Thread 82241924

Gynocentrism is an evil

The clown-capitalist rat race is largely dependent on gynocentrism. Which is why you often see glowie-backed 'social leaders' counter signal against silly incel memetics. It is an attempt at preservation.

They only ever feed into 'misogynistic extremism' when they want to entrap an individual.

i posted this yesterday and was RUDELY IGNORED so im going to post this today in the hopes that you respond

Some counter-thoughts:

- Why exactly is gynocentrism evil?
- Do you think that the male simps who worship them and empower are in the moral wrong? And if so, what moral crime have they committed?
- Lets presume a world where we did not have gynocentrism at the expense of men. Would this world be a morally better place as it pertains to justice, than the current world, all else being equal?

Im just playing devil's advocate here... hrrmm....

>>82242455
Hm. Let me look into my notepad of copypastas...

>>82242489
yeah.. you just stated gynocentrism is evil without a good reason. why should anyone believe you?
also, about the relationships, i think the idea is they're suppose to benefit both parties, but often times they do disproportionally benefit the person with more power, usually being a girl, but sometimes chad

i just dont see a reason to think you're even right

>>82242414
yeah and feminism is bootlicker shit

>>82242455
>>82242489
>>82242518

all bootlicker posts from gynocentrists

>>82242455
gynocentrism is a good catch-all term to describe things backed by the mental impulse to pedestalize the female gender at the expense of another, whether it's about false rape accusations, antimonogamy or something small as beauty/dating standards (and much more). it is evil cuz it enables the parasitic inclinations of femininity at the expense of the psychic/emotional state of the man. again, there is so much more to add and elaborate on. the problem of gynocentrism could only be completed on a scroll the size of Mars.

the moral crime of male simps is ignorance and the stagnation of humankind. their putrid impulse to coddle the female (whether on a systemic level or a social level), stagnates the female and therefore stagnates humanity. we must all suffer to evolve to greatness. the idea of men being 'stoic providers' has gone on long enough and has become a humiliation ritual.

>a world where we did not have gynocentrism at the expense of men. Would this world be a morally better place as it pertains to justice, than the current world, all else being equal?
Ya but it would also be equal, the good kind. there is nothing equal about gynocentric morality. no balance. if anything, it parades around a mask of equality to hide and perpetuate its parasitic ways. word reality masking the dark reality.

>>82242518
Because you are a useful idiot for women. All your questions you asked in your previous post are subjective. Obviously a world favoring women is good for women and evil for men. Men who side with women like you are evil because you side against your own group for literally no benefit at all. Much like how anti-racists side against their own race for no benefit. The other races don't accept them like they would their own. It has never happened. People like you want everyone to forget there are group biases while other groups still operate on those biases. It inherently puts your group at a disadvantage. I would like more than anyone else to pretend humans dont separate themselves into groups and judge based off that, but that isnt how reality works. Im guessing you aren't religious, so what you believe in is a bigger fairytale than religion.

>>82242591
not just for women. these people are aligned with the paychopath elites whether they realize it or not

But they're not r

>>82242571
>it is evil cuz it enables the parasitic inclinations of femininity at the expense of the psychic/emotional state of the man

see, my intuition is inclined to think that these men deserve it
a great amount of men are moral trash. they cheat, steal, abuse power, kill animals, eat meat, lie, and are smug about it. my intuition is that men, by and large, are moral trash who dont deserve paradise

and in a way, gynocentrism denies them that, which would intuitively be a good thing, if its the case that most men are moral trash

>the moral crime of male simps is ignorance and the stagnation of humankind
not just ignorant, but willfull epistemic ignorance on the nature of females, and willful obedient slavery to the powerful without any critical thinking

> there is nothing equal about gynocentric morality. no balance
really? to me it seems like a punishment for men, and it seems like a lot of them deserve it

>>82242591
>Obviously a world favoring women is good for women and evil for men
i would argue such a world is good overall, good in terms of justice and good in and of itself, if its the case that men are moral evil trash. and it does seem to be that men are such people

>Men who side with women like you are evil because you side against your own group for literally no benefit at all.
just because something doesnt benefit me doesnt mean its wrong. for example, it doesnt benefit me to always try to tell the truth, but its still the right thing to do. what is moral and good is not always what benefits me. that is the philosophy of the self-centered hypocrite (you)

>>82242651
>it doesnt benefit me to always try to tell the truth, but its still the right thing to do.

gynocentrism is evil and you're a misandrist woman. plain and simple.

