>Anon Starts a thread asking why something sucks >Inevitably

File: 1437459657043.jpg (100KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x500px

>>38925318
>Anon starts a thread complaining about the board
>It doesn't spark any interesting conversation
>3 replies, 1 image omitted

>anon starts a bait thread
>gets 2 or 3 (You)'s that play along or call him out
>thread dies

>>38925360
>>38925388

Don't make fun of me chumps I'd fuck you

>>38925318
>*sigh* guys, you know, it just really, like, gets old, you know? How like this board sucks and yet I still come here? How everyone hates women and has a reason to, but I'm a cuck? It's like really awful

>>38925416

Yes it is true, you people deserve to be mocked into oblivion for your irrational woman hatred.

>>38925452
>Implying women aren't useless vapid creatures that just want cock and or money

>>38925497

Oh yes, here it is. The anon shit flinging about his own vapid spew on women. Your thoughts are as empty and what you think women are.

Oh look, anon on robutt9000 thinks women "just want cock and money" how motherfucking original. What? Are you going to call me a butthurt roastie and fuck off back to redd.it next? You don't fucking SAY!?

>>38925537
the word reddit isn't autofiltered anymore

>>38925452
>irrational
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's "irrational"

At least tell us what the original thread was about you absolute down syndrome? Are you seriously fucking retarded? Jesus Christ, fukken moron

>>38925555
Just because other's agree with you, doesn't mean its correct.

>>38925545
I don't care

>>38925562

Any thread. Go to /tv/, or /v/, you'll see it there. Also, you are dumber than pig shit. I had no reason to insult you, until you insulted me.

>>38925555
I'm checking these quads, but this thread isn't doing anything interesting

>>38925564
Same could be said about your view on women, friend. How about proving the worth of women? Because go to literally any woman hate thread and you'll see reason why women suck, and in addition, I have anecdotal evidence. I don't need some whiteknight shitting up the board I frequent because he feels obligated to stick up for women who are too dumb to do it themselves.

File: you.jpg (230KB, 1800x1578px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1800x1578px

>>38925318
>comes to /r9k/ expecting everyone to be level headed

>>38925583
>I'm dumb
Dude you literally sound like an autistic queer. It's embarrassing

>>38925607

Then get out, I don't need your bad attitude stinking it up.

>>38925609
Anecdotal is useless, its like going to an AA meeting on the positives of alcohol. Of course there is going to be useless. But since you said, I have a wonderful and caring GF who is nothing like the cherry picked "roasties" you all pick. Also, remember anyone who hates something will find a reason to hate it no matter what. Let's say there was a video of a guy an a girl arguing. You don't know the context, you would just go "LOL ROASTIE CUNT GETTING BTFO" or something asinine. It is infuriating and someone who actually gets how basic human interactions work.


>>38925641
Hey I am sorry you are dumb. It is ok, no everyone can be smart.

>>38925672
Women are shit in actual scientific data, too. Lower IQs, more prone to lying, I could go on.

>>38925763

And men are more prone to aggressive acts of violence, sexual assault, and have started 100% of all wars, and dropped 100% of all nukes. Your statistics suck too.

>>38925672
>Anecdotal is useless
>I have no other evidence
See, I have both anecdotal, and scientific evidence. I have literally no reason to expect anything beyond childish, evil behavior from women. All the females in my life are not what I want in women, extra-familiar women deem I am not worthy, and then you have all this stuff on this website.

So, yeah, I'm not a normie and I'm not a whiteknight so go be mad somewhere else

>>38925795
And also have come up with 99% of scientific achievements, and are responsible for most economic gains. Women don't do anything, which is much worse.

>>38925822
>So, yeah, I'm not a normie and I'm not a whiteknight so go be mad somewhere else


Of course your not, you are mewling little child, ill equipped to handle the real world. You call women "evil", as if such a thing really exists, and demand to be seen as more mature? You attempt to refute by starting a sentence with "See, I have" ? Really? I don't think so. I am sorry though that women are not living up to your expectations. Truly, it must be character flaws in all of them. Also, it sure does happen to show that "all the stuff" on this website shows women negatively. I just wonder if it is any sort of coincidence that a site that attracts the most negative people in society, also is a breeding ground for misguided hatred.

