~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Asker1777
[–]liberteus64 points65 points66 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
And that study is why I don't understand how you can be mgtow and somewhat left leaning. If you're rational you're on the right. Women with fee fee and their companionate hearts (on their own best interest of course) want more govt etc.
More proof we need to take their rights away.
[–]Helikzhan34 points35 points36 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So very few men understand the big picture.
[–]Bartand18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
even if women doesn't need anymore a men to be rich she will prefer have nothing than being with a poorer man. Rich women go with richer man or they end up lesbian.
[–]p0rnpop4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The political ideology that best supports going ones own way is libertarian. Left generally support a welfare state while right generally support men having to directly sacrifice for women. Libertarians people being told to fuck off and leave each other alone.
While there might be something that can be said for conservatives who want some things that use to be true long ago (such as child custody going to the parent who can actually support the child and when divorcing someone for cheating use to be a sign they weren't worth trusting ever again), most conservatives want to return to a time where men were expected to sacrifice for women while women had no social duties.
Libertarians are entirely against welfare state and any expectations of having to sacrifice yourself for society. While they don't inherently support MGTOW, they support giving men the most freedom which best enables going your own way.
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Libertarianism has you being fucked in the arse by a big company just because they feel like it. The trouble is you can't truly go your own way. You won't be living off-grid and completely self-sustaining. You will have interactions with other entities and some of those interactions will not work in your favour. Nobody here is seriously ready for the wild west.
[–]nobody_thinks2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
the welfare state is just the planned obsolescence of the average male.
[–]I5zq3iuyfI0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
I don't understand how you can be mgtow and somewhat left leaning. If you're rational you're on the right.
Let's not confuse left with socialism. Socialism is part of the agenda on both sides of the political spectrum, even though left advocates for more of it than right, it would be a mistake to say that the left is only about socialism. Left advocates also for personal liberties and tolerance for those liberties, which I would argue should be important to any mgtow.
Libertarianism is what is mostly aligned with mgtow values, not the right.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]NathanHollister5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Also, let us send your kids to story time with a drag queen, and let us shove our cocks in your child's face at our pride parade, and let us take your child to strip at a gay bar.
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Left and right are only about economics. If you're talking about gay marriage then you mean liberal. Has nothing to do with left/right.
[–]CBDOnMyMind311 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Libertarianism is technically right. The further you go left, you approach communism. The further you go right, you approach anarchy.
[–]2stepp9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Thank you. Jesus. How do people not understand this shit?
[–]CBDOnMyMind30 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I remember when it happened, specifically. When Trump ran for president. It was pretty much universally accepted that Nazism was far-left until Trump become a presidential candidate. They started calling him a “Nazi”, but then realized the Nazis were far-left. So they changed history and said Nazism is far-right. I remember even the Wiki page got changed, and suddenly if you Googled Nazism, you’d see nothing but propaganda on how they were far-right. Suddenly fascism became far-right, etc. It had a big effect because I had never once been challenged on that until “Trump”, and suddenly whenever I said libertarianism was right and fascism was left all the snowflakes would go crazy. Like seriously, just use a little brainpower, people.
[–]p0rnpop2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I disagree. Both right and left support the government enforcing their own view points. Libertarians support the government not enforcing shit and that naturally leads to a centrist view of people being free to do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others (actual harm, not fake harm like hurt feefees).
You can disagree all you want, but libertarianism leading to centrism doesn’t make my statement any less true. What you stated is common sense. As time passes, every civilization becomes more liberal. I find it funny that you disagreed with me but then proceeded to completely agree with me. But yeah, the right can at times want the government to enforce shit, but ultimately, as I said, as you go further right on the spectrum you begin approaching libertarianism (not enforcing), then eventually anarchy.
[–]NathanHollister6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
@u/uglybaldmofo
The problem is, freedom means nothing if you are broke. And leftism takes mens money and gives it to women
You have the right to property, but it's worthless if you can;t afford to buy anything
You have the right to a lawyer, but it means nothing if you cant afford one
You have the right to free speech, but if your speech is silences by the left it means nothing
You have the right to entertain yourself as you please in your free time, but if you have to work 2 jobs to pay your ex-wife or to pay massive taxes for the state to give to women, it doesnt matter.
[–]xkulp84 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Left advocates also for personal liberties and tolerance for those liberties
Not if you want a straw with your drink or a toy with your Happy Meal
[–]liberteus0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Agreed 100%
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I'm left leaning because I believe (like literally any economist ever) there are problems that aren't solved by markets, and free markets rarely exist anyway. Doesn't mean I support more money going to single mothers. Economics is complicated and never about single issues.
We don't need to take their rights away, we just need to give them equal responsibility. They'll give up their rights themselves.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
lol, total bullshit
Yeah? Do you have an example of a serious, respected economist who does think markets solve all of our problems?
[+][deleted] 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea70 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Governments seem to be a lot better at solving the monopoly problem. A government also makes sense for services which are not optional, like healthcare.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]WanderlustYouth0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah i really don't want big daddy government to get any bigger, but its guys like Pea7 that keeps clamoring for this shit, eventually the U.S. is gonna be like what the U.K is a trying to be and we'll have a nanny state watching us at all times controlling every single thing we do and even then guys like him will the government to cast an even bigger safety net...