>>82242657
https://voca.ro/16q9zXgCdIsE
i am inclined to find men despicable, as that is just an entailment of philosophical misanthropy, which is a strong position im inclined towards

>>82242651
>i would argue such a world is good overall, good in terms of justice and good in and of itself, if its the case that men are moral evil trash. and it does seem to be that men are such people
So basically "it is good because it just is". Very insightful.
>just because something doesnt benefit me doesnt mean its wrong.
No, it pretty much does. You are just a retarded self-hating cuckold. Congrats on not drawing me to your side.

>>82242669
i get that but gynocentrism is still evil and you're still misandrist.

>>82242682
>So basically "it is good because it just is". Very insightful.
no, anon. thats a strawman, thats not what i said
i said that in a world were men are moral trash, are morally bad people, they dont deserve paradise
they dont deserve good things, like harems or prime girls or love
and gynocentrism, an opressive philosophy that benefits women at the expense of men, would be a good thing, because it would be a punishment for men

>No, it pretty much does
thats now how morality works, anon. that is an is-ought fallacy. just because it is the case that it would benefit you, doesnt entail that its moral to do

by this logic, a child serial killer and rapist could say "its a good thing for me to rape and kill children, because it benefits me", which would be wrong, now wouldnt it

low key, this is why im actually a low key feminist. because men are such moral trash, they deserve the cancer that is feminism

>>82242701
gynocentrism is not evil; its a punishment. and men deserve to be punished because they are moral trash. moral trash deserves all of its suffering, because its justice. morally garbage people, dirtbags, hypocrites, evil people, deserve to suffer, and thus, you deserve gynocentrism, the draft, feminism, and the rest of these woes

>>82242703
Your entire argument boils down to "men are trash so they deserve to be mistreated and abused". You can use all the middleschool debate terms you want to make it look better, but that is it. Ideally, you would just be killed in a just world. You actively work against your own for no benefit at all. I have never ever seen a man be treated better just because he is a little pussy like you.

>>82241924 (OP)
Yup yup. It's responsible for everything wrong in this world.

>>82242709
I understand that you support it because of resentment but gynocentrism is still evil.

>>82242651
>cheat, steal, abuse power, kill animals, eat meat, lie,
With capabilities of creation comes the capabilities of destruction. It is far more better than being a perpetually dependent and flabby animal.

>>82242716
>"men are trash so they deserve to be mistreated and abused".
yes. this is justice. morally evil people deserve to suffer. this is good in and of itself. this is a redistribution philosophy of justice

>Ideally, you would just be killed in a just world.
why? i didnt do nothing wrong besides question your self-serving belief system

>You actively work against your own for no benefit at all
there is no more beautiful and good thing in existence than justice. justice is the ONLY virtue, the highest virtue, where all other virtues comes from. it is, arguably, the ONLY good thing in and of itself
and if justice demands that i suffer, then it is good that i suffer

> I have never ever seen a man be treated better just because he is a little pussy like you.
thats ok im not trying to get closer to being liked by people i despise
im only trying to get closer to understanding justice
and you have no said anything that would convince my opinion otherwise

>>82242747
whats preferable in terms of wellbeing is not necessarily what is moral. again, that is the is-ought fallacy

heres a youtube video about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT7yXG2aJdY

and i do find it ironic you smugly lord power, like its something to be respected, with the soon advent of asi, which will make all human power obsolete. a great humbling experience, if you will

>>82242770
no then it obviously means innocent and just men who've sacrificed way more than you suffer because of gynocentrism, and that isn't just. so off that basis you're wrong and a hypocrite and have defeated your own argument. and don't worry your misanthropy will warrant its suffering.

>>82242770
>thats ok im not trying to get closer to being liked by people i despise
>im only trying to get closer to understanding justice
>and you have no said anything that would convince my opinion otherwise
That's fine. Because at the end of the day, I dont hate myself and dont push ideology that teaches others to hate themselves either, so I will outlast you.

