RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[The Alma Mater]

Speaking of polygamy, I've found it very strange that the "socially progressive/liberal" left has recently been so positive about it. Polygamy is, after all, a form of class warfare perpetrated by the rich against the poor (see: all of human history where it has been present). Guanggun rebellions here we come!!!

Polygamy should be legal, as the government should not determine what is and what is not a valid marriage.

Then who should ?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

in my old job, we once had to move a lot of heavy things and my boss contracted some bengali guys to come and do it. she ordered me downstairs and said look, these banglas won't listen to me because they're sexists, can you get them to do x y and z. the fact they did what i asked them was related mostly to my boss being a total bitch and not really because they were sexists.

I wish people read things to themselves after writing them lmfaooo

it was intentional pal

[Cekoviu]

I wish people read things to themselves after writing them lmfaooo

it was intentional pal

mhm suuure

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

it was intentional pal

mhm suuure

you really think I didnt mean to use a rude word lol

[Dumb Ideologies]

Polygamy should be legal, as the government should not determine what is and what is not a valid marriage.

The government should, actually.

Agreed. It's an important social signifier of legitimacy.

I found myself pretty much tricked into such a relationship form at a time of emotional vulnerability and I saw multiple such relationships destruct very explosively. People make bad choices and abusers exploit the vulnerabilities. The existing situation where it is marginal and not widely recognised is sufficient - there are social costs to adopting such forms so those who stick to it nevertheless will generally only be those very invested in it.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Based

[Cekoviu]

mhm suuure

you really think I didnt mean to use a rude word lol

no, no, i think you didn't mean to exhibit your subconscious sexism that obviously

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

you really think I didnt mean to use a rude word lol

no, no, i think you didn't mean to exhibit your subconscious sexism that obviously

omg so much to unpack

[Cekoviu]

no, no, i think you didn't mean to exhibit your subconscious sexism that obviously

omg so much to unpack

Well unpack it then, we don't have all day.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

later, i have some right wing things to do irl

[United Muscovite Nations]

I wasn't online much yesterday and probably won't be much today, tomorrow, or Monday either. Have a friend over and am entertaining. Only able to be online now because she's asleep and I woke up early.

[Diopolis]

concerning women:

the current arrangement for women is very new, so it's only natural that the previous arrangement(s) bleed over into the current one. whether the current one is a. functional and b. stable, we shouldn't really say yet. but more importantly, it's not known for certain if the previous arrangement(s) came from state of nature and we are living in defiance of it, whether that's a good thing for humans or not, and whether humans can adapt well to new arrangement without big problems.

so far the answer to the last one seems to be no, and getting worse, but we'll see — like everything this is not just a matter of "i want women to have x trait" so click fingers and it happens. sex equality might turn out to be a disaster (things both less and more weird and unusual have turned out that way too)

im hedging my bets because i don't want to be cancelled in 20 years and forced to go through sex equality training seminars in a progressivist gulag, but equally my suspicion is that feminists are, basically, wrong on most premises

The feminists are probably wrong about nearly everything. So is the red pill.
Gender roles didn't wind up where they were because of sinister male dominance, or because of wily feminine temptresses getting the easy jobs for themselves. They would up that way because of some combination of a) historical happenstance(blue is for boys, pink is for girls is from a marketing campaign in the roaring twenties+american global dominance- historically it was quite likely to be the opposite when anybody cared) and b)essential nature making anything else ideologically-driven folly(women as primary caregiver).
A you can change if you care enough. B you can't.

[Rojava Free State]

You see this? This is a bad take.

Polygyny creates severe social dysfunctions without necessarily defining the social hierarchy any better than formalized titles, privileges, social deference, superior education, or access to valuable assets/property do. It creates genetic bottlenecks as well, which is bad for the genetic diversity and adaptability of a population in the long-term. Also, an*me of the sort you're referencing is wholly degenerate and more a patchwork of disparate and obscene fetishes than a genuine story-telling format or genre. Please report to the Based Department for immediate physical removal from the premises.

What is stable may not be what you approve--women have already revealed their preference to be the second mate of top men rather than the first mate of a male of equal rank.

You say with no poll of women. I know several women who definitely would not want this, but let's keep pushing the alpha male Chad trope till every man in society has their self esteem destroyed and every woman is turned into an object to be conquered.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Mark Zuckerberg and the Techbros (my band name) are not ‘chads’ without completely redefining the term (despite being the new aristocracy of our world (unless, of course, we actually take action against them)). The old tribal elders who monopolise(d) women in parts of Africa (read this in an ACADEMIC JOURNAL that I can’t recall rn because my laptop just died so don’t call me racist or culturally insensitive) are, again, not ‘chads’ without completely redefining the term. Hopefully TT understands this reality and that is why they used ‘top men’ instead of ‘chad’.

[Purple Rats]

Polygamy should be legal, as the government should not determine what is and what is not a valid marriage.

That sentence does not make sense to me. If polygamy would be legal, then it would still be government determining what is a valid marriage, they would just say that polygamy is also valid marriage.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

The government should, actually.

Agreed. It's an important social signifier of legitimacy.

I found myself pretty much tricked into such a relationship form at a time of emotional vulnerability and I saw multiple such relationships destruct very explosively. People make bad choices and abusers exploit the vulnerabilities. The existing situation where it is marginal and not widely recognised is sufficient - there are social costs to adopting such forms so those who stick to it nevertheless will generally only be those very invested in it.