[–]smallSackBigShaft1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Which problems?
[–]RevolutionaryPea70 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Formation of monopolies and oligopolies. No payment of external costs. Look up these things and read if you're interested.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]roflcopt0rz_returns65 points66 points67 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Post this on 99% of the subreddits and watch it get deleted in 10 minutes for "hate speech"
This is good shit, and is just more proof that giving women rights was a mistake, as once they got the power to vote they immediately started voting for more welfare (and continue to vote for more free shit).
[+][deleted] 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]roflcopt0rz_returns12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's really hard to do in the current year, there aren't any great solutions without using physical force.
The left controls the media and the schools, they're ripping apart families so kids are being raised by single mothers (who as we know are fucking useless), so the left gets a massive head start on indoctrinating the kids.
This is part of MGTOW's endgame. There are no peaceful solutions left; the right and the MRAs and so on have tried them all and none of them worked, because the left just outnumbers everyone else and they'll always win when it comes to votes. Because of that they don't give a shit about your logical or factual arguments; they plug their ears, lock themselves in their echo chambers/safe spaces, and vote themselves more free shit and there's nothing you can do in a democracy. Our only hope is to opt out of the system, protect ourselves, and be ready once the left officially eats itself and society collapses.
[–]Tallsmarthandsome47 points48 points49 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Women support socialism because only money and the fruits of labor are redistributed, pussy is not re-disributed by the state from those with means to those with needs...mens labor is redistributed, but women still own the pussy to sell on the open market
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits23 points24 points25 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's actually an interesting concept. Redistribution of pussy for redistribution of income.
Wait, I've just invented relationships.
[–]ThomasSowell_Alpha10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wait, I've just invented relationships Prostitution
FTFY
[–]p0rnpop1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Everything has a market. People almost always support socialism that is limited to markets where they have far less.
Also, this isn't some incel idea. Many books written decades ago to criticize different forms of government included the idea of redistribution if sex and reproduction to go along with redistribution of wealth. The Giver and We (think 1984 before 1984 was written) are two classical examples. But don't expect an "educated" liberal to know about it.
[–]80173527 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Optimist.
[–]teelolws16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
A few years ago, in taxation class, we were taught that only around 5% of taxes go into welfare. The biggest spend is pensions, followed by roads.
I don't have a problem with pensions, BUT they should not be able to collect it if they can support themself without it. If they're still working or they have a bunch of rental properties they're getting income from. It's complete bullshit that pensions aren't income tested.
There are plenty of unemployed people in this country who can't get work since there's not enough jobs. Why should old people get a retirement pension when they haven't retired and are clinging onto a job that would be better going to a young unemployed person?
New Zealand.
[–]xkulp812 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If you mean federal pensions such as US Social Security, they are a are a welfare program. And men are net payers into them (as they work longer and at higher-paying jobs) and women are net receivers from them (as they live longer).
[–]teelolws2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If you mean federal pensions such as US Social Security New Zealand.
If you mean federal pensions such as US Social Security
Govt here refuses to touch superannuation because old people are the majority of voters who actually make time to go vote.
[–]throwmyaccountaway991 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, same shit here. Govt always promises more pensions and welfare only to get more votes. Really if you're on ANY kind of welfare, INCLUDING PENSION, you shouldn't be able to vote, period. And maybe even better, unless you're not on welfare AND don't pay a + in taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote either.
[–]teelolws0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
All possible and reasonably ideas, but we have to be careful that the restrictions don't slip too far. Historically only land owners could vote. Theres a reason most of the countries scrapped that rule.
[–]throwmyaccountaway990 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Theres a reason most of the countries scrapped that rule.
Yeah most countries scrapped that rule in order to allow foreign powers to buy up land and turn the population into their slaves who can't buy land for cheap anymore and have to always rent or buy at exorbitant prices.
[–]-Governator0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You can't fuck with pensions. They're one of the few reasons why people pay taxes.
One certain country (sorry, anti-dox) did not have pensions for some time after declaring independence. Things went pretty bad. Everyone would declare minimal income and just go collect envelopes. That actually went so widespread that even now, decades later, it has a very high tax avoidance ratio.
[–]Helikzhan13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Repeal the voting rights act of 1920. That's the only way you're getting rid of social welfare / theft of taxpayer money.
[–]RevolutionaryPea71 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nah. Women have done nothing significant with their votes.
[–]fat_lesbians_lul5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
b-b-but 6000$ is also taxes 🤡🌏
[–]patacsiipse3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Capitalism: building wealth and well being for the society (it’s the men’s narrative)
Socialism: redistributing thus destroying the already built up wealth until there is nothing left (it’s the women’s narrative)
Which one do you choose?
If the flat earthers are the nutjobs of physics, the socialists would have the honor to be the nutjobs of economics.
[–]throwmyaccountaway991 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
well, women do help men spend more tax so... there's that right?
[–]InformalCriticism1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The feminists actually have an interesting counter to this, "well, of course men pay more taxes, because they're paid more than women".
Obviously, this is just their foot-in-the-door toward "equal pay, no matter whether my labor has any value", but I don't usually reference this statistic, unless I'm talking to someone I know is in favor of using the government to oppress men further than they already do.
