Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Define woke

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    in the past
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTV View Post
    The only friends of yours that would surprise me saying that, would be if they were also blacks.
    It's been across the spectrum, to be honest. I've had a Nigerian friend say it because he finds them to be too much hard work.
    "...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    in the past
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTV View Post
    This is one I'm working on,

    It's not that strange. When we look at how the races rank beauty, on average each race rates its own most beautiful.
    Where interracial sex is banned, people are restricted to their own race, on average the most beautiful race for them.
    For far right black/asian/white, a ban on interracial sex is nothing to fret about. Opening up interracial sex economy has little interest for them. The interracial sex economy is a left wing thing.

    When we rate the other races, we see the emergence of what might be called racial inequality in the sex game.
    Here each race perceives the races from most beautiful to least, with what appears to be the races economic/ses status as perceived globally. The power of influence of money, as a primer, and not without reason.
    The richer races being rated the most beautiful. The poorer races being rated least beautiful.

    Beauty drives sexual interest. Where interracial sex is permitted, racial inequality enters the fray. By being racist, banning interracial sex, you can reduce racial inequality.

    The biggest benefactors are white left wing men.

    They are predisposed to be more likely interracial breeders/slutmakers than right wingers, who are more intraracial and essentially lose people from their race who they probably wouldn't align with politically. No major loss for the same race sex enthusiasts.

    In the market place racial preferences between races, raises them/whites highest. Their beauty status will be highest.
    Whereas the black will be paddy last on average for all the other races.
    We see this claimed as racism by BLM types who document the lower wages of black sex workers as racism, just never stating the role of interracial sex preferences as the cause and facilitator.
    The white whore/sexworker is found most beautiful by her own race on average, and second highest by all other races. The black whore/sexworker is found most beautiful by her own race, and least beautiful by all other races.
    In a market where interracial sex is permitted, these racial preferences play their roles in income inequality. The sexworker supporter is more likely to pick a white over a black.

    For the white left wing man, it's also better than it is for women. As women tend to seek status more than men. So we see the white man is rated most beautiful by other races, seemingly correlated with the ses/success of whites perceived globally. Then he has this same status advantage in attracting women.
    Women having higher levels of disgust naturally, and starker pressures around reproduction, isn't as naturally inclined to enjoy banging a different bame/white every night. For younger men this excess pussy, and interracial advantage is much more easily availed of and enjoyed hedonsitically.
    Interracial sex widens the marketplace for left wingers, reduces it for right wingers. For the white man whose left wing London is a paradise of desperate pussy, one where they perceive you most beautiful (likely due to racial status) and where you benefit from your racial status. It's a bame creampie recipe.

    So when you see a person refusing to date a black girl, but not other races, it is likely because that in a world where interracial sex is permitted, you'd expect to see the blacks lose out.
    Its why I believe the black prostitute gets paid about half of the white prostitute.
    Because pro-interracial sex/love types, value the act of interracial breeding and these interracial preferences predict that poorer races lose out more than richer ones.

    It's much like the moaning about inequality and being pro-immigration. When immigration will almost always increase inequality within a society.
    You want interracial sex to be legal, you better accept the racial inequality, your racial equality brings with it.

    If you banned interracial sex, you would reduce racial inequality in the sex/love game, and in the whore/sexworker game.
    But you'd disadvantage those races perceived as most successful races. You'd have to ban a highly valued left wing act, interracial sex, to reduce racial inequality.

    Doing this would bring a victory of sorts to the various peoples predisposed for intraracial preferences. Those who oppose interracial sex and offspring, a big no no in modern Western eugenics. Where the mixed race offspring sits atop.

    It would be a crushing blow to left wing white men. Their market would be reduced drastically, they'd be restricted to the white market and lose all that racial prefferenicng/inequality.
    I think I need to read this slowly when I have time.
    "...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Doncaster
    Posts
    7,784
    The Sky Sports pundit Graeme Souness has received stinging criticism for calling football a “man’s game” following Chelsea’s 2-2 Premier League draw against Tottenham on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/aug/15/graeme-souness-criticised-mans-game-premier-league-chelsea-tottenham?CMP=twt_gu#Echobox=1660565380
    I bet you can squeal like a pig!

