I don’t speak frankly on fedi because I don’t want to overshare, but in general things are looking up.
Who gives a fuck about oversharing? People are posting their cocks online, say what you want
this is information of import for @mushroom_soup
I promise you that there is no woman on fedi that laments receiving an insufficient number of dick pics.
💀
@dave @NEETzsche @mushroom_soup @e
No, I specifically remember Mushroom complaining about that once. Have no idea if her situation improved.
Let me just go ahead and fix this comic so it fits reality a bit more closely.
Women are hornier than men.
From my experience and what I see and hear it's generally the other way around
The idea that women are as horny as men is thoroughly disproved by looking at a graph of the spread of any STD. Gay men are STD vectors because men are way hornier than woman, and so you have horny men hooking up with horny men, and so any new STD will spread among the gay male population quickly, but not the lesbian population, or even the straight population, because it’s only when you get horny males hooking up with other horny males that you get rapid STD spread.
more risk taking is just as likely an explanation, and being higher at risk taking means you're more likely to have sex with another person that is infection, abuses alchol or drugs, or has high body counts
The idea that women aren’t as horny as men is thoroughly disproved by the fact that 90% of what women talk about is sex.
On the one hand, that’s interesting, but on the other hand, have you considered my graph?
Yes, and I can counter it with much better metrics of who is hornier, like the kind of reading material men vs women tend to consume. When it comes to novels, women tend to read romance novels, which are about sex and relationships, and men tend to read sci fi and fantasy, which is about space ships and killing goblins.
Women are hornier than men. They’re also pickier.
Bro, come on.
Women read romance novels because they like the familiarization and seduction process, which is what you would expect since reproduction carries a much higher cost for them than it does for us.
What do men like instead of romance novels? They like porn, that thing where they skip the seduction and long-term romance phase and just get straight to fucking. We open a browser tab and then 1-10 minutes later we’re jerking off to this woman we’ve never met and in a lot of cases won’t even care to look up again.
Why do men like porn instead of romance novels? Because we’re hornier. We want to stick our dicks in as many women as possible and spread our seed as far as we can. That’s what being horny is.
No. Being horny is wanting sexual gratification. For women, sexual gratification is about giving them attention and then putting your cock down their throat. Just ask @bot. If you think women are actually less horny than men it’s because you have no clue how fast that good girl act evaporates the moment they decide they want the D.
Is dave incapable of just accepting that he is wrong about literally anything?
No, it’s just that most of you wignats are more retarded than you realize, and you’re not aware of it because society shuns you in general, without telling you specifically how you are wrong, so when I end up in a hellthread with you lot, it’s at least half a dozen of you reassuring each other of how dumb I am, and liking whatever responses to my posts are given no matter how dumb they are.
Great example is your own post recently, where you tried to justify your racism by claiming that there is more genetic difference between bonobos and chimpanzees, than there is between black and white humans, not realizing that you were citing a retarded wignat that didn’t understand that the metric in question only works when it’s used for comparison within species, and it breaks down when you try to use it for cross-species analysis.
You found it compelling because it used science-y words that confirmed your pre-existing biases, even though neither you nor he actually understood what fixation index measures, and nobody has pointed this out to you because they also didn’t know.
I mean, you’re the one who hypothesized that blacks commit more crime due to lower income and then freaked out and called me retarded for insisting that you produce statistics to that effect, so… seethe.
here's a very detailed statistical analysis that shows that single homes are the predictor for criminality, not race and not poverty
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/
I’m pretty sure I asked you before, if you plotted a graph of income of the parents versus incarceration rate of the children, would that graph be flat? And I don’t think I got a good answer.
I was annoyed last time because it was turning into another pile-on, so I didn’t provide it last time, but that graph is definitely not flat. Crime rate (and thus incarceration rate) of the children is highly dependent on the income of the parents, and I feel this should be trivially obvious.
And since black people are on average poorer, and in particular represent a huge number of low-income families surrounded by other low-income families (ghettos) where crime rates are extremely high, they will be overrepresented in crime stats.
Hypothesis: blacks in the same income bracket as whites will commit roughly the same number of homicides. Therefore, poverty, not race, predicts crime.
Reality:
You have just had a detailed study linked to you showing that single-family homes are a strong predictor of crime rates, you have just presented a table which shows quite clearly that crime rates are also heavily dependent on family income, and yet you still can’t seem to piece all of it together.
It isn’t me who is failing to piece things together, Dave.
Really? Then why can’t you acknowledge how income, single-parent rates, concentration of poverty etc. might affect crime rates?