[–]lostapwbm1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anyone who's interested should read the CEDAW some time.
That's the next stage for Global Feminism: All women subsidized at the expense of all men.
[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
great info but way too much reading for a meme! chop 'er down bro.
[–]ThomasSowell_Alpha0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
While I definately think this is good, it still leaves a lot to be desired, and only tackles like 2 criticisms, and ignores some major arguments from the feminists.
My biggest problems are first and foremostly, the data. Literally all of this data aparently comes from a "fiscal research report in New Zealand, which none of us can even access. like it is hyperlinked, but this is an image, so we can go there. The authors are not mentioned. Nothing. there is no cross examination with other countries, and the writer seems to imply that what ever is true about the tiny population of New Zealand must be true about the rest of the western world two. Which is ridiculous.
Secondly, the author never tackles the argument of women working lower payed jobs because those are "womens jobs" and women are put into those roles. (you may disagree, howeverr that is the argument, and has some truth) Meaning that you cannot just say that it's womens fault for paying less tax, when taxes are fucking percentage based.
Which brings me to another point. If you are seriously going to claim that Men pay way more taxes, then you have to admit that men also make way more money than women. Which is part of the feminist argument. Men have higher paying jobs, and are therefore better off in society than women.
Finally, I owuld like to bring up that this data is also crap, because it doesn't tell us anything about the time frames to was collected accross, and does not take into account, history.
Like it is all well and good to say that sexism is mostly a thing of the past, and that women are not even remotely oppressed anymore, but it is another thing to claim that the 50yo woman, was able to be more than a waitress and then became a housewife when she grew up in an era, where that was the norm.
[–]serial_underachiever0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Women are not put in lower paying jobs, they choose them, same reason why men earn more money, they choose more difficult, higher paying jobs and work more hours, get out of here with your sexism bullshit
[–]ThomasSowell_Alpha0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you bothered to comprehend what I actually said. You would know that I said that that is the feminist argument, and he didn't address it. I agree with your stance obviously, but the feminists don't.
[–]ImNotHereForFunNoWay0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Can you share the source?
[–]dinker0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is there an equivalent source for the UK?
[–]CeleritySteam0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Welfare is a tax so the less competent don't chimp out. If it were removed there'd be a lot of culling.
[–]bansheeman-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Abolish to pursuit of material wealth and you can receive welfare and stop working. Waking up and doing whatever I want everyday is bliss.
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Fuck that. I want a sports car.
[–]bansheeman-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Said the foolish child to his father
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Tough talk, leech. You're not going your own way. You're taking from other men and trying to paint yourself as the good man.
[–]bansheeman-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Neat opinion, but only God judges me. My life is bliss and I hope you’re enjoying yours
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm also judging you.
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Then you too shall be judged accordingly
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And I will not be found wanting. After all, I'm not a leech.
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And I am not a judge
[–]teelolws-3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
One slight alteration to your proposal: welfare for men only?
[–]NathanHollister8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Nope. Welfare is bad no matter who receives it.
[–]liberteus5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Welfare is slavery for the ones forced to pay, it's also slavery to the recipients now under control of the state to which they owe their living.
[–]I_hate_roastbeef1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ugly/deformed/handicapped men only.
[–]teelolws-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men with significant disabilities?
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link
The welfare system is very much needed
1) As a means to prevent exploitation. It sets a low bar threshold that employers can’t cross when offering work to the lowest classes
2) To allow people to take risks for the good of everyone. Without the welfare system, I wouldn’t have the decent job I have now
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Please give some more info other than statements, as an anti welfare person my self i would like to understand your POV.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
OK so I used the welfare system while in further education to allow myself to do what was almost essentially unpaid volunteering in my field of expertise for charities with large IT infrastructure. I saved up to the limit of what I was allowed to and had the charity pay me enough to cover expenses as a couple of hours pay per week, while working the rest unpaid. This allowed me to have rent/council tax mostly paid for by the government without claiming unemployment - out of £450/month rent I only had to pay £9.40, for example.
This use of the welfare system allowed me to gain a few years real world experience very early on that even uni students couldn’t get. The result is I now work a decent job where I pay in far more than I took out.
Edit: I originally offered to donate back any payout as I just needed to claim to have paid employment below a certain threshold to qualify, but they wanted me to have the money due to the value I was giving them outweighing the tiny amount they had to pay each month.
[–]liberteus10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
So you're basically saying you got free education on taxpayer expense. In a sane world you'd have worked and studied on the side, climbed up the corporate ladder and made it all the same.
I never accept money I don't earn because if I do it means somewhere somebody is forced under threat of law to give that money to me through the government. I'm not a thief, I don't live off of others, and I would rather choose who I give money to than having to subsidize idiots, thots and third world populations.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If it's beneficial at large then he should have been able to get a loan. It worked for him and didn't work for 99 others, in the end he won't repay what the 99 others cost. Governments always operate at a loss.
