Kiwifarms Gossip & Slap Fights KF General 2.0

[kiwifails]

Nope. It just pissess me off that people try to claim that personality is all that matters

No isn't everything but it's something and having a positive outlook and personally will get you a lot further than crying about it.

or how getting a job or showering will change anything.

Can't hurt can it?. Hopefully you don't stink as bad has your attitude because you reek.

I have tried everything people like you give as an advice and nothing works because I am ugly.

Prove it describing it using words that aren't just yourself loathing and having a pity party.

And it's really fustrating reading over and over again how people keep trying to deny reality and how choosy modern women are.

Woman have always been chosey. That's half the fun. And what makes it special. It's because She Chose me and them other dudes.

This is the problem with denying biology.

Yeah.how so?

A deaf person won't suddenly hear just because he tries everything. Sometimes things just aren't fixable.

Why you disabled? I'm in handicapable in some way? Then whats wrong with you?

Want me to make a dating app account and show how I get literally 0 likes?

Sure sounds special

 

[kiwifails]

There is an upside where these failed males will commit suicide or die early. They will never pass on their genes and the generations after them will be less autistic and entitled as a result.

 

[Incelking]

Why you disabled? I'm in handicapable in some way? Then whats wrong with you?

The comparison was meant to highlight the determinism of both cases.

Prove it describing it using words that aren't just yourself loathing and having a pity party.

Here's what I have done:
-got a degree
-became more outgoing
-joined clubs
-started dressing nicer
-started regularly exercising
-got a job and a career

Woman have always been chosey. That's half the fun. And what makes it special. It's because She Chose me and them other dudes.

There is a bit of a difference between choosy 20 years ago and now.
Women now can just sign up on tinder and get fucked by chad 1 hour after.
After that they will never ever consider average or below men.

No isn't everything but it's something and having a positive outlook and personally will get you a lot further than crying about it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656621000131?via%3Dihub

"Across four laboratory studies (total N = 2,679), target physical attractiveness and target race were the largest predictors of decisions in this hypothetical dating context, whereas user individual difference traits were poor predictors."

 

[youthful_ shannel]

2, Dating apps already confirmed that I am ugly

I said DON'T use Apps, you're the internet equivalent of a bitter divorcee with fried hair, anxiously stirring the olive in her cheap martini at the airport Ramada. But I'm sure you can be a nice person in real life.

 

[Nektar Geist]

I may be more bitter now than before

Uh huh?

but I still wouldnt call my personality shit

Gots to be trolling...

just ugly.

But what KIND of ugly?

claim that personality is all that matters

or how getting a job or showering will change anything.

It's not either or. You should try having a good personality AND the personal hygiene thing.

I have tried everything people like you give as an advice

Like what?

Sometimes things just aren't fixable.

... And sometimes they are... tried ECT yet?

Want me to make a dating app account and show how I get literally 0 likes?

I do. I think it would be funny, in fact, to keep it scientific, I'll post a couple of photos, start two other accounts to compare.

There is an upside where these failed males will commit suicide or die early

Touch wood.

will be less autistic and entitled as a result.

Not how it works.

Not really since ugly and autistic women will still breed passing on their faulty genes.

Oooooorrrrr... the women are breeding it out, with Super Fly Cary Grant Chads like wot I am.

No you shouldn't use a dating App,

You are no fun. You.

you've been too poisoned by the internet.

And the being a closet homosexual, don't forget that.

You gotta find a way to meet someone in real life.

Daniel Lopez prolly knows a few truck stops.

Whats the point of trying?

What's the point of NOT trying. Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think

got a degree

Everyone has a degree nowadays, what KIND of degree?

became more outgoing

What? Did you smile more?

joined clubs

Hell's Angels? They'll get you laid.

started dressing nicer

Nice-er? NIcer could mean you changed the puked encrusted jacket, but kept the slacks that stink of piss.

started regularly exercising

How regularly?

got a job and a career

Who'd hire a scary looking incel virgin like you? Don't lie, you are in the basement, awaiting mommy to bring goyslop.

