π§ Community Feature Submissions π§
- Mojtaba Khamenei claims that more than 650 US Military personnel have been killed or wounded by Iran's military operation
- (Unconfirmed) Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei (Son of the Late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) Has Been Elected Supreme Leader
- Iran's Leadership Assembly in Qom Has Been Struck by Israel
- Will The Pahlavi Dynasty Make a Comeback to a Postwar Iran?
- New Cyraxx - Cassandra Phone Calls Released
- Reaction to the Assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after the US - Israeli Attack is mostly critical
- Relations Between Israel and India Deepen
- Chinese Are Running Illegal Rare Earth Mining in Nigeria, Paying Protection Money to Terrorists β U.S. Rep. Riley Moore
- Tony McCollister Charged With Raping a 10 Year Old Minor and Engaging in Sex with Two Dogs Pleads Not Guilty by Reason of Temporary Insanity
- Ilhan Omar: The Nutty Somali
Freeze Peach π π‘πΎπΊπ π§πΊπππΎπ'π π»π ππ Κ β α΄₯ βΚ
- Thread starter Bear Hammer
- Start date
Used for controversial topics that hinge upon 1st amendment concerns vs. Fed posting. Please Note: Genuine threats advocating violence that are in violation of federal law will not be tolerated.
The only autistic women that exist to me are the ones who have a 80 iq or below and can't speak besides grunts and screams, and need a care taker following them around.
I figured out long ago that unless the so called "autistic woman" isn't so retarded she needs to wear a helmet around, that no matter how fucked up they may be (physically and otherwise), there lives are just simply completely unaffected by it on the count of them being women.
They will always have a man wanting to date them, they will always be able to make friends with easily, they will get to enjoy all the female privileges normie women enjoy
It's just not like that for men for obvious reasons.
Is it even worth diagnosing these bitches with autism if they are not completely retarded? What's the reason? How is them liking hazbin hotel and browsing tumblr debilitating for them in a meaningful way?
boards.4chan.org
I figured out long ago that unless the so called "autistic woman" isn't so retarded she needs to wear a helmet around, that no matter how fucked up they may be (physically and otherwise), there lives are just simply completely unaffected by it on the count of them being women.
They will always have a man wanting to date them, they will always be able to make friends with easily, they will get to enjoy all the female privileges normie women enjoy
It's just not like that for men for obvious reasons.
Is it even worth diagnosing these bitches with autism if they are not completely retarded? What's the reason? How is them liking hazbin hotel and browsing tumblr debilitating for them in a meaningful way?
/r9k/ - This is how autistic women feel about autistic men - ROBOT9001 - 4chan
This is how autistic women feel about autistic men - "/r9k/ - ROBOT9001" is a board for hanging out and posting greentext stories.
Last edited:
He's heard nothing but great things about Israel????
Yawn
>the foulest brony of all time
>tier 2 basic beginner level degeneracy
>tier 2 basic beginner level degeneracy
I AM SURROUNDED BY TWO MARES, I AM LITERALLY CUCKOLDING STARLIGHT!
I miss Dansburst.
Seeing a lot of beta males getting extremely mad at this tweet.
Getting mad at women for liking anti social dominant men is the same as feminists getting mad at 60 y/o guys who are attracted to 18 y/os.
You're getting pissy over things that women simply cannot control.
It's just apart of evolutionary biology, there's really no reason to get mad at it. Women just like that because men like that were usually the ones who adapted really good in almost any environment they were in.
Just adapt and change yourself, learn from what women find attractive and learn from it.
Because crying about it is just going to make you feel bad for no reason, and it's not going to make women like you.
Getting mad at women for liking anti social dominant men is the same as feminists getting mad at 60 y/o guys who are attracted to 18 y/os.
You're getting pissy over things that women simply cannot control.
It's just apart of evolutionary biology, there's really no reason to get mad at it. Women just like that because men like that were usually the ones who adapted really good in almost any environment they were in.
Just adapt and change yourself, learn from what women find attractive and learn from it.
Because crying about it is just going to make you feel bad for no reason, and it's not going to make women like you.
Kylar The Loner
Registered Member
βAmn
Based
I dunno bro this seems kinda retarded.
Women and their poor judge of character will throw themselves to awful people, get treated poorly become a feminist and say crazy shit.
Theirs nothing wrong with people pointing out the stupidity.
Also how does "women liking anti-social dominant men" an evolutionary mechanism? Didnt humanity form society for better chances of survival? This seems like an evolutionary misstep similar to how men simping is also an evolutionary misstep.
Most importantly; how did you get any of this from a post of a woman talking about rejecting three men?
I think the issue with that take is you're treating sexual attraction like it evolved to optimize society, when it didn't. It evolved to optimize individual gene replication, even when that conflicts with group stability.
Humans forming societies doesn't mean every instinct got rewritten to favor good citizens. A lot of traits that helped genes spread in chaotic, violent environments are actively bad for modern life.
Women are attracted to antisocial/dominant men, i'm not saying society works better that way or that it's morally good. But there is an obvious pattern in sexual selection (to where it's even kind of a meme that women like assholes), a small minority of dominant, aggressive men historically reproduced way more than average men. That's just how power worked for most of history.
There's a reason broad shoulders are consistently rated as the most attractive male trait across cultures. Upper-body strength correlates with fighting ability. Women obviously aren't consciously thinking "this guy would be good at raiding a village," but attraction isn't run by the conscious mind anyway.
Last edited:
You're missing the point.
