Blaire White has been killin' it on Twitter lately.

>>7947272
Well, he is indeed a faggot, so it's not surprising.

>>7947280
Someones #triggered

File: blaire white mirror selfie.png (293KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 375x375px

>>7947272
gender roles are the issue on which my and blaire's politics intersect most but i disagree with her on nuclear families
the only alt family structure that genuinely doesn't work is single mothers (probably single parents in general, further research is needed)
a truly healthy family environment should have far more than two parental figures, either through polyamory or though a more platonic 'takes a village to raise a child' structure

>>7947272
>you believe gender roles are necessary for society
I thought she was an MRA? Or is that feminists just calling anyone they disagree with MRAs like with Roosh V?

>>7947286
>alt family structure
>polyamory
Utter rubbish.

>>7947272
For a computer science major she has no fucking idea how to run a livestream.

>>7947286
>'takes a village to raise a child'
yes i'm sure the african tribe that coined this phrase had genderqueer polyamorous parentage in mind

tard

>>7947520
Nice filename, where'd ya dig that one up from?

>>7947551
except i don't want children to be raised by gendertards, i want them to be raised by deeply connected groups of reasonable people who ideally have different but compatible ideologies to allow children and the adults they grow up into exposure to a wider variety of worldviews than you get in the average family, and who can provide more comprehensive care than one or two people working without much social support can, and allowing multiple people to work to provide for their children and raise everyone's standard of living and socioeconomic status while also allowing children to have at least one full-time stay at home carer

>>7947558
yes and i wish people were made out of marshmallow dough

jesus youre fucked in the head were you repeatedly raped by your uncle as a pre teen or something

>>7947558
>exposure to a wider variety of worldviews
>i am a butch lesbian, i teach you about strap ons
>i am an anorexic gendersuicidal MtF i'll teach you about sweet boipussy
>i am a polyamorous cis male cuck i will teach you about proper couth behavior as a male around females. be sure to keep your legs tucked neatly together

>>7947573
>>7947576
what's up with you two and why do you seem to think i have the opposite political perspective to my actual one?
it is objectively preferable for children to have more stable adult role models who care for and provide for them

>>7947583
>implying 1 role model == 1 parent
read the manual again your nutcase

>>7947583
They have bad reading comprehension.

>>7947591
at least i dont have irreversible neural damage

>>7947590
parents are your most consistent role models and the most influential environmental factors on your life without exception
having the right parents can save your life and having the wrong parents can destroy it
nobody else is as influential on a child (inb4 'some people are raised by grandparents or aunts/uncles', generalize it to 'parental figures', i know your autism can't be that severe)
also i don't think any of your other role models were paying for your food or housing
>>7947591
that's the best conclusion i can come to here

>>7947597
I imagine if done well it'd be perfect. I was sort of subject to that idea growing up but half the people I stayed with were not very stable. For me it was lots of very conflicting world views from some people I don't want to make the same mistakes as and it turned me really centrist.

>>7947597
>parents are your most consistent role models and the most influential environmental factors on your life without exception
yes and the number of parents a child should have is incidentally the number of genders there are

>>7947597
Why polyamory, a simple 'it takes a village to raise a child' should be enough

>>7947605
i've known several people who had that kind of upbringing and they're all pretty good
one had an abusive step-parent but that was on the non-poly side of the family
>>7947607
there is no evidence to suggest that having two parents is better than having more than two parents, only that having more than one parent is better than having one
i am still not sure why you think i am an sjw

>>7947551
Oh god my fucking sides on this one

>>7947558
Well, on the plus side you won't have to worry abou to that. The liberal fucktards just want to get an abortion when they find out they're pregnant.

>>7947614
>there is no evidence to suggest that having two parents is better than having more than two parents
there's also none to the contrary you autistic degenerate fucknut

go back to posting in the mtf general about how trannies are better than real women because they like to get dicked until they bleed 24/7 just keep your filthy hands off the kids kthx

>>7947272
I wonder how many of those retweets and likes are bought...

