New Reply[×]
Name
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


votingTrends.png
[Hide] (46.9KB, 794x704)
Are you ready for muh soggy knees, /liberty/?

Are women less likely to be libertarians because:
>Of "empathy blocking."
E.g., due to sexual diphormism differences in the human brain, female brains have a larger limbic system, causing certain logical conclusions to be less likely to reach them.  The slightly more positive way of phrasing this is "Females are so empathetic [that it blocks their cognition]."
>They are less likely to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Women are able to escape living conditions caused by policies they support either by marrying up, or otherwise using their overall cultural appreciation to make their decisions seem less bad to them on the margin.
>Both.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNKIjLLZMWs
>Women actually admire totalitarianism because they admire those traits sexually, and this manifests in the kind of government they likewise support.
Alternatively, "Because men are weaker today, they look to government to be their strong man."
>They don't have the centuries of cultural tradition that men have.
In the scope of human history, women have only received suffrage relatively recently, and therefore have been making poor decisions because cultures have not evolved with the concept of women suffrage taken into account.
>Because of posts like this!  You need to encourage a more welcoming, diverse, and inclusive environment and the problem with libertarians are posts that denigrate the female mind and perspective just like the supposed "options" from this misogynistic post.
...
>>488 (OP) 
>Why are women so politically different?
Women are conformist first of all and therefor far more vulnerable to propaganda. That's why they got the vote. It wasn't some feminist battle for equality.

Women are conformist for evolutionary reasons. When a tribe gets raided the men are killed and the women are taken as slaves and wives. The women who abandoned their old culture and embraced their captors spread their genes the furthest. (Women can always land on their back).

Also women can't really survive without men to protect and provide for them, especially during pregnancy. Women are malleable to the beliefs of whoever is putting food on the table and for most women now that is the welfare state (Women are married to the state).

My last point is that egalitarianism is a maternal instinct. Mothers can't say you kids go out and compete for resources and whoever gets the least gets the least. The maternal instinct is take food from the big kid and give it to the little kid so they all grow up healthy. (Socialism is inherently feminine)

Materialism is another reason why getting (unmarried) women involved with politics is a disaster. Because they start thinking of immigrants as children who need extra help and those damn selfish white men who actually worked hard for their money should give some of it to the weak little kids because that's what fairness looks like to a mother.

>You need to encourage a more welcoming, diverse, and inclusive environment and the problem with libertarians are posts that denigrate the female mind and perspective just like the supposed "options" from this misogynistic post.
Libertarians are against both men and women voting so there's no issue there. Women should be married to men not the state. That's why there is a massive political divide between married and unmarried women.

Unmarried women swing liberal and progressive because they want men to pay as much tax as possible because then they get handouts from the state. But as soon as they get married they switch to a more conservative mindset because now every cent her husband spends on tax is not a cent spent on her and her children.

That's why I wouldn't worry about women being anti-liberty. As long as she is not completely retarded you put a ring on her finger and show her how much better life is being married to a real man instead of the state she will come around.
Replies: >>494 >>843
>>492
The reasons you list in the first half of your post, are those evolved cultural norms that you think are somewhat malleable, or do you think they're evolved biological dispositions that are unmalleable?
Replies: >>842
>>488 (OP) 
Women can escape the conditions men have to live through by being sluts. They can use their bodies to survive by offering sexual favors even if they are ugly. Plus society in general is far more sympathetic to bonus holes than it is to men.
Bump.
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (242.1KB, 680x453)
>>494
Not him, but foids of fertile age are almost without exception biologically and hormonally hardwired to perceive inferior dependent creatures as charming deserving small children and throw a REEEEEEing tantrum if anyone doesn't open his wallet enthusiastically enough for them and allow his life and community to be turned inside out for their sake.  This includes, but is not limited to, violent IQ-65 retards that a saner era institutionalized, sterilized, and lobotomized, violent IQ-60 wetbacks, ultraviolent IQ-55 niggers, and pest animals like urban deer.  They're poor widdle misunderstood babies infinitely more deserving of the land and of your money than you are, and if they learn you disagree, the longhouse won't just shame you, they'll make you unemployable.  J. D. Vance made a joke recently about "childless cat ladies" and the shrill screeches of outrage that resulted demonstrated his off-the-cuff remark landed perfectly and was a memetic killshot.