>>82242778
> the is-ought fallacy
100% of humanity.

it just so happens this 'morality' leads to goodness and inflicts the right kind of suffering on the right kind of people. there is no logic that needs to be justified. gynocentrism is spiritually ugly and the only ones who says otherwise are unconsciously lying.

>>82242800
yes, but the problem is, i have provided some arguments as to why its a GOOD thing that we live in a gynocentrist society. and the only thing you did was try to shame me, call me a cuckold, "i will outlast you", say that i hate myself, etc

and you have not explained why im wrong. havent even presented counter arguments or even other plausible ideas as to why gynocentrism is wrong

>>82242793
really?
because on the basis of moral desert, that is, the idea that evil people deserve to be worse off, then you could argue that women DO deserve to be better off

first of all, females outnumber males in veganism 5 to 1. for every male vegan there is 4 or 5 females. in protests ive been to before, i was literally the only guy... its actually extremely depressing to see my sex be that moral trash

second of all, i heard of arguement that say that females arent really logical deliberate creatures, unlike males. this would, in a way, would make them LESS morally culpable for their actions, much like how a child is not fully developed enough to discern right from wrong. im not sure how i feel about this line of reasoning, because i dont know how a females brain and decision making process work. but it is something i heard thats semi-plausible, based on the data ive seen

third of all, females commit much less rapes, murder, theft, violent crimes. cope all you want; its true. maybe they would do so if they could, but they cannot, and thus are innocent, as opposed to men who can and do these things (and are guilty of them)

again, men are NOT MORALLY INNOCENT. a great number of them are moral trash. if what ought be justice (which to me seems true), then i dont know how you can defend men

>>82242882
No, you actually have not provided a single argument for why it is good. You just said men = bad women = good. This is exactly why you will die out.

>>82242882
you already defeated your own argument.
if people suffer unjustly under a system, then it isn't just, and thus, it isn't good. you wishing for unjust suffering onto others because of your misanthropy is also unjust. take your L buddy. gynocentrism is still evil. i don't even hate women.

>>82242882
Also, look up who commits the most infantcides. Not abortion. But infantcides. You slipped a little bit there saying "maybe they would if they could". Well, women can easily kill kids and do.

>>82242911
>No, you actually have not provided a single argument for why it is good
the idea comes from moral desert. its a philosophy of justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_(philosophy)

the basic idea is that evil people (moral trashcans like most men) dont deserve great wellbeing
they dont deserve beautiful korean girls falling in love with them
they dont deserve to have lots of money and be rich
they dont deserve sexual validation with hot sluts

it would be like giving a child killer a million dollars for what he did, instead of putting him in prison for the rest of his life. its intuitively repulsive to most people to reward wellbeing (sex, love, money, power, looks, status) to evil people like child killers

>This is exactly why you will die out
no ill die out because no qt asian girl likes me

>>82242917
>if people suffer unjustly under a system, then it isn't just, and thus, it isn't good
im inclined to think this is correct!

>you wishing for unjust suffering onto others because of your misanthropy is also unjust
first of all "wishing for unjust suffering" is a extremely loaded thing to say, and a strawman. i never said that, please dont strawman me

i wish for justified suffering on those evil who deserve it
and second of all, i dont wish suffering to people because of my misanthropy. just because i dont like you doesnt mean i wish that you'd suffer
third of all, i think id wish suffering to people if i think they deserve it, like a child killer being sent to a brutal prison

>i don't even hate women
thats because you are a cuckold in your heart and you are wilfully blind to the truths of female nature and being

>>82242952
So again, your argument is just men bad because men bad. The fact you even try to disguise it as some deeper moral philosophy is pathetic. I see you also conveniently ignored the post about infantcide.