[–]liberteus3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
He got somebody else to pay for it. If he had had to pay 10k$ or whatever from his pocket, he would have had to save or borrow. Yet he didn't. It was free to him.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Did you go to school? If you did, you got educated at taxpayers expense. I was home schooled, therefore I’ve already spent less taxpayer money than in a state without a welfare system already. No teacher educated me, I educated myself to a high standard with the support of my parents. But, even with a superior education at no cost to anyone else, I needed to be able to claim prior work experience to pass initial corporate shit tests. By doing what I did, as a result, I’ve paid in more than what I ever took out of the system, allowing others to do the same if they wish.
Also, let me explain why what your saying doesn’t work anywhere near as well and would have likely not succeeded. In IT, it normally takes a long time to climb the ranks if you start off in 1st line. People who started off working paid jobs in lower positions before me still have said lower positions right now and wonder why they can’t achieve better. That’s by design because they lack prior experience, which they cant get because they’re risk averse - that puts them in the boat of being very good at what they currently do but not being a safe bet for anything more. By comparison. my first paid corporate job was 3rd line and paid more than double what the other folks earned at just the base salary alone. You see, my resume only had high-end work attributed to it because I created voluntary roles for myself at the top end by demonstrating skill, cunning and showing that I was a ‘no risk proposition’ to them.
The very fact that a welfare system existed allowed me to try a risky strategy. Working a crap job makes it harder to find better work, it reflects badly.
Addendum: Since my first proper job, I’ve picked up a BSc in Computing and Information Systems and I am currently very close to acquiring an MSc in Cyber Security and I am 100% debt-free, Compare that to all the indebted students in countries lacking decent welfare who can’t compete with folks like me in the jobs market. The welfare system would help those people at an expense I am willing to pay.
[–]liberteus7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm glad you have a good job and all. I still think there are many other ways to get the same outcome with much better accuracy than financing large number of people through same type of programs because governments are inefficient by nature, and will always overspend and most of the time on the wrong person (single moms!).
About my own education: I was a child and could not understand. Once I was able to make a choice I took a loan and went ahead. I got help to pay bills, worked in the summer, etc.
[–]bansheeman-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
You have zero humility, brother
[–]liberteus1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for the compliment.
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Lmao. Back to the plantation for you. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. A good slave earns his food and board and is taxed so that those who are smarter can take from him. Now get to work so I can have those sweet sweet taxes. I'm enjoying a relaxing day of no work and would like my free benefits to keep flowing
[–]liberteus0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Sure, you enjoy sucking off the gov't tits, but that's not being free. Being free is being able to sustain yourself, not having to rely on other people doing the predation for you.
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Awww, the slave sounds mad. I can sustain myself easily. But why? To prove I’m strong? True strength comes from being humble and accepting the help of others. Great leaders recognize talent in other people and employ them to achieve a goal. A lion relaxes while the lioness hunts for him. I went to college and got the sweet job after, but to no satisfaction. I even earned lots of money and traveled. I did that “accept nothing from no ons” lone wolf attitude. It was ego and didn’t satisfy me. I love the life I live now and I hope you’re loving your life too, whatever path it is.
[–]liberteus0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm not mad. Difference in vision. I can live with that. I will fight you though if you want me to pay for your stuff, I know it's an uphill battle, in fact it's a lost one as long as women vote. I still love a good life, I was a slave before but that's a long story :)
[–]BertTheWelder2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I used pell grants and taxpayer-backed loans to go to school. Today I pay more in taxes than most people earn.
Yeah, programs that help people climb the ladder work. At least for some.
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I’m currently receiving food stamps/Medicaid/free dental while I grow my passive income business. The company is already profitable and has zero debt, but doesn’t profit over $1200/month (which is the cutoff for benefits) As my business grows, I will provide jobs for other people. The gov will likely earn more from my business taxes than they ever could have off of me working for someone else. Welfare programs allow smart people to stop being slaves while they focus on starting a business. Low IQ individuals subsist off of it.
[–]WanderlustYouth0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Honestly i hate welfare abusers, but if it causes the collapse to happen quicker i say go for it. Most welfare dependents/ abusers will probably be the first to perish when the host the used to leech of off is gone ...
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You're wrong. It's a good idea. With all the women working hard, I'm forcing them to support me
[–]liberteus7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Exploitation is a false concept. Either you have a contract, ie a voluntary agreement, or you have coercion. Guess what: minimum wage, taxes, regulations are ALL coercion. By saying "welfare is good" you just said "coercion is good". You just contradicted yourself. Governments exploit men in general the way no corporation will ever be able to do.
Your point number 2 is ridiculous, banking system is here when people need to invest, either to pay for school or for business opportunities. Government remove risk/benefit calculations by subsidizing and shielding from consequences, therefore people and corporations to take more risks than they should (that's called moral hazard, dig it).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You just contradicted yourself by your own definitions: You don’t need to pay taxes or into the welfare system at all if you don’t want to. Simply don’t trade or exchange goods using money, you’re not coerced into doing so. Likewise you don’t have to pay a wage to someone to have them perform labour for you, that’s a voluntary agreement between you and them. Money isn’t your legal property, it’s legal tender for debt which comes with a private set of terms and conditions, codified in a huge set of regulations. Don’t like it but still need a common trading abstraction? Use cryptocurrency instead!