>>38925877
For over the past 100 year so, women have been entering the scientific field and making great strides. I always love reading stories about positive inventions made by women, to stick a thorn in you people's sides. Women can be great if given the opportunity.

>>38925923
For every groundbreaking invention or scientific theory came up with by a woman, there are probably 10 by men. Even now that academia is equal or even more women by gender, this is true. Claiming women are equal is retarded.

>>38925923
>misguided hatred
You really don't understand. I don't get why someone who loves life so much would come to "a site that attracts the most negative people in society."

You call me ill equipped and I would agree. I am more than likely going to kill myself within the next year or so. In the mean time, I am going to continue disliking women because yes, they do not live up to my expectations.

And it seems like you try to downplay my argument by attacking a grammar rule that doesn't really exist ("so") and yet you can't even use the correct form of "you're"

File: What normies would like to believe about the male consciousness movement.png (63KB, 1648x867px)

63KB, 1648x867px

>>38925318

>mgtow propaganda

So women are able to use the state to propagandise on their behalf, but if males share information online, this is "propaganda"??

>>38925990
Probably 10 huh? Ohhhh Probably 10!. What a great fucking statistic. We gotta probably 10 over here by mother fucking >>38925990. WIth his damning evidence at why women are retarded.


>>38926002

>I don't get why someone who loves life so much would come to "a site that attracts the most negative people in society.

I am here to torture you.

> I am more than likely going to kill myself within the next year or so. In the mean time, I am going to continue disliking women because yes, they do not live up to my expectations.

And who's fault is that? You don't care to dial back your expectations from your "Pure 2D waifu" who is nothing more than wank bait?

>>38926048

Oh millions males, huh? Gee I didn't know there were that many. That is enough to start a whole nation of womenless virgin men, who fuck each other. Go do that, go take your "millions" of men with. I am waiting.

Hmm, lets see how many millions of follows mgtow has

https://twitter.com/MGTOW?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

>4915

Oh...

>>38926055
Name some stuff women invented, let's say in the last 30 years so they were represented in academia and business. Bonus points if it's something you actually use every day.

>>38926124
http://blog.inventhelp.com/women-inventors-and-innovators/

File: 2017-08-08 12_35_04-mgtow - Explore - Google Trends.png (16KB, 1195x408px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1195x408px

>>38926102

Anon most red-pilled and mgtow males don't necessarily even know what 'mgtow' is. You've linked to a single twitter feed, most posters on r9k who are red pilled on women are not going to be even looking at mgtow content, they don't even need to.

Sorry but outside of statist-feminist propaganda, most males don't want to be abused.

>>38926055
I'm not blaming anyone. I deserve to die simply by being unfit to live. Nothing brings me pleasure, nothing lives up to my expectations, and no woman is going to change that. I am not putting them on a pedestal, but I will look at them objectively and I see they are shit, like a lot of men.

It has pretty much ruined most of the websites I go to.

I can only look at the same information so many times before I get sick of it.

>>38926124

Not in the last 30 years

also but

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/inventions-by-women-that-changed-the-world?utm_term=.lqEjykMzY#.om6lrbBRe

And shut up about it being on buzzfeed

>>38926177

Funny how the search rankings corresponds roughly when all the mgtow (that acronym is disgusting to say out loud) shit started.
I am not asking for most males to be abused, but I also feel that if it was the case, and not just a few jaded virgins with poor interactions with women, there would be no literally no one with a relationship right now.

>>38926194
So why not kill yourself now?

>>38926166
>go to page
>5 women listed
>3 are fashion designers
>1 made one baby bottle thing i've never seen used
>1 made a website for moms to talk to each other
was this a joke?