There is a bit of a difference between choosy 20 years ago and now.

How old are you? If you are 30+, just fuck off.

Women now can just sign up on tinder and get fucked by chad 1 hour after.

But is it really that satisfying. Ofc, the direct pleasure of carnal knowledge, is tops, but there is more to life, y'know?

target race

Is it a race problem? Are you some mutt that can't get with Snow White?

 

[kiwifails]

The comparison was meant to highlight the determinism of both cases.

Here's what I have done:
-got a degree
-became more outgoing
-joined clubs
-started dressing nicer
-started regularly exercising
-got a job and a career

There is a bit of a difference between choosy 20 years ago and now.
Women now can just sign up on tinder and get fucked by chad 1 hour after.
After that they will never ever consider average or below men.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656621000131?via%3Dihub

"Across four laboratory studies (total N = 2,679), target physical attractiveness and target race were the largest predictors of decisions in this hypothetical dating context, whereas user individual difference traits were poor predictors."

Who hurt you?

 

[Boobie Bomb]

Who hurt you? Also, this is coming from the same site that has loads of real human and animal porn videos and pictures on KiwiFarms. Childporn and Lolicon are illegal but saving evidence that humans fuck animals let's keep them on Null's site so we can use that to show all furries fuck animals. Right......

 

[Nektar Geist]

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/need-help-addressing-the-claims-and-myths-made-by-the-media.207594/#post-20151858

https://archive.is/PvfpL

SOme kwiffar wants to remind us that Commie Farms isn't responsible for any deaths, and has a policy of (plausible deniability) "No Cow Tipping", so nobody ever messed with a cow for content (resulting in a physical assault) and DINDU NUFFIN EVA!!!

Or so says this newfag.

I once killed a cow. I shot a Plodwinson in Reno... just to watch him die.

 

[SwimStaffRubber]

Self awareness not detected

 

[Chrysler Building]

View attachment 78067
Self awareness not detected

Is this nigga actually blaming us for kwiffar being too pussy to post in a KF thread

 

[youthful_ shannel]

Is this nigga actually blaming us for kwiffar being too pussy to post in a KF thread

What, are they going to make fun of us because we realised Joshua is a tranny?

 

[fag0t v2]

There is an upside where these failed males will commit suicide or die early. They will never pass on their genes and the generations after them will be less autistic and entitled as a result.

They are always ewelcome to add themselves into "dying alone" list on ED before committing an hero.

 

[TheCIAGlowsInTheDark]

View attachment 78058
Who hurt you? Also, this is coming from the same site that has loads of real human and animal porn videos and pictures on KiwiFarms. Childporn and Lolicon are illegal but saving evidence that humans fuck animals let's keep them on Null's site so we can use that to show all furries fuck animals. Right......

We can sit here and discuss the ethics of lolicon in of itself but what we're seeing here is seeing Kiwis make the classic midwit argument known as the Authoritarian's Fallacy ("The Government made something illegal/legal so therefore it must be ethical"). A lot of people (online and IRL) make this classic mistake because they confuse Ethics (something in philosophy that doesn't contradict itself very often) with law (something that often contradicts itself and is always changing due to changes in attitudes towards that particular thing).

A classic example of this was Jim Crow laws where before the Civil Rights movement, they were justified because many saw them as a way to preserve racial purity and to prevent whites from becoming corrupted by black people (and also to spite the efforts from the Reconstruction Era after the American Civil War). Jim Crow was done away with because people realized the old Jim Crow laws were a load of horseshit that often gave the state the power to enact violence on people they didn't like )in this case blacks) and directly marginalized African Americans (Jim Crow was done away with because they were blatantly unethical).