Governments are designed to mitigate risks that could otherwise cause societal issues through mutually agreed cooperation. We express our desires for how we would like our government to prioritise overall risk management through a democratic process. That’s the whole point of it. If government did not act as a form of risk management, it would be no more effective than anarchy or tribalism. To prove my point: Coercion is primarily used to protect private property and labour. Without it, corporations wouldn’t exist and there’d be no factual meaning to a voluntary contract between two parties.
So if you want the protection that government coercion offers to make sure people honour their voluntary agreements and respect the fiction that is property rights, pay up bucko!
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
On exploitation: All trading is built upon the concept. If me and you trade with each other and we both mutually gain from it, we have both exploited one another for what we have to offer - voluntary trading is exploitation! Using base materials to produce things of higher value is also exploitation. Likewise if I worked for you, you’d be exploiting my labour for profit, while I would also mutually gain from the money you pay me, thus I’d be exploiting you too, for your financial resources. When exploitation is too one-sided, in that one party stands to gain far more than the other, that is when people use the negative connotation.
It’s not a false concept.
[–]liberteus4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Voluntary trading is exploitative? You're twisting words there. Exploitation is a Marxist loaded word, at the core of that failed doctrine: that workers are paid less than their labor is worth, allowing capitalists to get a profit. Exploitation doesn't exist because the Marxist theory of value is wrong, labor doesn't give value to anything, what gives value to anything is completely subjective and individual.
So I stand by my comment around exploitation. You either have coercion, through government or Mafia, or you have freedom.
Edit: there I said it. Freedom. Isn't that what mgtow is about in large part? Freedom from female oppression, freedom to pursue your own goals etc?
Exploitation is a generally positive capitalist concept, it literally means “to make use of resources”. There are some forms of voluntary trade that would be detrimental to society in the long term if generally allowed to occur unchecked, like if the Scientology billion year contract was binding and literal - for example. It’s in good capitalist interests to ensure that good ideas and good trades are promoted and made easily possible to perform. A good capitalist economy requires that both the supply and demand sides of the economy are catered for. Increasing the wealth of the less successful while also not limiting the potential of the highly successful makes everyone more wealthy and improves overall GDP.
The fact that Marxism has a more cynical view of exploitation is not relevant, however, their reason for such cynicism is that they believe all base resources start off as the common property of all humans and thus believe that the one who does the work should own the means of production. That approach has many flaws that I won’t get into as I’d be up all night writing about that.
Welfare systems help limit people from voluntarily making their own situation worse out of lack of other reasonable choices, which helps create more opportunity for trade and increases overall profit in the private sector - which brings in more jobs, lowering unemployment and increasing wages. We know this works if managed correctly, our conservative government just achieved the lowest unemployment rate in UK history, since records began - they did this through decent supply side economics, keeping taxes low and promoting the welfare state in a fair way. We are at the point where employers have to keep raising wages to attract employees for growth and British workers are out-competing economic migrants for most jobs. Low unemployment means less unemployment benefits are being used which means the system starts making money for redistribution to other departments.
Here’s a challenge for you: If you believe in the biblical concept of free will, then you’ll know that you still have free will even under coercion by God. It’s God’s coercion that gives meaning to the concept of free will. On that basis, can you truly have freedom without either anarchy or coercion to make it possible? Think about it.
(Hint: I’m an atheist but our philosophical concept of freedom stems from the fundamental building block of free will)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
On banking: The banking system as it exists currently relies upon an infinite growth paradigm where a mathematical balance is kept between the total quantity of currency in use and the total (potential) value of it. The process of creating interest through loaning additional money into the system creates the need for ever increasing taxation. This is because there is not enough money in the system to pay off every debt in the system (if there was, there wouldn’t be enough ‘interest’ to keep on using it. Get it?).
But it doesn’t end there. Fractional reserve banking allows banks to loan out more money than they actually have, by charging interest on top. By taking out a loan, you are essentially creating money out of thin air, which is an invisible tax on everyone else, as doing so will result in inflation which will slowly devalue their existing money.
Oh and if you think cryptocurrency is a solution to this, well.. what the banks do provides additional stability through the mechanics they use to keep a well regulated economy. The volatility of cryptocurrencies demonstrates why a finite resource doesn’t work in practice as an abstraction layer for trading long term,
Knowing this, does it matter if you’re taxed by trading/investments causing inflation or by the government taking money out of your pay? I’d say there has to be a balance to keep everyone happy. Both are a rip off. Both can be avoided carefully if you don’t use money as your abstraction layer.
Whatever balance you prefer, stick to going your own way in life, learn as much as you can and take advantage of opportunities when you come across them. Knowledge is power.
The current banking system is utterly terrible. I'm not defending it. I'm saying that if your education is beneficial then you should be able to finance it through a loan.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I’m from Britain. The irony is that over here, we use the US as an example of a western state that lacks a welfare system. We have a fixed price system for universities that forces them to compete on quality. So your bachelor degree can only ever cost at most £9,000/year and you can get bursaries for good performance (to attract talent) and grants to reduce the loan amount for those from poorer families. Loans with a PAYE style system are provided where payments halt if you don’t earn over a certain threshold, loans are nulled out if you don’t pay them back after 35 years. So if your degree doesn’t help you, you’re usually no worse off, unless you did gender studies and then got a well paying unrelated job somehow after all - that’s an idiot tax!