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    26,730
    Quote Originally Posted by southernboy View Post
    The Sky Sports pundit Graeme Souness has received stinging criticism for calling football a “man’s game” following Chelsea’s 2-2 Premier League draw against Tottenham on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/aug/15/graeme-souness-criticised-mans-game-premier-league-chelsea-tottenham?CMP=twt_gu#Echobox=1660565380
    Well hopefully he apologises as a Woman.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by southernboy View Post
    The Sky Sports pundit Graeme Souness has received stinging criticism for calling football a “man’s game” following Chelsea’s 2-2 Premier League draw against Tottenham on Sunday.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/aug/15/graeme-souness-criticised-mans-game-premier-league-chelsea-tottenham?CMP=twt_gu#Echobox=1660565380
    "It's a man's game all of a sudden again," said Souness. Well, he was commenting on a mens game.

    Meanwhile the BBC called the Conte v Tuchel spat a case of "handbags", which is surely sexist?!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Daffydd View Post
    "It's a man's game all of a sudden again," said Souness. Well, he was commenting on a mens game.

    Meanwhile the BBC called the Conte v Tuchel spat a case of "handbags", which is surely sexist?!
    Robbie Fowler made such a comment perhaps 10 years ago and the host presenter made him apologise live on air as I remember. Robbie bless him has never been much of a pundit since;
    What exactly is freedom of speech!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    26,730
    Quote Originally Posted by vin View Post
    I think I need to read this slowly when I have time.
    Well if you do Vin, there are 2 errors. One a grammatical error, isn't where their should be aren't.
    The important one, saying the variable instead of a variable.

    As said its a working theory looking at problems with facts about reality and accepting the stipulated complaints that led to the enquiry.
    People said racism led to the pay gap between prostitutes.
    In this instance a bit of a paradox in the old racism debate, where via interracial sex being permitted/desirable/enacted, Racism enters the sex economy.
    As interracial sex preferences predict along the line of what seems to be a ses/economic perception of the races globally.
    If you don't do interracial sex at all, you never bring this unconscious racism, racial prejudices shaping the perception of people as physically beautiful into effect. You may also be racist, but not impacting the economy at question.
    Here racism makes the world a little less unequal racially.

    In studies on trolley tests in the USA, ethical questions around would you save 5 people by pushing one in front of a train. We see different prejudices in results. This time we are thinking a bit more with our brain and less so with our arousal zones.
    When racial cues were added there was a big gap in results. Right wingers were indeed more xenophobic, they'd save the white guy a little more predictably than a black say.

    But the studies names were kill whitey and the reason is treason. Because left wingers were way more racist, or socially just racists. There results showed a much bigger effect, they'd sacrifice a white before a black more readily. The same was true of war crimes along the Allied/Nato crime versus Jihad/Muslim crime. The left were so xenophilic, they were much more prejudiced.
    In this instance anti-racists are actually way more racist than racists. And anti-racists also stand for interracial sex, which I propose introduces racial inequality into the sex game.

    This does not align with the BLM narrative too much though. Unlike the sex one which I believe does: Where put in a sacrifice to save life scenario, left wingers would more readily sacrifice a white over a black, than a right winger would a black over a white.
    That was a surprising result for some. But not for me looking at the societies. There are many more points of interest. These studies were conducted in the USA.

    To end immigration, keep the dirty foreigner out, you need to make the rest of the world pretty equal. Which is happening fast, but its a big gap to the poorest.
    Last I checked the poorest people in the world largely sub saharan Africans, have a co2 output 40 times lesser than the wealthy whites of the world.
    In the middle of the world, second world, mostly say 20 times higher than the poorest of the world. This world has advanced very well in a materialist sense.
    If you said to the racist gammon, you get England back if we knock off a load of privileges, I think they'd take their country over wealth as ethnonationalists/littleenglanders.