If you want another example of why Ethics and Law are not the same thing, you can take the Armenian genocide as another example where the Truks (when they were the Ottoman Empire) genocided Amerninians because they refused to convert to Islam so the Turks got the state seal of approval to murder a bunch of Christians for not wanting to follow the words of Muhammad. This is why Ethics and Law are not the same thing because you would somehow have to justify things like Genocide as being Ethical because the state says so. Funny enough, the Authoritarian Fallacy is the same nonsense that many left-wing Breadtubers believe in because they know they can abuse their power using this kind of bullshit circular reasoning if they were to ever gain power to establish their version of communism.

It doesn't take more than a minute for any rational person to look at this and realize why this way of arguing doesn't hold any water. You would think Kiwi Farms would know this by now because they were the victim of this kind of bullshit reasoning not too long ago; the Christchurch shooting. If you recall, when Brenton Tarrant commit an act of mass murder towards a group of Muslim praying in a mosque, there were several world governments (especially New Zealand) where they used the opportunity to justify their anti-hate speech laws and go on a censorship spree to censor the Internet by censoring any perceived far-right content (especially with New Zealand trying to take down the GoPro footage of Brenton Tarrant gunning down Muslims) and many left-wingers were like "See? Laws that criminalize hate speech are good because they punish and prevent violent radicalization by the Extreme Right! We need to enact a global version of the Patriot Act for the Internet to stop the Right everyone!" to justify censoring the Internet as we know it.

Now going back to the topic at hand. Can we discuss the ethics of lolicon in the philosophical sense? Sure and no one stopping you from doing so. But if you're going to discuss this topic where you're going to use the 'muh-law = ethics' argument then you're going to look like a retard that thinks 2 + 2 = 5. If you ask me, a lot of the people on Kiwi Farms are no different from retards like Vaush where he also confuses law for ethics to justify his nonsense as well. It also shows how these people think where if they were to ever gain political power then they're going to make Stalin look like a walk in the park.

 

[kiwifails]

What, are they going to make fun of us because we realised Joshua is a tranny?

Josephine isn't a troon (S)he's an feminite sensitive Nu-male.

 

[kiwifails]

We can sit here and discuss the ethics of lolicon in of itself but what we're seeing here is seeing Kiwis make the same midwit argument known as the Authoritarian's Fallacy ("The Government made something illegal/legal so therefore it must be ethical"). A lot of people (online and IRL) make this classic mistake because they confuse Ethics (something in philosophy that doesn't contradict itself very often) with law (something that often contradicts itself and is always changing due to changes in attitudes towards that particular thing).

A classic example of this was Jim Crow laws where before the Civil Rights movement, they were justified because many saw them as a way to preserve racial purity and to prevent whites from becoming corrupted by black people (and also to spite the efforts from the Reconstruction Era after the American Civil War). Jim Crow was done away with because people realized the old Jim Crow laws were a load of horseshit that often gave the state the power to enact violence on people they didn't like )in this case blacks) and directly marginalized African Americans (Jim Crow was done away with because they were blatantly unethical).

If you want another example of why Ethics and Law are not the same thing, you can take the Armenian genocide as another example where the Truks (when they were the Ottoman Empire) genocided Amerninians because they refused to convert to Islam so the Turks got the state seal of approval to murder a bunch of Christians for not wanting to follow the words of Muhammad. This is why Ethics and Law are not the same thing because you would somehow have to justify things like Genocide as being Ethical because the state says so. Funny enough, the Authoritarian Fallacy is the same nonsense that many left-wing Breadtubers believe in because they know they can abuse their power using this kind of bullshit circular reasoning if they were to ever gain power to establish their version of communism.