It turns out that when foids aren't kept occupied from early adulthood to menopause with hosuekeeping and childrearing, their innate biological nature drives them to go absolutely bugfuck and latch onto surrogate children to which they can devote their lives.  The forms this takes range from the merely sad, like moving twenty cats into their tiny apartments, to the malignantly dysgenic and culturally destructive stuff like moving ten thousand hyperviolent IQ-55 Haitian cannibals to your town of five thousand and signing them all up to vote.

This is unsurprising to those of us who have noticed that when foids don't actually have to be civil to men day in and day out in order to survive, they become hateful, spiteful, perpetual spoiled toddlers to the absolute greatest extent their circumstances will permit.  This is because being the GiRlBoSs and having MuH cArEeR is an empty, meaningless substitute for raising a family, and deep down, maybe not on a conscious level, they know they're wasting their lives and it fills them with despair and directionless rage.  Foids were far happier, and society was far happier, a hundred years ago, when foids were essentially livestock that could talk.

This also is further proof that every Constitutional amendment after the 12th was a grave mistake.
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (3MB, 1694x1440)
>>492
>When a tribe gets raided the men are killed and the women are taken as slaves and wives. The women who abandoned their old culture and embraced their captors spread their genes the furthest. (Women can always land on their back).

Yes.  Evolutionary psychology molded them to be what they are.  Many a caveman's wife got fucked by her husband's killers on top of his cooling body, and got off on it.  Every foid is still genetically and hormonally hardwired to diddle themselves to screaming orgasm after screaming orgasm to the fantasy of Jamal and his homeboys running a train on her after killing her nerdy accountant husband.  You can call noticing this "misogyny" but it is objective truth.  Evolutionarily there are reasons for this.  In the turbulent past these instincts made it possible for their ancestors to survive.  They cannot help what they are.  It is their nature.  You might as well rage against the sun and moon.  It is illogical to hate them for it.  You can view an individual foid with affection, but if you trust her with something important--like the direction of the civilization your forefathers sweated to build--it may not end well for you.
>unsolicited mention of nigger dick
what the fuck is happening to modern anons
Replies: >>848 >>849 >>851
>>847
>what the fuck is happening to modern anons
schizophrenic retards are all that's left and they've taken over. nowadays when you have an internet "argument" it's full on don quixote tier with your opponent hallucinating things you never said, attributing to you things you never espoused and arguments you never argued, then he goes on to "defeat" all those arguments and deludes himself by declaring victory over the boogeyman of his choosing, and self congratulating. not a day passes here where this song and dance doesn't go down verbatim.
Replies: >>849 >>850
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (1.5MB, 968x1119)
>>847
>>848
https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/29/why-do-half-of-women-have-fantasies-about-being-raped-7099630/
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/jgbv/6/3/article-p581.xml
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353113103001536
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies

AWFLs, Affluent White Foid Liberals, vote to give Jamal cash and prizes and help him avoid jail time every time he grabs a honkey bitch by the hair, drags her into the alley, and gets him some of dat repa-ma-rations.  When we talk about the fact that foids love collectivism and hate individualism, it's entirely appropriate to bring this up.
Replies: >>851
>>848
Even Xitter is now multiple echo chambers occasionally sending someone out to launch grenades into the others. Internet discourse was a mistake.
>>849
One more time.
>White women hate libertarianism.
>???
>White women love BBC and rape fantasies.
What's the logic that connects the two?
>>847
I've seen this with a lot of gen alpha.  They're so poorly socialized and/or permanently online that they sound completely schizo, but what's going on is that they're making 5 jumps of thought without telling you.  They don't describe the intermediate chain of thought because they aren't used to having conversations with actual people.
Replies: >>873
bhw2cqekn8rd1.png
[Hide] (150.5KB, 368x602)
>Woman vote for democrats because they HATE FREEDOM!
Replies: >>855
>>854
We don't understand your argument.  Please make a coherent string of sentences stating and defending a position.  Thank you.
>>851
>White women hate libertarianism.
'Single' women are socialist. Get them married and suddenly they have a different opinion about the state stealing her man's guns and 50% of his income. Assuming the husband is a capable protector/provider and not a soy guzzling cuck.
Replies: >>1076
>>873
>Get them married and suddenly they have a different opinion about the state stealing her man's guns and 50% of his income.
Oh, look, it's the one guy in the English-speaking world who's never gone through a divorce, never seen it happen in his family, and never had a conversation with a guy going through a divorce.  How's the weather on your one-man island micronation?
Replies: >>1136
Make college illegal for women:
>Reduced economic friction between the sexes.  The economic dependency models between the sexes is restored.  The male dating crisis is resolved.
>Fertility rates are negatively correlated with female education levels.  Therefore, the demographic crisis is abated.
>Extra 4 years propaganda for half the population: gone.  The amount of female socialist ideology would be decreased dramatically.
We'll see whether this is true or not over the next few years in Afghanistan, since they're the only country who has done this.
heatmap_of_morality.jpg
[Hide] (93.2KB, 712x507)
>>488 (OP) 
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (798.9KB, 640x1000)
>>488 (OP) 
ItalianDivorces.PNG
[Hide] (18.9KB, 447x482)
>>1076
Divorce law needs to be brought up more frequently every time there's a discussion on fertility rates.  There needs to be a site like wtfhappenedin1971.com only with how terrible things have gotten to males w.r.t. divorces.
Also, the statistics of outcomes of individuals that grew up in single-mother households needs to be brought up more, too.
>>488 (OP) 
This video really makes me believe in the "empathy blocking" theory regarding female political opinions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzstEpSeuwU
Giving women suffrage really has destroyed the West.
Replies: >>1371
islamisrightaboutwomen.jpg
[Hide] (25.5KB, 600x600)
>>1141
It's more than empathy blocking, it's a complete inability to see second order consequences, let alone third or fourth order consequences.
She talks about being left-leaning in theory, but in principle she "just thinks we need to see where the money is going better." Like she doesn't understand the massive amounts of incentive problems there.
She talks about getting a degree yet not being able to find a job with that degree, and then the thought process just shuts down after that point.
She talks about her mental health issues, there's zero talk of responsibility, just who's going to take care of it for her.
She talks about the crime or riots, but doesn't talk about the immigration or causes of it.
"I can't go to the pub, and I think people are going to blame labor for that."
There is a COMPLETE inability to think beyond the pale here. Videos like this make me righteously and outright misogynist. Fuck women, they really, truly, sincerely can NOT think.

And, as weird as it is to pivot to this, I have to ask: what is wrong about Islam? They've got issues with cousin fucking over there that's holding them back, granted. But what about the other stuff? They've got their drug issues under control. They've got their women under control. They want hard money. The more I think about women, the more I legitimately think about converting to Islam just to tell them their right about all of this shit.
Replies: >>1372
>>1371
>islam woman meme
you push this retarded meme like every fag trying to make it relevant, every successful religion has a caution and control over women, but islam is also very wrong about women in a really dangerous way
Replies: >>1373 >>1374
>>1372
In Islam men also have sex with goats, sheep, and small boys for a really odd reason.
Replies: >>1374
>>1372
What's that?
>>1373
In the West they do the same thing. Lesser of two evils.
Whoever copulates with an animal, kill him and kill the animal.
Replies: >>1420
whoareyoutalkingto.gif
[Hide] (338.5KB, 400x225)
>>1416
Replies: >>1568
435f4f6fe6d6c5a9d428b6aacc30673a3f18d34bd880569a9f65ff361169c53a_1.jpg
[Hide] (44.7KB, 634x566)
>>488 (OP) 
>empathy blocking
I'm finally starting to hear others use the term 'suicidal empathy.' I think the concept is starting to catch on, but the extent to which it's associated to females is still minimal.
Is it biogically impossible for women to be libertarian?
If that's the case, how is libertarianism possible in the long term without restricting the right sof women?
Replies: >>1565 >>1567 >>1571
>>1564
>Women rights
There's only wrongs.
Replies: >>1566
>>1565
O.k.
The same questions still stand.
>>1564
Hookers always existed but naturally the society hates them. Just open legs and get paid, drown baby in the river later.
Replies: >>1568 >>1571
>>1567
>>1420
Replies: >>1569
>>1568
Upgrade your IQ to understand the point of my post and also to learn to sage. Hookers are allowed in libertarian scenarios and in such anarchist scenarios women are only allowed to be either some man's property or a hooker generally, or both rather. It's the 'oldest profession' as they say. Women today hate hookers as today we hate freedom and love to trade freedom for safety. Hookers die of stds and bastards being born is problematic, so is drowning infants as she will evolve to become more sociopathic. When women want to be more than somebody's  property then you've got too many rules catering to her needs. 
>the rights of women, such as to vote
Voting is retarded. Any enlightened libertarian would know this. You don't have any rights except to be  killed  because I felt like it. If you were nicer you'd still be alive. That's the nature of libertarianism. The hooker is beaten to death if she sucks at sucking dick, the cowboy is shot for being too drunk, and you get told to stop being a nigger for linking my post just because I didn't spell it out for you that women are not supposed to have rights and thta to be libertarian their natural habitat is literally to be freedly sucking on cocks. Egotistical feminist leaders tell women it's bad but nobody is born that way. They don't want your 'rights'. Rights don't exist. People that like rules and hate freedom cater to 'rights' of which just means policy. Why would any woman want to have the "right" to vote when they were never the ones being placated to not murder for not being represented in the first place? What rights are you talking about? The "right" to slave away in a mine? To slave away on property rather than be property? She has the power to be a sexual "predator" or property, nothing else.  