    It's the more materialistic Brits, lefties, that argue for the economic impacts/benefits of migrants openly. And due to outsourcing reproduction and declining birthrate trends, they need people to replace themselves.
    The downside of diversity is felt in social and civic life. This is an area the left would usually value, but not when it comes to diversity, here they champion diversity as an economic benefit to the economy, and an increaser of inequality.
    Whereas the general mantra of labour activists, would fit a people before profit/economy mold, and income inequality is very bad. However this can be seen in many left wing areas, increasing inequality. So far I've given 3.
    http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

    In America BLM endorses vote blue no matter who.
    This left side in America (90% of blacks) believe in the right to have had 9 million extra black babies aborted out of 60 million since Roe v Wade.
    Instead of just sacrificing 7.8 million black babies for the greater good, 16.8 million blacks were aborted for the greater good since roe v wade.
    They don't like to touch on this because, by conceding there is an issue of 9 million more black babies getting aborted over demographic representation, they'd have to say that in some sense that abortions can be bad, or racist. That is very difficult for people committed to abortion as healthcare, for them ideologically the blacks are just getting more health care cause they need it.

    Abortion is a eugenic tool and you'll find working class over represented in abortion statistics routinely.
    The benefit in theory, and shown in data, is that by aborting these undesirables, these unwanted babies, you can reduce the crime rate.
    Of course data shows if these kids had dad's they'd do much better, sons would be far less likely to end up in jail, girls less likely to end up on the game, teenage pregnancies etc.
    But BLM opposes the nuclear family as an institution, whereas MLK had a very favourable view of the nuclear family, iirc, calling it the fundamental educational agency of man, mother, father and child. Single parent families widen inequality.

    The idea being that those who remove their offspring from the population, are doing society a favour. Reducing crime rates.
    In America with 9 million extra black babies aborted, you'll find some right wingers around the world aghast at the idea that Christians would prevent blacks from removing so many extra blacks from the gene pool.
    There is a majority of Lefties though who support abortion even where the blacks are overrepresented, or the working class, or even where eugenic outcomes materialise like the disappearance of down syndromes in progressive countries.
    If women chose to eradicate disableds from society, it is good. Because the unborn child is property of the mother. As we know where human life is degraded to mere property, you remove the human claim to human rights.
    Again, this saves people having to assist disableds where needed. It's an economic gift, it's why Hitler and Stalin did it.

    Via abortion you can also keep women in the workplace and increase productivity. This idea, or effect of keeping women in work and ignoring a family, appears to be more prominent on the left.
    Of course women who are naturally more predisposed to parent than men, often find they've chased a career and when they find out they can't have kids cause their womb has turned to sand it can be a very difficult time for them. More difficult than for men, who can experience this same regret, just less often and less intensely.

    Realising you spent your career to be some bbc ghoul, or the county council manager, or even an MP or PM, and these achievements are supposed to substitute for a child you never had.
    Taking the magic baby makers, who are evolutionarily adapted to carry children with a stronger spine, and naturally gifted with kids compared with men.
    Who you can see children are naturally more fearful of, even where the man isn't doing anything wrong.
    He's simply not as emotionally well tuned to deal with babies, and appears more terrifying than any woman.

    It's a funny old world and when I listen to mainstream opinions, like tees, I do have to laugh.
    The tories are apparently through their propaganda turning the little englanders against the gays. But in my experience these people rarely have any issue with the L&Gs. They have issues with the Ts the naturally born men who say they are women, unsurprisingly women who say they are men don't cause any where near the same issues, Political LGbTQism and a failing education system. Rises in anti-LGBTQism on the right is likely a result of the gay mafia being put front and centre of the project. There are a load of gays etc who do not like Political Gayness.
    The tories were also hit with islamophobia and racism. But data I've seen suggests that where the Bame population is quite high you get a fair bit of homophobia.
    London the bame capital of England has more homophobia that the Northern gammon lands. In studies on attitudes London does not fair well on these affairs, 13% of londoners would not support a gay child of their own. 1% for norf fc gammons.
    Even some left wingers acknowledge that the mosque and the gay club are probably best kept in separate areas.
    And we see this self segregation in effect where people move to more homogeneous zones.
    Like when Ash Sarkhar was detailing the demographic displacement of white londoners, she referred to the increases in bames from reproduction and immigration, and the loss of whites who left the area.
    We're winnning, as any colonisers would see the displacement of natives. This insidious group are behaving in much the same manner as colonists in Americas past. No interest in native values, believe their own are better than the backward and primitive natives. Fuck the redskins, and fuck the gammons pink/red faced brits.