It doesn't take more than a minute for any rational person to look at this and realize why this way of arguing doesn't hold water. You would think Kiwi Farms would know this by now because they were the victim of this kind of bullshit reasoning not too long ago; the Christchurch shooting. If you recall, when Brenton Tarrant commit an act of mass murder towards a group of Muslim praying in a mosque, there were several world governments (especially New Zealand) where they used the opportunity to justify their anti-hate speech laws and go on a censorship spree to censor the Internet by censoring any perceived far-right content (especially with New Zealand trying to take down the GoPro footage of Brenton Tarrant gunning down Muslims) and many left-wingers were like "See? Laws that criminalize hate speech are good because they punish and prevent violent radicalization by the Extreme Right! We need to enact a global version of the Patriot Act for the Internet to stop the Right everyone!" to justify censoring the Internet as we know it.

Now going back to the topic at hand. Can we discuss the ethics of lolicon in the philosophical sense? Sure. But if you're going to discuss this topic where you're going to use the 'muh-law = ethics' then you're going to look like a retard that thinks 2 + 2 = 5. If you ask me, a lot of the people on Kiwi Farms are no different from retards like Vaush where he also confuses law for ethics to justify his nonsense as well. It also shows how these people think where if they were to ever gain political power then they're going to make Stalin look like a walk in the park.

Lolicon should not be allowed as it is sexual material involving depictions of children. The only reason an individual might have for viewing such material is if they are sexually aroused by children or depictions of children, which makes them a pedophile. As with any sexual predator, it's best not to enable them.

 

[TheCIAGlowsInTheDark]

Lolicon should not be allowed as it is sexual material involving depictions of children. The only reason an individual might have for viewing such material is if they are sexually aroused by children or depictions of children, which makes them a pedophile. As with any sexual predator, it's best not to enable them.

I can easily counter that argument by saying lolicon is within the realm of fiction and it isn't much different from other outrageous forms of fictional content that already exists (such as the Grand Theft Auto games where the games are basically felony simulators that teaches gamers how to commit a violent crime and gives an idea of how the underground works but many aren't committing violent crimes because of Grand Theft Auto or the RPG Maker fan game called 'Super Columbine Massacre RPG' which is an indie game that retells the story of the Columbine High School massacre in the form on an RPG game).

Again, if you want to argue the ethics of being for or against something in the philosophical sense then that is fine in of itself.

But when I'm saying here is that the Kiwis are massive midwits for confusing law with ethics. Since many of the Kiwis lean more towards the far-right, the real reason why they want stuff like lolicon censored is because they know they can't justify censoring speech as an Ethical thing to do (much like how communists can't justify violating people's property rights as Ethical either) so they have to disguise their real beliefs by claiming that law = ethics.

Why do far-left midwits like Vaush justify law = ethics? Because Communists like him know damn well that if they were to show off their full power level (like wanting to abolish private property) then everyone is going to see Breadtubers and others on the far-left as evil that no one should ever take seriously. Why do far-right midwits that you find on places like Kiwi Farms also justify law = ethics? Because Fascists also know pretty damn well that violating people's individual rights (like censoring speech or violating other individual rights) won't sit well with most people either and the Fascist will continue being seen as evil so they have to hide their power levels by arguing that law = ethics as well.

The is what makes the Authoritarian's Fallacy as deceptively evil because it gets people to adopt bad and bullshit ideas under the guise of whatever pseudo-ethics that a person holding authoritarian beliefs is trying to sell to the general public. Law = ethics has and always will be a midwit way of thinking that leads to disastrous results (be it famine, political oppression, or a world war).

 

[kiwifails]

I can easily counter that argument by saying lolicon is within the realm of fiction and it isn't much different from other outrageous forms of fictional content that already exists (such as the Grand Theft Auto games where the games are basically felony simulators that teaches gamers how to commit a violent crime and gives an idea of how the underground works but many aren't committing violent crimes because of Grand Theft Auto or the RPG Maker fan game called 'Super Columbine Massacre RPG' which is an indie game that retells the story of the Columbine High School massacre in the form on an RPG game).

Again, if you want to argue the ethics of being for or against something in the philosophical sense then that is fine in of itself.