>>38926257
>...why not...now
Preparations and such.

File: Gendered Intervention Order referals to services.jpg (1MB, 2480x3496px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2480x3496px

>>38926257

>I am not asking for most males to be abused, but I also feel that if it was the case, and not just a few jaded virgins with poor interactions with women, there would be no literally no one with a relationship right now.

This is where your outspoken ignorance becomes obvious.

Firstly, most people who call themselves mgtow are NOT virgins, you don't even know what you're talking about. MOST mgtow are guys who got burned by real relationships, many have been through divorces or custody battles or have been falsely accused of domestic violence, etc. Or they're just generally burned out from chasing women.

r9k in general has some of these people but most of us are a different mettle of red-pilled, we are TECHNICALLY 'mgtow' many of us, but there's a larger contingent of incel, etc.

What's clear is that you're a rationaliser. Instead of looking at the reality of female behaviour and the culture women create, you want to believe that those of us who are red-pilled are somehow 'inexperienced' or whatever. It's what's highlighted in this image here >>38926048 . In reality, most red-pilled males are like this BECAUSE of experience, males by default are blue-pilled, gynocentric, etc.

File: 39042fa.png (204KB, 1424x752px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1424x752px

>>38926257
>buzzfeed
>literally says women invented beer, then goes onto say they don't know it for sure, just one feminist historian claims so
>google a few of the other things, almost all are either disputed or actually invented by men

>>38926166

The really interesting this is that the further you go back in history, the greater the differential between the genders in terms of labour burden. In the 1800's for example, vastly more men back then were working miserable, soul-destroying, physically draining work that left them practically no time to do anything else, and no mental energy to invest in learning things and inventing, while women were relatively privileged, especially in terms of free time and energy. Yet even then men were inventing far more than women.

>>38926286
>>38926335


Yeah, alright, it is hard to fine a comprehensive list of notable female inventors that aren't all marine curie.


http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/feat50

But they do have a shit load of scientists.

>>38926329
So, a lot domestic violence shelters WILL take men who are the victims of FEMALE perps. Second, most domestic violence IS from men TO women. So it is no surprise why these agencies are geared towards women.

>In reality, most red-pilled males are like this BECAUSE of experience

Is that what you know or what you think you know? You don't know the real statistic of the people on this board. But the fact that there isn't some great upheaval some sort of gender war is proof enough for me. I get there are bad women out there, I get there are those women who take advantage of men. But I refuse to condemn the whole fucking gender, of these kind of antics. It is ludicrous.

>>38926364
Do you really think those day laborers took time out of their day at the steal mill to invent the combustion engine? Most were educated, ivory tower types. And yea, you got women there, they were spending all that time lazing around. You know, cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids. Which wasn't like going to the store and loading a machine. You had to go out to the stream and hand wash the clothes, or pump water out of a well. You know, lazy.

File: Kock_2010_F00_StdDevDiffs.png (18KB, 595x445px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 595x445px

>>38926364
Yep, a popular hypothesis is men have a higher standard deviation in general intelligence, which has been backed up at least a little by IQ studies on differences between men and women.
Even a tiny difference in standard deviation equates to way more male einsteins than female ones.

>>38926002
>I don't get why someone who loves life so much would come to "a site that attracts the most negative people in society."
because 4chan lost its "internet hate machine" reputation, it's a normie website now

File: Male Behaviour Change Program.png (133KB, 1250x1460px)

133KB, 1250x1460px

>>38926487

>So, a lot domestic violence shelters WILL take men who are the victims of FEMALE perps

That's not true. In fact most of these shelters will not even HIRE men, and they have sought and obtained the legal right to exemption from equality hiring laws so they can hire exclusively females.

>Second, most domestic violence IS from men TO women.

When the government, military, police, and women in general all openly insist this and belittle male victims, naturally the statistics then start to show more female victims because men CANNOT REPORT. That document I just showed you is from an official court intervention order, and not ONE service even mentions males as potential victims!