>>7947614
>only that having more than one parent is better than having one
I very much doubt that is true if you compare a single father to a lesbian couple.

>>7947970
the overwhelming majority of single parent research is on single mothers because there are a lot more of them
personally if i had the choice between growing up raised only by my father vs by my mother and another woman i'd pick the former, but that's because i get on a lot better with my dad rather than any scientific reason
the single father is probably better for a boy vs the lesbians for a girl, but if child gender is not a factor there is no reason to assume the lesbians will be worse parents or that the father's gender will negate single parent issues

>>7947989
>>7947970
having said that, a lot of the issues with single mothers are socioeconomic. single fathers could be expected to have a higher socioeconomic status than single mothers, but lesbian couples with children would probably be higher than others, meaning one could predict better life outcomes for the children of lesbians than those of single dads if my first prediction is true.

>>7947998
you have to factor in the high cost of aids treatment tho desu

>>7947989
>the single father is probably better for a boy vs the lesbians for a girl,
Why?

>there is no reason to assume the lesbians will be worse parents
Why don't you think we can extrapolate the data on being raised by one women to being raised by two?

>or that the father's gender will negate single parent issues
Are there any single parent issues that aren't just single mother issues you are assuming apply to single fathers too?

>>7947520
>you're a male supremacist if: you believe the male body is superior to the female body
>all gays are male supremacists
alright.

>>7948004
that would be gay men, there is one (1) reported case of woman-to-woman sexual hiv transmission in the entire medical literature
>>7948008
>Why?
noting that the single mother effect is much worse for boys than girls. but i wouldn't be surprised if i'm wrong.
>Why don't you think we can extrapolate the data on being raised by one women to being raised by two?
because having two people in the household to provide emotional and financial security is superior to having one regardless of what gender those people are
>Are there any single parent issues that aren't just single mother issues you are assuming apply to single fathers too?
i haven't seen enough research controlling for gender to know how much of the single parent effect is specific to mothers. my guess on the topic is that emotional instability (and its sequelae) will be elevated in children raised with only one parental role model due to the relative lack of security in their lives no matter what gender the role model they have is, and that much as how boys are worse with single mothers we may see worse outcomes for girls with single fathers, such as higher rates of teen pregnancy (probably continuing the single parent cycle in the process)

>>7947286
polyamory is literally memetic cancer

>>7947280
Go suck on magdalen berns hairy asshole.

>>7948024
>noting that the single mother effect is much worse for boys than girls.
Why would that mean the lesbians are better for a girl than the single father?

>much as how boys are worse with single mothers we may see worse outcomes for girls with single fathers, such as higher rates of teen pregnancy
Why don't you think such outcomes could be attributed to being raised solely by women rather than by having a single parent?

>>7948057
>Why would that mean the lesbians are better for a girl than the single father?
because women will on average better understand the issues of a girl in the same way that men will on average better understand the issues of a boy, assuming you believe aspects of gender roles are inherent (which if you are representing your views in this conversation accurately you seem to)
>Why don't you think such outcomes could be attributed to being raised solely by women rather than by having a single parent?
not enough data. but what we do have suggests at least of a plurality of the single parent issues come from issues directly related to only having one parent -- paucity of role models, financial instability from single income, lack of full-time parent due to only parent needing to work
there could also be other issues that are more common in single parents specifically that aren't directly caused by the single parenting but complicate the lives of children raised by single parents, such as if they feel guilty for not having a partner raising their children and act overly strict or lax as a result

>>7948024
what about yeast infections tho

>>7948080
To raise a healthy child you need both the male and female, or at least those aspects. The feminine is protective of her child and can easily be overprotective. A single mother will often smother her child and there is nothing healthy about a parent who will keep her child dependent. The masculine relationship will often develop when the child needs to be pushed away from the feminine and gain their Independence, its more hands off. When faced with only the masculine its easy for the child to not be protected enough and to be left to their own devices. To great of freedom is just as bad as being overprotected.

File: 1489115610856.jpg (194KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 500x667px

>/pol/ here

I just came to say, we let's protect each one of you girls.

Kiss.

>>7948098
Holy shit, I've never read something so retarded in my entire life. Reading Wikipedia is not a proper replacement for a psychology degree and your post shows it.

File: 1484944472545.jpg (50KB, 455x341px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 455x341px

>>7948200
>insults instead of discussion

Why am I not surprised. Prove me wrong, this is a chance to educate someone if you are so intelligent. Why not share you knowledge of parenting with the thread, help us all understand your position.

>>7948016
more attractive ≠ functionally superior

>>7948419
It pretty much is functionally superior though.

>>7947286
She didn't say anything about other family models. Just that the nuclear one, saying it's good. Which it undoubtedly is.

>>7948016
> all gays are male supremacists.
No?
I mean I am, yes, but certainly not all. Many faggots worship women and female power

>>7948574
It's about the extremist reasoning behind the argument.

>>7948051
>implying magda isn't right about everything

some fag-in-a-dress is triggered here

>>7948471
I'd trade my strength for a females extended lifespan.

>>7948559
Off to Pleasantville you go.

>>7947558
>>7947573
> 4chan, the posts

>>7948663
>I'd trade my strength for a females extended lifespan.
Is that biological though or a consequence of female lifestyles?

>>7947346
A lot of MRAs lately have been in favor of gender roles, saying feminists are ``fighting against the natural order" or some such bullshite. I'd say that's more gender essentialism than male supremacy, though that brand of gender essentialism does lead to the attitude that men are ``superior to" women. And calling Roosh V a MRA is being needlessly polite, he deserves to be called far worse.

>>7947551
Not neccessarily polyamory, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the ``nuclear family" was a meme, largely created by the housing industry to create artificial demand. Throughout history, extended families have been the norm.

>>7947592
>Dunning-Kreuger effect: the post

>>7947620
Your easily amused.

>>7947643
>There's no evidence to suggest that Planet X doesn't have breathable atmosphere
>Therefore let's assume that Planet X has breathable atmosphere

>>7948016
Preference != superiority. I can prefer one thing to another, without believing that it's actually superior.

>>7948217
Your ``psychological theory" is literally Freud tier. It's full of abstract bullshite that's useless in hard science.

>>7948788
Are you implying that female lifestyles are not themselves a consequence of biology?

>>7948896
>Are you implying that female lifestyles are not themselves a consequence of biology?
I'm not saying they entirely aren't, but elements like working more dangerous jobs don't have to be chosen by every single man, and they will be a major contributor to lower male life expectancy.

So my question is how much of the lower expectancy ISN'T attributable to choices like that, which even if men as a group are more likely to chose, an individual man who prefers higher lift expectancy lifestyles can avoid?

>>7947558
This is you

http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/a-702679.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

>>7948940
>saying it's good for parents to be raised by more than one parent is the same as saying children should be raped
Try harder you straight disease

>>7948971
>thinking children should be raised in a hippy polygamous commune
>implying this is not the result every time

>>7948896
>Your ``psychological theory" is literally Freud tier. It's full of abstract bullshite that's useless in hard science.

It is more Jungian than Freud but that is not the point. Again someone just dismiss the point I made without any actual thought or argument. As to be expected by a board of SJW that reject reason to further their delusional mental state.

>>7947286
> a truly healthy family environment should have far more than two parental figures, either through polyamory or though a more platonic 'takes a village to raise a child' structure
What about grandparents participating in raising a child?

>>7948998
It's funny when a psychoanalyst accuses someone else of being irrational.

>>7949074
that would be what was traditional, the grandparents live with their children and take care of the grand kids in exchange for food/shelter as they grow older. It is only recently that we have gotten to a point where every generation live separately.

>you are a male supremacist if you fight in a custody battle
Neo feminism everybody.

>>7949155
>Neo
When was feminism not bigoted misandrist female supremacy?