But when I'm saying here is that the Kiwis are massive midwits for confusing law with ethics. Since many of the Kiwis lean more towards the far-right, the real reason why they want stuff like lolicon censored is because they know they can't justify censoring speech as an Ethical thing to do (much like how communists can't justify violating people's property rights as Ethical either) so they have to disguise their real beliefs by claiming that law = ethics.

Why do far-left midwits like Vaush justify law = ethics? Because Communists like him know damn well that if he were to show his full power level (like wanting to abolish private property) then everyone is going to see Breadtubers like him as evil that no one should take seriously. Why do far-right midwits that you find on places like Kiwi Farms also justify law = ethics? Because Fascists also know pretty damn well that violating people's individual rights (like censoring speech or violating other individual rights) won't sit well with most people either so they have to hide their power levels by arguing that law = ethics as well.

The is what makes the Authoritarian's Fallacy deceptively evil because it gets people to adopt bad and bullshit ideas under the guise of whatever pseudo-ethics that a person holding authoritarian beliefs is trying to sell to the general public. Law = ethics has and always will be a midwit way of thinking that leads to disastrous results (be it famine, political oppression, or a world war).

Yeah I'm not reading all that I will say this if your jacking off to cartoon depictions of children real or otherwise then your sexually aroused by sexual imagery of children.
Which means that you have pedophile predilections.

 

[kiwifails]

Vaush jacks off to beastiality and lolicon he's a spiritual pedophile as well as a piece of shit. Any and all arguments he has can be boiled down to what I'm doing is okay because insert bullshit reason here.
That's the thing about leftist they talk out of their ass until shit comes out.

 

[TheCIAGlowsInTheDark]

Yeah I'm not reading all that I will say this if your jacking off to cartoon depictions of children real or otherwise then your sexually aroused by sexual imagery of children.
Which means that you have pedophile predilections.

I've never said that lolicon was moral either, do not put words in my mouth (I find lolicon to be pretty degenerate but I'm in the camp where I don't really care about what people consume online or IRL so long as the individual rights and property rights of others aren't being violated and because I have far better things to worry about in my life than caring about some Literately Who jacking off to a fictional cartoon character).

But we're going way too off topic.

It's not just lolicon, I see Kiwis make the same law = ethics argument with other shit they don't like either (whenever it's furries, anime, porn, Jews, blacks, etc). So it's for these reasons alone is why I see the Kiwis being not much different from the likes of Vaush or Hasanabi. Call it Horseshoe theory but Kiwis are just another group of social-political lolcows at this point.

 

[kiwifails]

I've never said that lolicon was moral either, do not put words in my mouth (I find lolicon to be pretty degenerate but I'm in the camp where I don't really care about what people consume online or IRL so long as the individual rights and property rights of others aren't being violated

Yeah I don't feel like supporting or passively dismissing an entire industry built around child predation. Pornography is not a individual right and neither is lolicon.

and because I have far better things to worry about in my life than caring about some Literately Who jacking off to a fictional cartoon character).

People like vaush have influence and reach as such they can influence and affect the outcome of others which can affect you on a societal level. This should be evident by his rabbit fan base that condone and promote his ideals.

But we're going way too off topic.

Then we can move the discussion elsewhere or not I don't care

It's not just lolicon, I see Kiwis make the same law = ethics argument with other shit they don't like either (whenever it's furries, anime, porn, Jews, blacks, etc). So it's for these reasons alone is why I see the Kiwis being not much different from the likes of Vaush or Hasanabi. Call it Horseshoe theory but Kiwis are just another group of social-political lolcows at this point.

That's because kiwi farmers are hypocrites. They themselves lack any kind of moral authority or ethical standing. If that's not evident by the many DM leaks exposing them for being degenerates coomers.

A lot of its projection the lol cows that they make fun of are generally no worse than themselves but it does make them feel better about being who they are by mocking others.