We have social housing here as an option that anyone can apply for, rich or poor. All large private housing developments are required to contribute to social housing, by building some identically spec’d poor people housing as part of negotiating planning permission. The homeless, elderly and disabled/vulnerable get priority and it’s rented so if you’re rich you’d want to buy the private housing. However, the poor and the rich are all mixed together. If you’re on a low income or unemployed, just apply for housing benefits and you’re sorted. When you work full time, you’ll pay in more than you get out very quickly based on raw costs anyway as all social housing is now ran by private non-profit charitable organisations aided by the authorities. That means the government just donates to charity when you claim benefits and all the social housing builds are pretty much written off against taxes by private companies anyway.
So yeah, women still get it better but us men don’t get it too badly either. All this safety net... and you pay on average just under 20% tax on what you earn.
[–]themackattack904 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The welfare system in America doesn't work well because you get punished for success. You can work two jobs for minimum wage with negligible benefits, or you can get government funded health care, food stamps, and unemployment. Why would you ever choose the option where you are working hard when you can have a better life for doing nothing? It doesn't matter that the option where you are working very hard and being "exploited" is the one where you might end up as a relatively successful and productive member of society.
Welfare should serve as a safety net, not a way of life.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Not supporting the welfare state means more people will borrow money, which steals money from everyone via inflation. Read my above comments for why it all makes no difference in practice. If you have central banking and money (tender) as an abstraction layer, you’re getting robbed anyway.
Funny enough, we are living right now in the period with the most explosive innovation and industrial automation. Most of which is coming from welfare states. People don’t make innovations their life’s work like they used to, either, Our rate of development for new ideas and concepts being realised is at an all time high.
You’re right that a welfare state isn’t necessary but it is extremely useful. If you’re not happy being robbed, simply don’t use money. Also feel free to enjoy the additional unmitigated risks of trading with raw materials or abstractions that aren’t deliberately engineered (manipulated) by fancy mathematicians to maximise stability and predictability over short to mid term periods.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
“Oh, you mean like how governments worldwide finance the welfare state? By printing and stealing money?”
Governments don’t print money. Private banks do.
“Oh? Just don't use money and somehow find a way to not pay taxes. Is that all I have to do to not be robbed? LOL”
Even if you don’t pay any taxes, you’re still being robbed when you use money. I’ve already proven this point by describing the mechanisms at play which create that effect. It’s not all you have to do to not be robbed. You’d also need to secure your own domain from others as you’re ceding the privilege of having the government protect what you (falsely) claim ownership of. Property rights are a legal fiction. They don’t exist in nature. That would mean fighting the people who dispute your claim over land/materials/resources, the government would take care of this for you, for a small fee!
Anyway, now on to large innovations funded by the welfare state:
GM crops and modern farming methods have improved food output by many thousands of times what was manageable in the late 1700s. This research was all subsidised by welfare from multiple government funded research groups to allow experiments to be performed without putting the general population at risk. Guess who in the west uses the most food? US citizens. Food would be far less affordable without the benefits the welfare state provides. Yes, the US taxpayer still pays for the likes of companies like Monsanto today but still directly benefits from it!
Medicine. We coded the entire human genome in only 13 years this started in 1990 and this was mostly funded by welfare. This has directly contributed to some of the greatest healthcare innovations the world has seen, like CRISPR-based gene therapy (also welfare funded) which will likely be our salvation in terms of eliminating hereditary diseases without the need for a eugenics-based approach. That’s an innovation that fundamentally changed 1000s of years of assumptions about how life is formed. The closest equivalent was work on vaccinations, which... oh boy.. was funded by the English government using taxpayer money, tens of thousands of it in the late 1700s... as in the industrial era? Yes many industrial era innovations were also government welfare funded but pale in comparison to today’s welfare-funded works.
Information and communication technologies have improved to allow widespread promulgation of news within minutes, rather than weeks. The technology was government funded and developed by ARPA, then donated to academics through government welfare. Welfare funded the Internet itself too, welfare also funded the non-profit registries that kept concepts like worldwide IP addressing and routing organised very early on. The Internet got a massive boost in the early 90s from welfare states. No-one independently developed a working competitor to the same standard of what was government funded.
So yes, feel free to claim these innovations could have happened without welfare but the truth is that they didn’t.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling now. Xerox had nothing to do with inventing the Internet. Xerox had everything to do with inventing Ethernet which is a convenient LAN technology that doesn’t provide any routing logic to connect separate networks together. You cannot simultaneously complain that the US government delayed access when it was a privately developed technology while allowing private business to routinely do the same. Many alternatives were also developed independently in other countries by publicly funded researchers too, with none of the research being hoarded. Private business actually had every opportunity to get in and beat the US to the punch but failed - most notably the French tried and failed.. like they do at everything. What the US had developed was a superior open standard, off the backs of public funds.
Think of how different (and more efficient) it could be if the internet was designed for how its currently use instead of ad-hoc thrown together on the back of a system designed for another purpose?
In the beginning, supply creates demand, not the other way around. Its current use was not an originally envisaged use case. It’s like saying: ‘imagine if all software was open source and not hoarded by those terrible companies’, you know, those same companies who dare to try and innovate!
In a vast sea of trillions spent on total bullshit, you are able to cherry pick some vague and nonvague examples which you believe supports your position. The problem is this doesn't account for the actual costs, the number of failures, or that this innovation couldn't be funded through non-state means and on a voluntary basis.
Hundreds upon thousands of small businesses worldwide close every year due to failure and do so having taken out loans which devalue the currency used. I’d say the government isn’t much better or worse than private funded enterprise, all things considered.
this claims requires the belief that absent the welfare state, these innovations wouldn't happen... and yet that's not a supported claim
No they don’t. I can say that these are positive byproducts of the welfare state without having to prove that they wouldn’t have happened otherwise. These positive byproducts have had a permanent positive impact on society as a whole, including private enterprise. That cannot be denied.
In economics, a very important question is to look at the seen and unseen benefits. You are pointing at what is seen and ignoring everything else.
You mean like the unseen benefit of transparently creating additional economic demand that helps private enterprise to profit, in exchange for a comparatively small investment? How much economic value has the Internet created for the whole world? Think about it...
property rights do exist in nature and did exist in nature which is why they were formalized into law
Without a legal system to make the fictitious philosophical concept a reality, there’d be nothing to stop anyone from killing you and taking what you claim to be your property.. then the next person can come along and rinse.. lather... repeat. It’s like saying people have a right to live - they don’t. We created a legal fiction to support the concept that everyone should have a right to live and then enforce said legal fiction under threat of violence. What people refer to as ‘natural rights’ are no more or less natural in nature than me taking a dump in a toilet. It’s perfectly natural for humans to kill one another, we just heavily discourage it for the good of the individual and the collective.
Property rights work the same way, we create legal fiction surrounding the philosophical concept to make it have a pragmatic meaning. What’s yours isn’t yours, it’s what you claim to be yours, either through threats of violence or through indirect arbitration via the legal system.
(P.S. I love discussing things from a libertarian vs. authoritarian perspective... I get to let my hair down and critique the concept of freedom)
[–]NathanHollister4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
1) Actually, welfare is so generous that work is disincentivized. Why work at Wal-Mart for $10 when I can make $13 sitting on my ass at home?
2) Welfare doesn't allow people to take risks, only hard work does
[–]TigPlaze2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
I agree. It sometimes gets abused, but some people are too sick, injured, or handicapped to work.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link
And in my opinion they should die off as Darwin anticipated.
I know dark/edgy/disgusting opinion but very few in these categories bring forth true worth in civilization. Including myself.
[–]TigPlaze2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
You don't understand Darwin's theories then. Humans survived by cooperation in groups, not by letting people die. Just let'em die is fascist philosophy, not Darwinism.
[–]TigPlaze1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You're an idiot. Letting people die due to handicaps was EXACTLY what the fascists did. We're better than that, at least most people are. Just not you.
[–]TigPlaze0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm an expert on the topic, genius. Fascism has a philosophy that the strong survive and it's fine to just let the weak die. Some forms like Nazism add race to that, thinking there's such a thing as a master race. I know exactly what fascism is, so go fuck yourself.
[–]bleahmylife0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
All this can be solved by having "voluntary welfare program", where you can optin and payin if you agree with governments welfare idea.
The one who isn't part of the scheme gets nothing and don't have to contribute and can't join later, as simple as that.
Welfare money should not come from taxes but it should be a different program altogether.
But it doesn't exist anywhere, why?
[–]Omnibrad2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Nah the fascists fucking love their own countrymen and want to help them. This is why Hitler had national socialized medicine.
[–]TigPlaze-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
German has never had a single socialized insurance system. It has a multi-payer public and private system that was established in 1883 by Otto von Bismarck. Hitler didn't set it up. He just let it keep going. To this day, Germany still has that same system, which is NOT a single-payer socialized system.
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
No, Darwinism is survival of the fittest, and fascism is killing off the weak and infirm.
[–]TigPlaze0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
No Darwinism was survival of the fittest SPECIES, and human's survival strategy that worked was banding together in groups known as tribes and using intelligence and cooperation so that the species survived. It was not human against human. It was humans against other species. Jesus Christ, pick up a science book.
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I stand by my statement, and your female shaming tactics don't work on me.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I stand by dolphins!
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As you should.
[–]TigPlaze-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm not female or using their tactics. I stand by my views. A healthy and good state creates a safety net. I despise the far-right extremists who think the market economy solves everything. It doesn't. We have to create systems that help those who need it. I'm glad we don't simply let someone like Stephen Hawking just die. His life had value even if he would have died without help from others. Some people think it's fine to just let someone like that die because they lack physical strength. I make no apologies that I think that's a sick and evil philosophy. If that bothers you, oh well. I don't care. If people feel ashamed of that, that's a good thing. A sick philosophy like that is definitely something to be ashamed of, so if you're feeling some shame that's a good thing. It means you have some humanity. If you don't feel that, then you may be some kind of psychopath, and that's something to worry about for sure.
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The dig at the end is a shame against my education, it was not required at all.
You only tout the macro view of Darwinism, and not the micro. I personally don't care about you either.