As a severely depressed mtf tranny who was raised by two deeply religious conservative parents, who wouldn't let me listen to rock music because they thought it was devil music, and wouldn't let me watch anime or play video games because they thought it was satanist brainwashing, I can tell you all that the "nuclear family" crap is bullshit, because I had both a mother and a father figure during my formative years and I still ended up as a tranny.

>tfw no trophy boywife who holds the fort while I'm at work and looks after the kids

>>7949248
>muh picked cherries
Shut up and suck my cock

>>7948896
>Preference != superiority.

Could you please use =/= in place of != in future posts? The former is more aesthetically pleasing and closer to the actual symbol than the latter. Thank you.

>>7949286
okay :3

>>7949289
The former is clunky. The latter is more succinct and elegant. It's also closer to the normal use of symbols, rather than an attempt at graphically reproducing a different symbol. It's shorter to type too.

>>7949155
They're obviously talking about making women carry to term a pregnancy they don't want, fag scum.

>>7949289
it's a tranny thread so naturally we should use symbols related to programming

>>7949389
>men should take responsibility for their kids if the women gets pregnant
>even when he has no rights to parent the child
>even when she could put the child up for adoption
>even when she could abort
>even when she lied about being on the pill
>even when she impregnated herself from his condom
>even when she raped him
>but women should never have to have responsibility for getting pregnant
t. feminism

File: notequalsymbol3_400x400.jpg (8KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x400px

>>7949360
>The latter is more succinct and elegant.

I disagree. It may be succinct and a shorter type, but the exclamation point throws everything off.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "it's also closer to the normal use of symbols," but if you're implying that != is closer in appearance to the actual symbol for "not equal" than =/=, you are objectively incorrect, as you can see by pic related.

You can google image search "not equal sign" and see this clearly.

>>7949640
!= is a common symbol in C. If you don't know what the symbol means then please educate yourself.

>>7949640
>I disagree. It may be succinct and a shorter type, but the exclamation point throws everything off.
The exclamation is just a symbol itself. Putting it together with a = is just like any expression comprising multiple symbols, like =>. That's not true for =/=, which has an excess character beyond what is needed (two characters, since there isn't a single character on the keyboard for the expression).

>And I'm not sure what you mean by "it's also closer to the normal use of symbols," but if you're implying that != is closer in appearance to the actual symbol for "not equal" than =/=, you are objectively incorrect, as you can see by pic related.
No, what I meant is that =/= is an attempt at graphically reproducing a different symbol. That's inelegant, similar to using >< to represent multiplication because there is no key for the multiplication symbol. Instead we use a different symbol, *, despite the lack of resemblance. That's the elegant solution.

!= is also aesthetically pleasing because the exclamation point evokes a block or 'stop'. It's an equal sign being prevented.

>>7948995
Do you have non anecdotal evidence? Why would polygamy lead to pedophilia when monogamy doesn't?

>>7949482
>>men should take responsibility for their kids if the women gets pregnant
Men wouldn't have to do that if they let women get abortions. Typical MRA doublethink ,just like they whine about women being exempt from the draft but then oppose women serving in the military.

>>7949843
>Men wouldn't have to do that if they let women get abortions.
You believe men should have zero paternal obligations provided abortion is available? If not, your post is a lie.

>>7949668
Was the person typing that programming? No. There ya go.

File: 1489381567864.jpg (19KB, 450x391px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x391px

>>7947286
>polyamory
>structured

File: 1487890600476.jpg (135KB, 600x863px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 600x863px

>>7949859
>thread on /lgbt/
>not knowing how to code

I think you are on the wrong website

>>7949732
>The exclamation is just a symbol itself. Putting it together with a = is just like any expression comprising multiple symbols, like =>. That's not true for =/=, which has an excess character beyond what is needed (two characters, since there isn't a single character on the keyboard for the expression).

I'm not making an argument for simplicity or efficiency. I'm making an argument for aesthetics. I already conceded that != was more efficient.

The rest of your argument consists of what is "elegant." Again, I'm not arguing for elegance. I'm arguing for aesthetics.

"Elegant" or not, != looks clunky and =/= is much closer to the actual symbol for "not equal." =/= is better in the sense that it's balanced on both sides with a strike through in the middle. Just as much of an argument for the meaning behind the symbol as the ! being a block or stop.

Also I'm a cis male and your family is ashamed of you.

>>7947272
>you believe men have a right to claim a child that formed inside a woman's body (support for father rights)

What the fuck ? You're a supremacist if you believe fathers have rights regarding their children ? What kind of backward radfem bullshit is that ?
All the rest is debatable, but this is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

>>7949883
coding =/= typing on a Cambodian finger painting board.

See what I did there? ;)

>>7948016
superior in what respect? strength? fact.

A E S T H E T I C S? questionable.

>>7949905
>Again, I'm not arguing for elegance. I'm arguing for aesthetics.
Elegance is part of aesthetics.

>!= looks clunky
I disagree. Excess characters an attempts to ascii other symbols with keyboard characters are clunky.

>and =/= is much closer to the actual symbol for "not equal."
And >< is closer to the actual multiplication symbol. Will you defend the use of it in place of *?

We're talking symbols, not emoticons.

>Also I'm a cis male
That explains why you don't care for the programming argument.

I bet you're het too from your sense of style (specifically, it's nonexistence).

>>7949932
The two have different aesthetics that are both superior for their own purposes. Male physique is superior for its utilitarian, practicality, female physique for its beauty.

File: pms.jpg (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>>7949947
its almost as if female hormones make people bitchy and irrational

>>7949989
>I'm having my period and can therefore legally kill you
Not too far from the truth, women do get let off crimes by claiming the period defense.

Robbie White is against early transitioners. He should be gassed tbqh.

>>7950039
I don't agree with her opinion but desu there's nothing she can do to stop early transitioners despite her bitching and moaning. So her opinion is technically harmless.

>>7949853
If the men don't want any rights to the child, then yes, they should not have paternal obligations. Paternal obligations should exist only in two cases:
1) The woman does not want to have a child, but the man forces or convinces here to do so.
2) Regardless of the woman's attitude towards childbirth, the male expects some sort of special rights as the child's father.
In either of these cases, the father should be considered to have a paternal obligation. Otherwise, he shouldn't be held responsible for anything, he's basically out of the picture as far as the mother is concerned.

>>7949916
ASCII and Unicode are forms of code, thus by engaging in online communication, you are ``coding".

>>7949964
>separate but equal

>>7950430
So you oppose child support?

>>7949932
>questionable.
for you.
not for me.

>>7950452
If the father is willing to give up having rights to the child, then yes.

>>7950485
I'm amazed to find someone with this view who isn't an MRA.

>>7950430
>ASCII and Unicode are forms of code, thus by engaging in online communication, you are ``coding".

Thus by stating that, you are autistic.

>>7950430
>>separate but equal
Except that's for privileges, not superiority.

That is, it's not "separate but equal" to say two things/people have different strengths.

>>7947272
Yes
Yes
Who gives a fuck
Yes

>>7950640
>That is, it's not "separate but equal" to say two things/people have different strengths.
It is still gender essentiallism.

>>7950840
>still
No, because you haven't mentioned this before.

>gender essentiallism
No, it's sex essentialism, aka reality.

>>7950931
>aka reality.
[citation needed]

>>7950955
I'm not going to argue sexual dimorphism is real.

>>7950979
sexual dimorphism != sex essentialism

>>7951163
=/=*

>>7951451
No, see >>7949947

>>7951504
No, see >>7949905

>>7951836
While "=/=" may be more aesthetic, it lacks the clear visual connotation of "!=". The latter can be interpreted as "not equals", from the meanings of the individual symbols. Trying to parse "=/=" the same way doesn't make sense, it gives "equals divided by equals" or "equals over equals", which is not clearly synonymous with "not equals". It looks much more like a railway grade crossing, or a symbol representing a break or cut in something.