Something to remember about libertarianism/anarchy is that it takes balls. Hookers are not pussies but feminists are and so are men that vote and or wish for 'rights'. 
  
I get told off for being verbose and then you little niggers get mad when you can't read between the lines when I do cater to brevity.  Gods forbid anybody be sardonically wise around you retarded niggers. All this shit was implied via common sense. The sage goes into the email field also. 

tl;dr: rights are a spook. Only women and people born rich (monarchs) would want rights. YUo hAvE no rIghT tO tHe tHrOwn!
Replies: >>1570
>>1569
Thank you for actually explaining yourself. Some constructive criticism: your previous posts were not the height of brevity, because I was wondering if a schizo or a GPT bot was on the board. It kind of shows how little you've been socialized. I don't say that as an insult, by the way, I say it out of pity. You remind me of a guy I knew who got fired because he kept doing things that appeared random to everyone else. If you talked to him and asked him to explain himself, his logic made SOME sense, but each step was such a wild leap, and each phrase he uttered was so out of the normal lexicon, that his boss thought he was honestly mentally ill. In a way he was. The truth was that he talked with people so little that he had no idea what was common sense. He had no idea what were the common words you use. He had no idea what the other person's thought processes were to show where he had to speak more to justify a point or less.
Sage went in the name field because I just fat fingered it, but the fact that you felt so bereaved you had to point it out twice makes it apparent to me that I'm guessing you're crying out because nobody listens to you. My guess is that you're caught in a vicious cycle where you remain poorly socialized because you are poorly socialized. Don't worry, some day you'll figure it out.
Replies: >>1571 >>1574
>>1570
I feel like I need to break down why I thought you were legitimately schizophrenic. The standard signs are certain markers of disorganized thought. Namely, your response exhibited: tangenitality, loose associations, and inappropriate affect. 
>>1564
Was a broad question about women's rights and libertarianism.
>>1567
You replied by immediately talking specifically about hookers. This is very loosely thematically linked (because it still at least relates to women), but makes no explicit mention to rights, thereby expressing 'tangentiality.'
You went on to "Open legs and get paid" followed immediately by "drown baby in the river later." Those thoughts are connected in your mind, and they are very very loosely connected, but to an outside listener they are fragmented. This is the 'loose association'.
Finally, we were talking about women's rights and you rather quickly jumped to talking about drowning babies in the river. This is so jarringly out of sync with the social context and mood of the conversation that it is apparent that the emotional response does not match the situation. This is the 'inappropriate affect'. A broader example of this is that brevity tends to be expected in faster boards, but not on slower ones, but you seem to have trouble picking up on social cues like that.

You can see Terry of TempleOS fame has very similar behaviors.
>>1570
>common sense
Collectivist
[New Reply]
36 replies | 11 files | 23 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.7.3