and bury the man in the real world.
[–]spurdosparade1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Very nice. I thought the first posts in this thread would be angry-fase boys whining in a single sentence, but your analysis is pretty solid.
Thumbs up.
[–]roseattack1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Unconditional love is what humans need and are entitled to, not women specifically. I couldn't care less about the monetary value of experience. Your freedom lies in your perspective, and I could have an adventure going to the gas station.
My children need to be fed and loved, my husband and I have skills to provide them that. What we don't have skills for is thriving in a world where the biggest predators get rewarded most. The standards of survival vary from person to person, and I had a very off-grid lifestyle growing up. I know survival and fulfillment aren't difficult, it's fear and division of people that make it so, which all stems from entitlement of the wrong things. Unconditional love and learning experiences are what we are all entitled to, that's why there's no room for ownership in the future. The monetary system is based on nothing except representation of value. If you change your values to the betterment of humanity rather than the collection of dirt, the monetary system holds no value.
I only used the word 'feminist' because it would get more views that way, honestly. I lothe victimization and entitlement of all forms so it's not usually a word I describe myself as.
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But you said Feminism is about equality, when it's actually about legislative entitlements. You have said in this exact post I am replying to:
I lothe victimization and entitlement of all forms Unconditional love is what humans need and are entitled to
I lothe victimization and entitlement of all forms
Unconditional love is what humans need and are entitled to
Did you mean legislative entitlements are bad but general 'experience' entitlements are good? Because people are entitled to exactly nothing, in either form. Ideally for peaceful coexistence we should not destroy people's access to earn things for themselves. That's completely different than saying they automatically deserve things they aren't willing to earn or understand. No one can make someone else learn a lesson regardless. People are entitled to learning experiences? People will have learning experiences in life, no matter what. It isn't something people need to have an entitlement to. It's just there. They either make it happen or they don't. It's on them. The experiences will differ in the conclusions people make afterward, and they will be circumstantial in the actual experiences/events.
Unconditional love and learning experiences are what we are all entitled to, that's why there's no room for ownership in the future.
Wrong. With no ownership you get violent dissolution of all social organization. With no ownership you get a complete inability to calculate economically. As I said in my other comment, Communism and Cultural Marxism have never benefited any society.
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not a Marxist, communist, or socialist. I'm more of a minimalist anarchist who's obsessed with sharing. Statelessness will not result in some form of legislation where the state takes care of people until it's stateless, you and I both know THAT is the only way people's access to earning for themselves will be taken away; to put your wellbeing into the hands of someone who is profiting off of your life and labor.
Access to earning for yourself will only be taken from you if you're willing to trade your humanity for gadgets and gluttony. People ALWAYS are equipped with something to help them survive, most people have no idea what it is, though, because schools teach you nothing about what it means to be human or how to survive. Instead they produce clones that regurgitate information and obey, the best obeying regurgitaters get the highest positions and quality of life.
With no ownership we just might get violent dissolution, but that's why we must start at the bottom, humbly, with probably those most rejected by this life. We will be happy to share with each other and work hard to progress, seeing as it will probably be more than any of us could have achieved on our own within the system. I'm not trying to save the world right now, I'm trying to be a brick in paving the way for people to save themselves.
I'm sorry for my contradiction, please let me explain what I meant. I lothe victimization and entitlement when people choose to put the blame on anyone but themselves. I personally believe I'm entitled to unconditional love, so my goal is to find a way to unconditionally love every person I meet. Does that make sense? If you're not getting what you feel you're entitled to, the proper response is to give it to the people in your life so you get it in return. You won't always receive it but it feels amazing to accomplish your own personal goal, so you are capable of so much more.
I unconditionally love my husband. That's it, that's all. He can ruin his life and in turn, the lives of myself and our children and I would still love him. He can be an unemployed bum his entire life and I'll still love him. He can have a girlfriend and I'll still love him. By giving him this freedom, I give him the opportunity to choose the best option (which in my opinion he does the majority of the time). I don't threaten to withhold my love or his children if he doesn't live up to my expectations, and he gives me the same freedom. It's amazing how much BETTER we are living this way, we tend to choose the best option more often than before because we care about the wellbeing of our source of unconditional love. Before we would manipulate, yell, control, ANYTHING to get our needs met. But when we realized that our most basic needs were freedom and unconditional love everything fell into place and the relationship blossomed further than I'd ever thought possible.
We are both capable of making money, taking care of babies, and loving each other in the ways we need. There is no need for conflict or duality unless we hurt each other, and with unconditional love present in the arguments are productive and significant. That's what I'd like to replicate for other people because it's the best thing that's ever happened to me.
[–]Apexk93 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I live for me the rest of you can go fuck yourselves.
[–]raisins3142 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Feminism likes to point to its dictionary definition, but the way it is invoked or the thoughts of its adherents hasn't been that for a very long time.
Feminism is now a female special interest lobbying endeavor, among other things. But keep pointing to that definition.