Polygamy/‘amory’ should be completely banned, not just allowed to be marginalised for now. The recent trend among some young people to support it is disturbing (though I believe still a small minority at this point, and thus a problem that can be solved with sufficient social pressure) but really I suppose the inevitable consequence of the sexual revolution because it is the natural conclusion (yes, slippery slope is in fact real) of serial monogamy (so maybe the reason young people are surprisingly not in favour of it yet is because MILLENNIALS [sic, incorrect] AREN’T HAVING SEX AND HERE’S WHY THAT’S A BAD THING).

[New Visayan Islands]

no, no, i think you didn't mean to exhibit your subconscious sexism that obviously

omg so much to unpack

Uh, phrasing?

in my old job, we once had to move a lot of heavy things and my boss contracted some bengali guys to come and do it. she ordered me downstairs and said look, these banglas won't listen to me because they're sexists, can you get them to do x y and z. the fact they did what i asked them was related mostly to my boss being a total bitch and not really because they were sexists.

I wish people read things to themselves after writing them lmfaooo

I dunno, I think QNY might be up to something here.

[Celritannia]

Agreed. It's an important social signifier of legitimacy.

I found myself pretty much tricked into such a relationship form at a time of emotional vulnerability and I saw multiple such relationships destruct very explosively. People make bad choices and abusers exploit the vulnerabilities. The existing situation where it is marginal and not widely recognised is sufficient - there are social costs to adopting such forms so those who stick to it nevertheless will generally only be those very invested in it.

Polygamy/‘amory’ should be completely banned, not just allowed to be marginalised for now. The recent trend among some young people to support it is disturbing (though I believe still a small minority at this point, and thus a problem that can be solved with sufficient social pressure) but really I suppose the inevitable consequence of the sexual revolution because it is the natural conclusion (yes, slippery slope is in fact real) of serial monogamy (so maybe the reason young people are surprisingly not in favour of it yet is because MILLENNIALS [sic, incorrect] AREN’T HAVING SEX AND HERE’S WHY THAT’S A BAD THING).

Or how about we let consenting adults do what they want.

[Celritannia]

concerning women:

the current arrangement for women is very new, so it's only natural that the previous arrangement(s) bleed over into the current one. whether the current one is a. functional and b. stable, we shouldn't really say yet. but more importantly, it's not known for certain if the previous arrangement(s) came from state of nature and we are living in defiance of it, whether that's a good thing for humans or not, and whether humans can adapt well to new arrangement without big problems.

so far the answer to the last one seems to be no, and getting worse, but we'll see — like everything this is not just a matter of "i want women to have x trait" so click fingers and it happens. sex equality might turn out to be a disaster (things both less and more weird and unusual have turned out that way too)

im hedging my bets because i don't want to be cancelled in 20 years and forced to go through sex equality training seminars in a progressivist gulag, but equally my suspicion is that feminists are, basically, wrong on most premises

The feminists are probably wrong about nearly everything. So is the red pill.
Gender roles didn't wind up where they were because of sinister male dominance, or because of wily feminine temptresses getting the easy jobs for themselves. They would up that way because of some combination of a) historical happenstance(blue is for boys, pink is for girls is from a marketing campaign in the roaring twenties+american global dominance- historically it was quite likely to be the opposite when anybody cared) and b)essential nature making anything else ideologically-driven mental retardation(women as primary caregiver).
A you can change if you care enough. B you can't.

Male dominance was actually why women were considered lesser to men.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

What is stable may not be what you approve--women have already revealed their preference to be the second mate of top men rather than the first mate of a male of equal rank.

You say with no poll of women. I know several women who definitely would not want this, but let's keep pushing the alpha male Chad trope till every man in society has their self esteem destroyed and every woman is turned into an object to be conquered.

yeah if only he had a poll of women which would prove his point, then you would be agreeing with him



nsg is so bad sometimes

[Loben The 2nd]

you really think I didnt mean to use a rude word lol

no, no, i think you didn't mean to exhibit your subconscious sexism that obviously

>subconscious sexism

What’s next? Am i a bigot subconsciously by calling a spade a spade?

[Taihei Tengoku]

What is stable may not be what you approve--women have already revealed their preference to be the second mate of top men rather than the first mate of a male of equal rank.

You say with no poll of women. I know several women who definitely would not want this, but let's keep pushing the alpha male Chad trope till every man in society has their self esteem destroyed and every woman is turned into an object to be conquered.

Alpha male chad "tropes" (god what a redditor word) exist because top men get what they want, otherwise they are not top men.

[Aureumterra]

You say with no poll of women. I know several women who definitely would not want this, but let's keep pushing the alpha male Chad trope till every man in society has their self esteem destroyed and every woman is turned into an object to be conquered.

yeah if only he had a poll of women which would prove his point, then you would be agreeing with him



nsg is so bad sometimes

Sometimes?!

[LiberNovusAmericae]

you really think I didnt mean to use a rude word lol

no, no, i think you didn't mean to exhibit your subconscious sexism that obviously

I'm not a fan of Questers, but I see no obvious sexism in that.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Polygamy/‘amory’ should be completely banned, not just allowed to be marginalised for now. The recent trend among some young people to support it is disturbing (though I believe still a small minority at this point, and thus a problem that can be solved with sufficient social pressure) but really I suppose the inevitable consequence of the sexual revolution because it is the natural conclusion (yes, slippery slope is in fact real) of serial monogamy (so maybe the reason young people are surprisingly not in favour of it yet is because MILLENNIALS [sic, incorrect] AREN’T HAVING SEX AND HERE’S WHY THAT’S A BAD THING).

Or how about we let consenting adults do what they want.

No