>>7947272
>men are naturally masculine
>whats a trap

>>7951836
That post was rebutted by the first reply to it.

>>7951876
>it lacks the clear visual connotation of "!=".

No. It mimics the clear visual connotation of the "not equal" sign as it's generally written, as the pic here >>7949640 demonstrates. It does this in an objectively better way than != does.

>>7952163
Do you use >< for multuplication instead of *?

>>7952177

This should be fun for you:

Try googling "what does =/= mean" followed by "what does =!" mean and notice what pops up.

Google search will actually correct you to =/= when you write != instead.

!= only yields coding results in terms of meaning "not equal." =/= yields multiple results outside of coding clearly stating that it means "not equal to."

The people have spoken. Have a great night.

>>7952163
!= has been used in programming languages for decades to literally mean "does not equal." since there are no formal rules for use of a symbol to represent "does not equal" in conversation or through text, neither one is more technically correct than the other. but != does have at least a little precedent.

>>7952217
Google is well known to be very cucked and problematic.

>>7952177
>Do you use >< for multuplication instead of *?

No - because keyboards also have an X, you dumb faggot.

>>7952163
Yes, but that "not equal" sign is stupid, because it has all the flaws of >>7951876; it combined the symbol for equality with the symbol of division, which does not reasonably translate to "not equals".

>>7952221
The argument is not that one symbol has a precedent over the other - it's about one (=/=) being more aesthetically pleasing.

Clearly, as per google results, the people agree with me - and that's what counts, because it is ultimately majority rule which dictates what is aesthetically pleasing and how language is written. This is how language and writing evolves.

>>7952217
>Google search will actually correct you to =/= when you write != instead.
Doesn't happen for me, all that happens is that the search suggestion suggests "=", but not "=/=". And the actual search results prioritize actual cases of "!=".

>>7952244
x is not a mathematical operator though. ix2 != i*2.

>>7952244
If you understand the point, reply to it.

>>7952257
Again, the majority of people disagree with you, and that's what counts in this instance, as this argument is subjective and dependent upon opinion/interpretation in the first place >>7952260.

You lost today, kid. But that doesn't mean you have to like it ;)

>>7952260
>Clearly, as per google results
>>7952236

>>7952268
>Doesn't happen for me

Well it did for me - but that doesn't matter. The search results speak for themselves.

>>7952257
>>7952268
>>7952269
Don't bother, the case for =/= has already been destroyed >>7949947

>>7952289
Again, the google results have spoken. You can plug your ears and shout "lalalala" all you want. It does not change the fact that outside of the small nice of programming, =/= is the accepted version of "not equal."

>>7952319
You're literally arguing that the sun orbited the Earth in the twelfth century.

>>7952319
Reality isn't a democracy, sorry.

>>7952331
No - that would be an argument disproved by objective facts. This is an argument regarding language and writing - which is subjective and dependent upon human opinion. It is indeed a democracy, and you've both been outvoted. Sorry >>7952338.

>>7952385
>you cannot apply logic to language

>>7952385
>votes can make the ugly beautiful
No.

>>7952403
>>7952404

I never said that. But like it or not, language is a democracy. That's why "literally" has had it's meaning amended and "orientated" has become a word.

I'm sorry you "ladies" lost this argument. There will be another one you'll win someday, so don't give up hope.

>>7952429
>"ladies"
Language is a democracy. Trans women are women.

Suck it up bitch.

>>7952437
>Trans women are women.

Hehe, now THAT'S more comparable to the "sun revolves around the earth" analogy from earlier.

You're learning so much today!

This thread is a shit show, y'all.

>>7952445
What are you even trying to say? The accepted interpretation is that "trans" is short for "transgender", which in "transgender woman" is an adjective. You're basically claiming that "x is a blue car" implies "x is not a car".

>>7954569
Awe look at you trying to start a new argument after you lost the last one ;)

Scotty hon, I'm not in the mood to play today. Maybe later.

>>7955130
Sorry hon*

Autocorrect. Although it would be hilarious if your birth name really is Scott.