How likely do you think it is that men would be reporting abuse by women when the police openly promote a feminist narrative that excludes men as a class to be protected and downplay male victims?

>>38926615

They not not hire men, but they will accept them (not all but some).


>How likely do you think it is that men would be reporting abuse by women when the police openly promote a feminist narrative that excludes men as a class to be protected and downplay male victims?

I get it, this is not lost on me, and I not saying men's ACTUAL issues are not real. It is unfair that women have a large bias in the courts when it comes to issues about sexual and regular assault. There are male victims, and it does suck they do not get the representation they need. BUT, this should NOT be a strike against women victimhood. The data might be off because of how many victims come forward. It still does not downplay women's assault issues. And does not make women "evil" either.

File: Even when state violence and warfare kill tens of thousands of men, women are GIRLS are to be exempted from violence (Jun 20, 2017).jpg (94KB, 976x649px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 976x649px

>>38926694

>They not not hire men, but they will accept them (not all but some).

This isn't true. You're projecting. In the US not long ago there were literally ZERO male shelters. The vast, vast majority of DV shelters WILL NOT accept males over 16. You just don't know what you're talking about. Ask yourself - why is it necessarily or permissible for the government to even allow DV services to be gender-specialised in this manner? Why is it possible for men to be excluded? 40% of victims of domestic homicide by a domestic partner are MALE.

>And does not make women "evil" either.

They systematically deny males the right to protection from violence. This doesn't just occur in western countries in times of peace!

Here's an image from a region where state violence has killed tens of thousands of men in the past few years. Read what it says on her wristlet. It excludes even BOYS as a class to be protected. This is promoted by the United Nations!

>>38926831
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/15/537381161/more-domestic-violence-shelters-for-men-opening

>>38926858

Yes.

>This may be the only shelter for men in Texas, but the first in the country opened two years ago in Batesville, Ark.
>the first in the country opened two years ago in Batesville, Ark.

The first male shelter opened 2 years ago!!! (This was written in 2017!)

>>38926922

Alright I get it. Its obvious this is a thing that is upsetting to you. But you know what? You feel that twinge of injustice in your stomach? That is the same feeling all those feminists felt all those decades ago.

"Bad things are happen to people like me and no one is listening!"

If you feel this way, become an activist. Feminists back then didn't whine on imageboards, they did something. But make sure NOT to alienate women. Feminists were not going to war with men, and you shouldn't with women.

File: Government-backed misandry - WR 1 (Apr 15, 2017).jpg (65KB, 650x366px)

65KB, 650x366px

>>38926961

>Alright I get it. Its obvious this is a thing that is upsetting to you. But you know what? You feel that twinge of injustice in your stomach?

Again, you are projecting. Firstly you're attempting to downplay this issue by claiming it's some sort of psychological obsession of my own and NOT a core issue of justice. Society is constantly telling me to 'be good' and 'obey the rules', 'don't be violent or steal', etc. Meanwhile women are encouraged to use state-violence against men all the time. Unless this is addressed, what right do you have to expect me to obey any social norms? This is THE core justice issue.

>That is the same feeling all those feminists felt all those decades ago.

Feminist complaints were never justified, though. This is just your gynocentric thinking at work, to think that things "were" worse for women at some point, that all this feminism is just the result of a pendulum swinging too far in one directly. Firstly, even if that was the case - there's no reason why males living today should suffer for what males in the past did. Secondly and more importantly, it simply isn't true! Female use of violence and victimhood, and males feeding into it is something that's existed since the start of time. Most victims of brutality have always been male in all of human history. Society is always more interested in helping women at the expense of males.

>If you feel this way, become an activist.

No, I'm not helping a society which aggresses against me. I am not your systems debugger.

>But make sure NOT to alienate women. Feminists were not going to war with men, and you shouldn't with women.

What planet do you live on? Feminists are by definition at war with men.

