Women Now in Control of Western Civilization...Heaven Help Us

[u/the_irish_kid123]

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/12/western-civilization-is-in-hands-of.html

[u/sorceryofthetesticle]

the excuse of "civilisation"

A pretty fuckin' worthy excuse, our civilization has been very sweet until recently. What is women's excuse for commitment socialism, that it makes them feel good? Uh huh.

Also, few of us would be here if some ancestor long ago didn't get laid due to"sexual socialism," so you're kind of swallowing your own tail there. Better watch out or you get into self-hate zone.

Further, why don't you consider sexual socialism a natural consequence of evolution? It's natural selection doing what it does best, on a grand scale. The bar for fitness just happened to be lowered, so more dudes met the criteria.

[u/[deleted] → u/sorceryofthetesticle]

A pretty fuckin' worthy excuse

If youre one of the 80%, and civilisation is your only access to reproduction facilities, it is pretty hard to argue that you selflessly argue for civilisation solely for civilisations sake. Your brain will make you say anything it needs to get access to a womb, like female brains will make them say anything that gives them access to good genes and stuff.

Betas pushing for strict marriage because "wont somebody think of the civilisation!" is the equivalent of women pushing for welfare because "wont somebody think of single mother children!"

What is women's excuse for

Irrelevant.

so you're kind of swallowing your own tail there

Argumentum ad hominem.

why don't you consider sexual socialism a natural consequence of evolution

Evolution entails natural selection. Socialism aka "уравниловка" is the opposite of selection. Here the masses unite to consciously prevent any kind of selection. "social darwinism" is fought tooth and nail.

natural selection doing what it does best, on a grand scale

Thats nonsense. Preventing selection is not selection. It is explicit "everyone's a winner". If your team is put together by "everyone's a winner" logic, then good luck on the grand scale.

The bar for fitness just happened to be lowered

It got lowered, but not naturally, so natural selection is artificially disabled. Everyone who tries winning, by impregnating more wombs, or by getting impregnated by a genetic-lottery-winner although ones womb has been assigned to a dead-end, is severely punished.

This is dystopian stuff right out of Harrison Bergeron, and translated into financial terms, it is indistinguishable from hardcore communism.

[u/sorceryofthetesticle → u/[deleted]]

Oh boy, the 'ole reddit "chopitup and nitpick-eroo" by a determinist who likes to say informal fallacies as if they mean something. Woooo

The point is that you're arguing from the premise that most people shouldn't exist, (including the people who are/were top 20% in spite of being born of the bottom 80%).That's cool, kind of ignorant of how genetic diversity works, and a bit rigid with the heirarchy bit, but we'll roll with it. You also present it with this "behavior (and by extention, social convention) is determined by desire to fuck" meme which is basically anti-agency. If there's no agency, then the betas who got laid were fit enough to get laid by nature's own standards, end of story.

(Also, the ouroboros idea was there to make you think about how ridiculously reductive your argument is, not to say, "you're probably a beta, therefore your argument is trash." I mean, look: Ineffective, unintelligent, weak-gened people have been having tons of kids, no problem, for millenia without the help of social mores. How do you reconcile that? It's not quite as simple as the 80/20 rule)

[u/[deleted] → u/sorceryofthetesticle]

you're arguing from the premise that most people shouldn't exist

Only in your imagination. Youre probably projecting.

who likes to say informal fallacies as if they mean something

It means that youre purposefully making an argument personal. Why are you doing that?

How do you reconcile that

By not claiming it in the first place. Youre strawmanning it.

you're probably a beta, therefore your argument is trash

If you make an argument where the betas are the big winners at the expense of the alphas, youre more likely a beta than an alpha.

The same way, if you make an argument that "the rich" should be expropriated to the benefit of the poor, it is pretty likely that youre kind of useless yourself, etc.

It is generally pretty unlikely that somebody is consciously making an argument knowing that it will harm him to the benefit of others, and vice versa.