Sexual arousal doesn't evaluate character the way morality or long-term planning does. Womens libido responds to cues tied to dominance, power, and threat potential, even if those traits make someone a bad partner or a bad person. That's why what women say they want and what actually turns them on often don't line up.
Calling this an evolutionary misstep doesn't really mean much either. Evolution isn't trying to produce enlightened, cooperative modern humans. It's really fucked up, slow, and full of tradeoffs. Humans still crave sugar and novelty for the same reason, it used to be adaptive. Now it causes problems.
Same thing with men simping, honestly. Both sexes have instincts that don't map cleanly onto modern society anymore. That doesn't mean they're imaginary or socially constructed.
But overall, I am just trying to say that you can either seethe about the men women are attracted to, which gets you nowhere, or take notes from them.
Osama needs to add more commentary to his streams.
Just reading direct posts with very little commentary is boring as hell.
Make some fucking jokes faggot, god.
Just reading direct posts with very little commentary is boring as hell.
Make some fucking jokes faggot, god.
So how does being anti-social affect this? How does being anti-social show the quality of one's own genetic material?
1. Thats likely because most of them died in wars started by those dominant and aggressive men. 2. Oftentimes the victims of wars, tragedies, and disasters are men.
3. I'd hazard to guest that 50% or more of these women were victims of rape.
Because anti-social is kind of a modern moralfag label, not the trait being selected for. What actually mattered evolutionarily wasn't whether someone followed social norms, it was dominance, threat potential, and the ability to take and hold resources from other people. In a lot of historical environments, those traits look antisocial and immoral from today's perspective, violence, intimidation, rule breaking, but they were strong signals of power. Power translated into protection, resources, and most importantly, sexual access, which is how genes get replicated.
It's not that being antisocial itself proves good genes, it's that traits correlated with antisocial behavior (physical strength, fearlessness, willingness to violate norms, low inhibition, high assertiveness) were reliable cues that a man could win most conflicts and impose his will. Those men reproduced more regardless of whether they were good community members. Modern society penalizes those traits, but sexual attraction didn't evolve for modern society, it evolved in environments where survival and reproduction often favored the guy who was an extremely evil asshole.
None of that actually contradicts my claim tho, it actually kind of reinforces it.
Yes, a lot of men died in wars. That's why reproduction skewed so hard toward a small subset of men. High male mortality and polygyny and coercive power means fewer men passing on genes, not more. The dominant/aggressive men were often the ones starting and surviving those conflicts, and then monopolizing access to pussy afterward. Evolution doesn't care that other men died, that's exactly how variance in male reproductive success gets extreme.
Again, sexual selection isn't a moral process. If rape led to offspring, those genes still entered the pool. Saying "many women were rape victims" is true, but guess what? It still results in the same outcome, a minority of powerful men fathering a disproportionate number of children. That's how reproduction actually worked for most of human history.
You have to understand, human sexuality does not care about morality, what's good for society, the welfare of women, or even what's good for humanity in general. It just cares about spreading copies of your genes into the next generation as much as possible. No matter what.
I kinda wanna simp for something that isn't real for a change, I am done with dating bitches all day.
So how could have society existed? With this line of thought humanity now wouldn't exist. We would still just be living in primitive societies.
Me normally: fuck feminism
Mfw I see dudes post retarted pajeetposts like this:
I'm not saying everyone was a lone violent psychopath, those traits operated inside social systems.
Early human groups still absolutely had norms, cooperation, and proto-morality, but they weren't modern libtard feminist norms. They were enforced by power. Rules existed because someone (or a coalition) had the capacity to punish violations. Hierarchies, alliances, and reputation all mattered, but they were backed by force or the credible threat of it.
And again, evolution doesn't select for nice societies, it only selects for reproductive success. In many environments, the individuals who reproduced most werenβt the most compliant, but the ones who could, win conflicts, intimidate rivals, secure mates or command loyalty or fear from other people.
That's how cooperation worked back then mostly. Cooperative groups with strong, dominant enforcers outcompeted groups without them. Social order was built on unequal power.
Modern morality is the way it is now because of abundance in resources, institutions, and low violence environments. When survival pressure drops, societies can afford to prioritize agreeableness and heckin' good boy rule following. That doesn't mean those traits were always what drove human success.
You're projecting modern social expectations backward and assuming they were prerequisites for society. They weren't, they're just the outcome.
Does that make sense?
Mfw I see dudes post retarted pajeetposts like this:
You're treating this like it's an all-or-nothing thing.
I'm not saying everyone was a lone violent psychopath, those traits operated inside social systems.
Early human groups still absolutely had norms, cooperation, and proto-morality, but they weren't modern libtard feminist norms. They were enforced by power. Rules existed because someone (or a coalition) had the capacity to punish violations. Hierarchies, alliances, and reputation all mattered, but they were backed by force or the credible threat of it.
And again, evolution doesn't select for nice societies, it only selects for reproductive success. In many environments, the individuals who reproduced most werenβt the most compliant, but the ones who could, win conflicts, intimidate rivals, secure mates or command loyalty or fear from other people.
That's how cooperation worked back then mostly. Cooperative groups with strong, dominant enforcers outcompeted groups without them. Social order was built on unequal power.
Modern morality is the way it is now because of abundance in resources, institutions, and low violence environments. When survival pressure drops, societies can afford to prioritize agreeableness and heckin' good boy rule following. That doesn't mean those traits were always what drove human success.
You're projecting modern social expectations backward and assuming they were prerequisites for society. They weren't, they're just the outcome.
Does that make sense?
Similar threads
Freeze Peach π
faux90skid / the puppet master / kens wing man
- Yandere_Theory
- Freeze Peach