>>38925877
>identifying so much as a white male that one feels accomplished and proud of achievements that aren't his.
Also, Turing sparked the development of computers and he was a raging literal homosexual so I don't even get it.
Like do MGTOW types enjoy looking retarded in public or what?

>>38927043
>feminists are by definition at war with men
No you literal brainlet.
Feminists are by definition against the patriarchy which is synonymous with being against the cultural norm that only men are allowed to lead and etc. Hence why in the end they are for equality. Destroying the patriarchy also destroys the system that men suffer under.
THAT is what feminism always has been and whatever you think it is isn't as relevant as you think it is. In the end you are simply making a fool of yourself with the crazy bullshit you say.

File: Government funded misandry (Mar 27, 2017).png (394KB, 1863x768px)

394KB, 1863x768px

>>38927073

Are you aware that Turing was raped by the state (he has his bodily integrity literally violated by having chemicals injected into his body which altered his sexuality) because a bunch of roasties had demanded that sodomy be outlawed? Roasties lobbied for the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which re-criminalised homosexuality (for males only!) and so Turing who contributed in amazing ways to science was literally raped by feminists.

>>38927043

Alright I am done with you. I don't care if you think you won. I think you are an illogical idiot.

I give you a chance to try and redeem yourself, give you a opportunity to stay what you feel is unjust, and a path to correct, and you fucking spit on it with your nonsensical anti woman bullshit.

>>38927125
I am aware of how he came to pass but what you imply (that all women to ever exist and to come have killed him) is fucking low IQ what even is a thought tier shit.
What's worse is your clearly narrow understanding of historical contexts.

>>38927125
Also that's not what literally means and I wish you'd at least learn how ro properly communicate with the English Language if you can't even fucking understand any kind of more complex ideas.

>>38925318
>we get it

>we

>implying that you're one of us if you don't hate women

Since you're not one of us, who are you with? And why are you here?

File: Mel Feit comment.png (330KB, 598x741px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 598x741px

>>38927124

>Feminists are by definition against the patriarchy which is synonymous with being against the cultural norm that only men are allowed to lead and etc

Explain to me then why it was feminists who lobbied for gender segregation of prisons, when prisons were already gender integrated to some degree - why did the feminists seek MORE division? Why do feminists lobby for laws then that target males specifically? Why did the vast majority of feminists openly make statements at the start of WW1 that women should not be forced into combat while men should??? Even in the 70's, when women were the majority of voters and were thus responsible for the elected government - why were males only conscripted, and why to this day have women not only mounted a successful bid to end male only conscription? Why were most feminists actually outspoken in the 70's in FAVOUR of male-only conscription? Why do feminists throughout the world promote one-sided framing of law to target males and punish them more severely???

>Destroying the patriarchy also destroys the system that men suffer under.

But the very systems of law that I'm talking about were literally lobbied for and instituted almost entirely by females, and now they're mostly run by females. They were never run by "meninists" or a "conspiracy of fathers".

>>38926487

IIRC its 34% women will be victims of domestic violence and 27% men last I checked. 1/3 and 1/4 basically. Doesn't account for the massive disparity in treatment options, (hundreds of facilities for women compared to a handful for men)

Also domestic violence shelters kick adult men out as soon as they can. If you've ever been battered you'd know that most kick males out once they hit 18.

And then you get into the horrible Duluth model pushed by feminists which contributes to the whole 'male abuser, female victim' false dichotomy you buy into, regardless of the actual circumstances of the event.

Fuck off idiot. Women are perfectly capable of victimizing themselves without you helping and diminishing male issues in the process.

File: 1496369267520.png (298KB, 676x676px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 676x676px

>>38927225
this
>>38925318
There is no "we"
most people on this board are either gay or someone who hates woman (because of their circumstances)

>>38925318
>We get it, you all hate women
And there's the problem roasties and gentlemen. This person is not upset that we are preaching to the choir, because he isn't the choir. He didn't say. I get it, we all hate women. He used the word We instead of I despite him being an individual, who is not part of the robot identity. He use the word you instead of we because he is not one of us.