[–]roseattack1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]herpes_delivery_man 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
reported. Mods delete this shit post
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
and people of all genders
There are only two genders. Trans are still one or another, regardless of if you choose to label them based on chromosomes or how they want to be perceived. It's male to female, or female to male. It's not a mysterious third gender.
It is the praise of money by both sexes. The illusion that we own anything at all,
It is the praise of money by both sexes.
The illusion that we own anything at all,
Money is simply a tool, in concept. Even if it's current state is not ideal, people focusing on money is just how life works. It's a competition. We live in a world of finite resources. We aren't going to end up with some hunky dory Communist utopia. Communism has never worked and never will work.
If you want to say no one can own anything legitimately you're trying to dissolve the entire basis for conflict resolution in society. Again, you're insinuating Communism is the answer. Maybe you don't mean to, but you are. Believing we can't own anything is derived from a worldview based on existential solipsism. There's a whole can of worms here about politics, economics and philosophy as it relates to those that I don't care to go into, because that isn't what this sub is about specifically. They get referenced but it's not the focus. We could argue that certain concepts have been corrupted or abused; money, ownership of commodities, industry, etc. but to say everything belongs to the Earth and therefore no property rights are valid is fundamentally misunderstanding how humans organize so they don't just end up killing each other constantly so only the strongest wins.
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I don't give a hoot how many genders there are.
And no, we do not live in a world of finite resources. Everything we have here has been here since the beginning of everything, we are drinking the same water the dinosaurs drank. Everything works in the world except for humans, ecosystems are very resemblant to bodies; cells regenerating and feeding off of each other, nothing goes to waste. To think that we're going to run out of resources is ridiculous, the only way that will happen is through excessive greed, and that was exactly the mentality I was saying we have to shed for if nothing else, survival.
Communism is a form of government. A people trading survival freely while valuing creation rather than production don't need to be govorned.
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
Point 1) "All genders" is a phrasing that implies there are more than two. There are "both genders".
Point 2)
We do have limited resources. Potable water is not the same as water. There's an entire purification process based on labor and investment to provide that resource in a refined form to people. That necessitates economic measurement, meaning the presence of money. There are valid reasons economies that are significantly centrally planned have failed over and over, in all types of regions of the world; different cultures and different eras of technological capacity.
Humans are part of ecosystems. If we're unsustainable, the reaction is slow in coming. That doesn't mean that it won't come. Modern humans have not been around as long as many of the species of animal and plant life on the planet. You have to look at the big picture. We can't just pretend post scarcity is reality and expect it to happen where no one has to work anymore or actually earn what they want in life. Humans have different ideas of what they want. This applies to everything. We will never have a type of society Communists talk about. What you're talking about is Communism. There is a whole subset of Communist that claims the only true Communism is a stateless society. Whereas we know that, given what I just said, that humans value things differently and circumstantially, you cannot ever completely eliminate trade and separate valuations.
If societies don't run out of resources how do you explain economic collapses resulting in famine? Why do businesses exist to purify water if it's unlimited? The only instance in which it would be post-scarcity would be if we could drink salt water and had resistance to a huge number of diseases naturally. Everything requires science and industry, even if it's rudimentary. Irrigation and sewage processing is a form of technology.
I won't ever deny we have a greedy species, but that has it's limitations. We have a system that allows for the protections of the interests of the few. It doesn't matter what economic theory or political theory you advocate, everyone knows that. They gather artificially inflated amounts of profit based on preferential treatment from legislative bodies.
If we are all to be artists, sitting around all day eating whatever we want, who works? Who gets the food? Who makes the paint? Who harvests the materials for the paint production? Who transports them? Who builds the transports? Who gets the materials to build vehicles? It goes on and on. Money will never go away. I am well aware of tons of anti-establishment political thought, and none of them are in line with this type of fantasy, utopian thinking besides Communism that pretends it can be stateless, which it can't be.
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I never said societies didn't run out of resources, I said the earth didn't. This conversation is pointless. You tell me to look at the big picture, you should probably take your own advice. Humans were not always the parasites they are now.
Death and famine used to regulate the ecosystems just fine until we, through our biological instincts, honed our fear of death and figured out how to cheat the system through claiming ownership of the land.
We now have other ways to cheat the system, mainly DISCIPLINE. Don't take more than you need, don't reproduce excessively (there will be no need to once armies don't need to be built), and be productive. I can honestly say that I don't believe the majority of people need starvation hanging over their heads to be productive.
It won't start with a governmental legislation, it will start with people choosing to live modestly outside of the monetary system and showing others how to do the same. Money and government only exist within our minds. The earth still grows edible weeds and plants and animals still are a worthy opponent to conquer for your family. It's simply easier to eat the ones at the grocery store, and who has time to eat real food when you're trying to make yourself rich?
Try to think outside that which only exists in the minds of humans for profit at the expense of every other living thing. Trying to blame those labels for everything as opposed to choosing to acknowledge that their LABELS we made up completely misses the mark and will never solve anything.