“Poor white kids have better outcomes than middle-class black kids” doesn’t disprove that income influences crime rates. Again, your own data in fact proves that it does, because across all races we see substantial decreases in violent crime rates as parental income increases.
But there are way more factors at play than just parental income, hence the point. If you point at black crime rates and use that to argue for their inferiority, you are nearly as retarded as the guy that points at women earning around 75 cents to a man’s dollar and using that to argue that women are discriminated against in the workplace.
Your hypothesis was that blacks and whites in the same income bracket commit roughly the same amount of crime, in particular homicide. That’s so far from reality that it faces hard dismissal.
There are 25 minutes remaining at the time of this post.
I am begging you to cut it out with the annoying “you have 30 minutes to disprove this thing you never said” shit. It reeks of intellectual fragility.
I have been aware for years that crime rates at the same parental income level aren’t the same across races, and I have certainly never said that they were in any arguments with you. Your belief that I have is a fantasy you’ve cooked up because you refuse to contend with my actual arguments.
Parental income is a strong predictor of crime rates. It is also far from the only one.
This is you basically arguing that you’re going to blow minds by finding that income correlates to crime and that race essentially doesn’t matter. This is me telling you to control for race in your income argument. This is comparable in retardation to your argument that Jim Crow / racism causes black criminality even though the numbers just don’t bear that one out, either, when you consider that black criminality is an intercontinental problem, not just a USA problem.
The post about you taking the L gracefully or getting told to fuck off was made over 30min ago. Time’s up!
In conclusion: fuck off.
except that "crime rates" itself is an artificial term
those who write and enforce the laws commit as much crime as the so-called criminals
Not anywhere near fast enough for it to be a dominant predictor.
So we’re going to let @dave decide if we reconsider the race as predictor of crime issue. Yesterday, he argued that income, not race, is a better predictor of crime/homicide. It isn’t. So, currently the facts state that the main cause is race.
In order for a reconsideration of this fact (not opinion), @dave can:
Admit he was wrong to make that argument, and
Apologize for calling the correct side of that exchange “retarded”
OR
Accept the outcome of the debate as binding for the following 12mo (default position if he refuses to make an explicit choice)
What do you prefer, @dave ? There is a 30min hard time limit on this. You must reply to this message with your concession and your apology.
The time limit bullshit is not motivated by me believing anybody is persuaded by it. It is motivated by me wanting to set real rules and then act on them. It is motivated by wanting to sort things out efficiently. I don’t want to spend all night going back and forth with Dave while he tries to worm out of admitting he’s wrong.
If he doesn’t just take the L on this very straightforward point he’s wrong about, I will become unwilling to discuss the race topic with him at all for 12 months, mostly in the interest of not wasting my fucking time. To this end, I will don the posture of a bureaucrat, even though nobody but me gives a fuck.
We’re allowing @dave decide if we consider single motherhood as a better predictor of crime than race based on how well he takes the L on arguing that income, not race, is a better predictor of crime. (It isn’t.)
Income is one of the many factors aside from race that predict crime rates. You and other “racial realists” haven’t familiarized yourself with those numbers, because doing so would undermine your belief that black people are inherently inferior and all the PC libcucks around you are just too afraid to admit it.
It’s much more satisfying to look at a graph of income delineated by race and use that to conclude that black people are inferior, so that’s what you do.
I’ve familiarized myself with those numbers.
There are 20 minutes remaining.
The inferiority of the blacks is so obvious and not in question that literally any human on Earth instinctively knows it, you can go to an isolated village in any random location of the planet, and even they will tell you niggers are black.
vjq8v9kl59z21.jpg
If you control for litterally everything, blacks would still commit more crimes, not because they are black of skin, but because they are fucking dumb on average. American blacks have a average IQ of 85, but their bell curve is more squat than the White IQ bell curve, meaning blacks have more "geniuses(relative to black IQ specifically)," but also more retards. If we go to Afrika it is even more dire, with some countries having an average IQ around 60.
you're not as smart as you think you are. african immigrants have lower incaceration rates than black americans and higher performance, even when adjusted for education levels
Where are the IQs listed on this? Ever heard of brain drain? lol This doesn't disprove shit. Try again.
This is correct, being poor is what causes crime and having a low IQ is what makes you poor.
That wasn't my post though. Nice try at gaslighting though. Really all the evidence you need that proves that niggers are dumber than Whites is to compare Afrika and Europe throughout all of time. Done, that's all you fucking need.
Insert Anchorman “I don’t believe you” GIF
It’s fedi, conservatively it’s like 80% dudes, and women in general aren’t as horny. I refuse to believe that this was a genuine thirst, and not just some kind of bait.