    Whilst left wingers look at Saudi Arabia with horror, they look at Iran a more natural ally for some in the Labour Party than Saudi Arabia a little kinder, then with Palestine LGBTQ is not even a priority. Then they look at Muslims in Britain as victims of islamophobia. Jts rather confused.
    Whereas I see Muslims in Britain as two kinds, one Muslims, and 2 left wing activists. Majority are Muslims.
    These two types are also a concern for Labour Party planners, a significant portion of the Labour vote after all. Labour being scared that if they are too islamophobic in the name of tackling homophobia the Muslims will form separate parties as they operate very similarly to the LGBTQists. You can find similar in the black community too.
    These communities and origin countries are still living under a system, where they simply can't maintain a population or deal with declines in the same manner.

    Outside of Western nations the refugee/migrant packages are nowhere near as lucrative. Countries can't compete so this Western lifestyle and planning is not really replicable. Its based on luxury. Let them eat cake kind of philosophy.
    In these shithole countries like Rwanda they won't get an easy ride as they do in the UK.
    This demographic colonisation of Europe is based on economics but it's also based on the revolutionary left in America.

    The left has jumped so far left, that we have the far right gays.
    Historically if you wanted to predict the outcomes of a tribe, or nation, you would find that those who had the highest positive and highest negative ethno-nationalist traits would do best.
    This essentially means that societies that thrived were very good to their own, and very hostile to the outsiders.
    Racism is evolutionarily adaptive in two senses, it prevents division forming within a society due to foreigners xenophobia/philia, and it keeps disease from spreading.
    Outside of the Western world this is largely still the norm, and you can find quaint little places where if you rocked up on their shores in your boat, they'd butcher you onsite. Ah fuck you to would be colonisers.

    Instead the Western world is now defined under a new paradigm of sorts.
    Polarisation is rampant within societies. With such change you have a lot of chaos.
    Positive relations within nations are party defined and even fractions within parties. Between parties, the relations couldn't be worse. Student doctor saying she wouldn't save or provide care to Bojo. Clearly not enough experience in the industry as even the worst cunts deserve medical attention. Army guys shooting at corbyn pictures. The constant smears, the wish of death on the other within your lands.
    It's not a wise path.

    The left has gone entirely xenophilic to the point where they are more racist than right wingers and better people because of their excess prejudice being socially just.
    While little englanders raise union Jack's or St George crosses, their opponents no longer accept these national symbols. Instead they are on their pride LGBTQism as an international symbol of global power. You could see this with the coming to team England with #DiversityIsOurStrength. Even Starmer I believe has felt the Labour Party needs to be a little pro-british to win back the racist working class whites who voted Tory.
    Yet so many excellent black athletes play for the white nations of Europe. But the reverse doesn't appear to occur due to the economic disparities.

    It's funny in Ireland we had a British gymnast as he couldn't qualify for the UK. We have had Bundee Aki a beast of a man of Samoan heritage qualify for Ireland Rugby as he lived in Ireland for 3 years. The erosion of what it means to be Irish.
    Meaning an Irish guy lost his Irish Jersey to a Samoan born in NZ because he played for Connaught for 2-3 years. The all blacks, England whoever largely all do it too.
    This theme also runs through other employment areas. Where developing nations lose trained staff to bigger economies. The brain drain.

    The division that arose over educational policy in the UK recently was an interesting phenomena.
    Jess Philips attributed the division between Islam and Pride over religious teachings on sex, was in fact provoked by far right enthusiasts.
    Love is love v let kids be kids.

    Here we see the ideas of ethnonationalism in effect through religious ideology. Religious nationalism, or globalism more sensibly.
    The LGBTQ v Islam.
    Both are very positive to their own, and very negative to outsiders. This predicts success and these two groups are the ones in the main you have to worry about. They can be as venomous as any snake, and as soft and fragile when they get any heat.
    Other strong groups, the Jews. And in America the right is much more assertive than in the UK.

    The American right has seen how these groups operate and have decided to mirror these groups to be more successful like them.
    If you defile the prophet, you run the risk of death. If you offend wokeys they come for your job and income.
    The squeaky wheel gets the grease, the crying baby gets the milk. It's not something I particularly like but in such matters its not unexpected. People will adapt successful strategies to get their side more power.

    Until such time as wokery is defeated, these conversations will not occur in the main. And without honest discussion good luck solving problems.

    People who value themselves above others based on their belief systems, rarely want to discuss the reality of their beliefs, as reality testing destroys subjective feelings/beliefs.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •