How come leftists accept that a person can be economically unsuccessful through no fault of their own. But when it comes to being sexually unsuccessful. The rules suddenly change. "lol shut up incel". Suddenly they believe in capitalism, no one is entitled to anything, everyone is responsible for their own destiny, and everyone gets exactly what they deserve in life. What makes the sexual free market so much more magically different than the economic free market? Why do they want to regulate the economic market so badly but not the sexual market? Why aren't they demanding equity, nationalization, collectivization, and redistribution when it comes to these particular assets?

>>81600951 (OP)
Do you think leftists operate logically lmao.

>>81600951 (OP)
You're kind of simplifying a situation that already doesn't exist.
1) people on the left think you have to be forced to make economic decisions
2) being alone is being being forced to make a choice because alone is default, while fed is not default
3) almost everyone who follows a few basic rules will improve their life. this is one thing normies agree on on both sides of the political spectrum
we can start with that

>>81600951 (OP)
>intersubjective interactive system
>normgroidopathic game theory mindsets
>"everyone is responsible for their own outcomes and gets what they deserve!!!"

>>81601001
being alone isn't*

>>81600951 (OP)
You ignore the fact that women are the more moral gender. Their character judgments are flawless. Even the lowest woman would rather date a poor, 500lb, wheelchair-bound retard who is a good person, than an evil football star with perfect facial aesthetics who makes $10M/year. Therefore, if you are incel, you deserve it.

>>81601001
Are people not forced to make romantic decisions? Accepting or rejecting a guy who is asking them out. Choosing to raise a child of a woman you impregnated or being a deadbeat dad?

>>81601084
there is a difference between doing something out of necessity, having options, and living a human life. which one would you like you talk about?

>>81601102
Yes but doesn't the lack of Starvation sort of undermine the logic of your statement? Hunger is no longer the issue. For thousands of years, poor people were skinny. They didn't have enough calories so they were underdeveloped.
Now poverty is associated with obesity, an abundance of calories. Now those calories could be from unhealthy sources like Soda, but it is still showing their problem isn't that they don't have enough food.

leftists have mastered the ancient art of opposing the free market and simultaneously supporting it

>>81601139
What does that have to do with anything we were talking about? There could be reasons you're alone that aren't your fault. and reasons that are your fault. Same with jobs. The difference is there is a larger group of people who don't struggle with these things and a minority that do.