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Parasites? How? Because we use resources from the Earth? Because there's an ebb and flow to the sustainability and not destroying the overall supply of something? Technically technology has advanced our ability to exhaust resources and prolong life expectancy. But we're still advancing ecological conservation in certain ways. It takes time. Big picture. Every action has a reaction, sometimes it takes massive loss of profit or life to facilitate it.
There's no such thing as 'cheating the life cycle by claiming ownership of land'. Do you realize if we wanted to live as hunter gatherers we'd need less than one billion humans on the planet? Agriculture isn't evil. You also completely ignored the point about conflict avoidance and resolution, and Communism not working. To have what you're talking about is a thing of the past, and mortality rates were high, disease was out of control. People didn't have adequate shelter. You can't have a modernized tribal society, that isn't how it works. And you'll never convince people to give up modern technology anyway.
Again, people cannot live outside a monetary system. Even these tribal societies you may be referencing (you're not being clear) used money. If they have no economic measurement they eventually suffer logistical collapse and tons of people die. You're not being empathic, advocating that system. Money exists as a reflection of labor and investment, as I said, to facilitate the entire process of the provision of resources of any and all kinds.
Animals are not a threat to us with technology. They often weren't a threat in the past if you had a group either. Unless you mean stone-age spear hunting, and even then you're ignoring the pursuit/exhaust method which is a highly effective, if unknown, hunting method. Animals fear humans, not the other way around. One of the perks of higher intelligence.
Lots of people eat real food. If it isn't edible, you can't eat it. If you mean processed food, with lots of additives and whatnot, sure more processed goods are cheaper and that's why people consume them a lot is because they're cost effective. But hundreds of millions of people - if not billions - on this planet do not eat what contributes to the leading causes of death in the US.
Trying to blame those labels for everything as opposed to choosing to acknowledge that their LABELS we made up completely misses the mark and will never solve anything.
Take your own advice? Money isn't evil. People agreeing to do business voluntarily with each other for subjective compensation they deem appropriate isn't evil and you have no authority to tell people they can't do so. Neither does any government. Money is a tool, a token of debt acknowledged in lieu of trading actual materials for materials. It's for convenience and expedience. Government backed artificial, non-commodity based currency isn't "money" as it exists conceptually. Like I said money existed in all types of sustainable cultures that were mostly eradicated by expansionist colonialism.
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Of course money itself isn't evil, it's a benign concept we created. Greed could be categorized as evil depending on your definition. If you understand that your individual actions affect the earth as a whole and conduct your life accordingly you would probably be able to stay away from 'evil' pretty easily, depending on your priorities.
We don't need to go back to tribal ways. The knowledge of technology is available to everyone and if there's a will, there's a way. Humans are remarkable under pressure. At this point in time, our technology is stunted in favor of inferior products just to keep the economy alive. Is the economy working for us or are we working for it?
Scientific studies must have proper funding to take place. Where does this money come from? The government? Who runs the government? People who take bribes from corperations to remain rich themselves. Long story short, if it doesn't benefit "them" it doesn't get done. Science can advance so much farther outside of it.
As far as hunter gatherers go, I don't think the majority of people would choose that sort of lifestyle. I was just trying to illustrate there is still more than one option even today. Every sort of practice we have today can be done respectively and sustainably, but that will take time and start with a generation of people sacrificing (mildly, probably ending up enhancing their lives in the process). It doesn't need to be everyone, either. Just some people who try.
You don’t have to agree with me, to be honest I'm not really sure what you're trying to convince me of other than I'm wrong. I can be wrong, it doesn't matter to me. Have a good day.
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There's a lot of stuff I agree with there, I was under the impression you were advocating abolishing money. You're talking about present situation; fiat currency, as opposed to money. That I agree with, as I implied already. I would say just use that terminology (fiat currency), because you'll get a lot more clarity and support that way.
That was my main point of concern.
Not all science is so biased. There's no denying the influential folks and the government affect studies but that's why peer review and reproducible experiments are important. Sociological stuff, research polls and the like, can often be misleading, until a proper body of empirical data is built.
Anyway, you as well.
[–]roseattack1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't aware that there was already a term for what I was talking about! Thanks for the info.
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No problem. Yeah the non-resource based currency is a big problem. How banks issue notes and charge interest per unit loaned to the government for distribution creates, obviously, infinite artificial debt.
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Forgive me, I'm not trying to be an antagonist, but I want to make clear that I'm in favor of the eventual abolishment of the monetary system. I don't think that the accumulation of resources or wealth should be rewarded or a proper judge of who gets a quality life, seeing as it's destructive as a whole. But yeah, that's not going to happen right now so I want to work around it and team up with people with similar beliefs to work towards that goal for future generations. I respect your positions, we really do agree on quite a bit and I love to focus on the broader comradeship rather than the disputes within details.
[–]BigAjax0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Jesus, this is ponderous. Can't believe it's taken this long: tits or GTFO
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]aznredpill2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]aznredpill1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DontBeFredo2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]spurdosparade1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apexk93 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]raisins3142 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]herpes_delivery_man 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]roseattack0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]BigAjax0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link