[–]TigPlaze-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree. I make no apologies for despising the notion of letting the weak die, which indeed is fascism.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
Fuck you. The government's job, or one of them, is to provide a safety net. Every able-bodied person has a duty to support it. We're not a fascist state, or at least we should not be.
You're confused. That's exactly what the fascists did. They killed so-called less desirable, those they considered weak. Maybe try reading up on some history instead of babbling on and showing your own ignorance. Hitler set up a program specifically for euthanizing (as they called it -- meaning killing) mentally handicapped and other handicapped people. It's a fact, not that you care about that. It's history, not that you care. Welfare has nothing to do with fascism.
[–]transcis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There is also a public health issue. Leaving many people malnourished breeds all kinds of infectious diseases, and controlling legions of diseased homeless people is very expensive, but suffering from frequent disease outbreaks caused by them is also expensive. At least welfare system is efficient in cordoning off most poor people in compact areas where they can be efficiently treated shouls a need arise.
Public welfare is almost certainly not the most efficient method of solving this problem, it is a political compromise.
[+][deleted] 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]transcis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I need help identifying complex societies in which a significant percentage of people are not very poor.
Do you have an example?
As to your second point if you don't live with poor people why would you care? As long as you don't have to visit places where poor people live, it will rarely be a problem for you.
On the other hand if there is no welfare, government has limited means of control of the poor people and they become spread out everywhere as homeless. Well-off people in societies that cannot afford welfare are forced to live in walled-off secured compounds with armed guards and barbed wire. Essentially, by not having enough to spend for welfare, affluent people are reduced to living in golden cages.
State always wins. One doesn't fight city hall. The only question is how much? This is why one needs to compromise. Because the alternative is revolution and it usually destroys most of the infrastructure.
[–]transcis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There are 1.5 million households in USA that live on 2 dollars a day or less. Link
That is not filthy rich by any country's standard.
In NYC alone, hundreds of thousands of children are going to bed hungry right now, with all the welfare that the feds, the state and the city pump in. Link
This is a systemic problem and no state is able to solve it.
Thugs and guns maybe efficient when they steal from law-abiding people, but controlling movements of large masses of people without gallows or an available new Botany Bay is not such a simple problem.
The rich may love United States, but I doubt they love Cuba or North Korea and I am pretty sure they hated Soviet Union because Soviet Union's example forced them to allow welfare in the first place. If it wasn't for the commies, the rich and the states they love would be better off never allowing welfare in the first place.
[–]jkarovskaya-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
There are literally millions of people in every country with no family, who are sick, mentally ill, disabled, widowed with children, who would be homeless and on the street without government programs.
Buying health insurance in the USA if you're working an $8.00 an hour job is impossible. Relying on "charity" won't pay rent, basic bills, and is a joke in most places in the USA,
We as a society can make a conscious decision to ignore them, and let them die in the street or freeze to death in campgrounds, barns and sheds exactly like former centuries. Or we can extend a measure of help.
That choice is made by our elected representatives, i.e. citizens
There will always be those who take advantage, and are lazy, but that's the trade off for some measure of mercy and help.
[–]jkarovskaya0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
As I related in earlier post, every society has to decide what level of care we give to people who are truly unable to fend for themselves. If you don't like taxes, go live in Antartica
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]liberteus64 points65 points66 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]Helikzhan34 points35 points36 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bartand18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]p0rnpop4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nobody_thinks2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]I5zq3iuyfI0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]NathanHollister5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CBDOnMyMind311 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]2stepp9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CBDOnMyMind30 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]p0rnpop2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CBDOnMyMind30 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xkulp84 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-3 points-2 points-1 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]RevolutionaryPea7-2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]RevolutionaryPea70 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]WanderlustYouth0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]smallSackBigShaft1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea70 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]roflcopt0rz_returns65 points66 points67 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]roflcopt0rz_returns12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tallsmarthandsome47 points48 points49 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits23 points24 points25 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ThomasSowell_Alpha10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]p0rnpop1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]80173527 points28 points29 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]teelolws16 points17 points18 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]xkulp812 points13 points14 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]teelolws2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwmyaccountaway991 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]teelolws0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]throwmyaccountaway990 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]-Governator0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Helikzhan13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RevolutionaryPea71 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fat_lesbians_lul5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]patacsiipse3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwmyaccountaway991 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InformalCriticism1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lostapwbm1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThomasSowell_Alpha0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]serial_underachiever0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ThomasSowell_Alpha0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImNotHereForFunNoWay0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dinker0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CeleritySteam0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman-2 points-1 points0 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman-2 points-1 points0 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman-1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PMmepicsofyourtits0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]teelolws-3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]I_hate_roastbeef1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]teelolws-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (83 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus10 points11 points12 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]liberteus2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]liberteus3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman-1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]BertTheWelder2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]WanderlustYouth0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bansheeman0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus7 points8 points9 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]liberteus5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]themackattack904 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze2 points3 points4 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze2 points3 points4 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]TigPlaze1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]TigPlaze0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bleahmylife0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Omnibrad2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze-1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jack-Hole0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (13 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]TigPlaze1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]TigPlaze0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]transcis0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]transcis0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]transcis0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jkarovskaya-1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]jkarovskaya0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link