>>82242922
one defense of women would be my point about them essentially being children who have a harder time understanding right from wrong. like their brain is emotional and not logically coherent. but it does sort of feel weak. its kind of a "reaching" defense

im inclined to agree that abortions and infanticide are wrong, and females do them all the time. yes, females are moral trash for this reason, and this is a great point as to why i have ZERO sympathy for the modern roastie, on god

but that still doesnt make men any better. or invalidate the idea that men's moral trashcan character doesnt justify a gynocentric society. it just means that it would be a good thing if women we were off because of their love of killing their own children to ride the cock carousel

>>82242978
So like I originally said, you are literally just a braindead cuckold and execuse away any action a woman does with "she is just childish and doesnt know any better".

>>82242989
hes a bootlicker in the grass

>>82242414
>Marriage is the ultimate humiliation ritual for the man. Yeah this has been known.
>buy me a ring
>pay for everything
>entertain me
>make me cum, chop chop
>also wage for me so I can NEET for the rest of my life teehee.

>>82243008
yeah, im done arguing with him. he's either a troll or mentally ill, but i am not drunk enough anymore to find him even a little bit entertaining.

>>82242960
>your argument is just men bad because men bad
no, my argument is that men are bad because of the morally bad decisions they make. and thus its a good thing they suffer and are worse off because of it. which sort of entails gynocentrism and feminism

i tried to argue in good faith. please dont strawman me

>>82242989
hrmm...
if its the case that women are childlike and incompetent in their decision making, then yes, that would sort of entail that they arent as morally responsible for their actions, if at all responsible. its just what entails, unfortunately

but then, some would argue it would also entail that giving them power would be akin to giving children power, which would be wrong because children dont know what they're doing and arent capable of having power. ( this is all based on free will and how the brain works and makes decisions, all of which im very ignorant of)

im really not sure how i feel about to what degree you can hold someone accountable for their actions
if someone is really impulsive, and they steal a can of dr pepper, is the same thing as someone who deliberately thought about doing it and thought about it extensively? i dont know
if someone is really stupid or incapable of understanding an idea (like that fetuses are sentient, can suffer, and behave in a way to indicate they dont want to die), to what degree could they be held accountable for their advocacy of abortion?

im not entirely sure. but i think the idea is that if it is the case that you are competent enough to understand and make a decision, then it would follow that you are morally responsible for this decision

>>82243008
anon please dont insult my character by insinuating i respect or like roasties, thank you

>>82241924 (OP)
The matriarchy is the reason why rapes even happen.

>>82242709
I agree even though your probably a woman and our idea of moral trash is different.

>>82241924 (OP)
Yeah foids are evil and they turned most men into subhumans.

>>82241924 (OP)
another anon tired of this natural system? I tip my hat to you, I feel nothing but hatred against nature. its beautiful to find someone that shares the same spite for gods creation

>>82243061
poor argument in comparison, people commit crimes because of unresolved emotions or a system they live under constantly keeps them under the boot. Obviously they will do horrible actions in order to either live or a cry for help. People arent hostile against something simply because they are evil, thats more religious dogma of people who cant explain causality outside of right and wrong. That's like saying communists are punished because they want to revolt. thats retarded, they revolt because their needs are ignored and are deemed as lesser by the system they toil under so they revolt. An established system or power cant meet everyone's needs so the people left behind will be hostile against it, the people that benefit under the system dont want that change because then they will lose their benefits. So its not about women's morality,its about how they can benefit under the system that kept them in a safe spot for many eons. That's why women favor the natural system over men. because nature is inherently gynocentric.

>>82244870
>people commit crimes because of unresolved emotions or a system they live under constantly keeps them under the boot
wrong. that accounts for SOME of the reasons why they do so, but it fails to account that atleast SOME of their crimes are not forced by circumstances and were willfully deliberated on and consciously accepted

you cannot just casually dismiss all moral responsibility with "but my tummy hurted waaa"

>People arent hostile against something simply because they are evil
thats not true at all. it would seem if people can freely choose their actions, then at SOME point in human history, some of them did morally evil things simply because they chose to do so. its almost an inevitable given enough time

>thats more religious dogma of people who cant explain causality outside of right and wrong
huh? what does religion have anything to do with this? that sounds like a strawman? i dont bring religious scripture into this? please dont strawman me with religion, thank you!

>That's like saying communists are punished because they want to revolt
well, i think revolt in this case is the highly contentious point. but that is a false analogy to what im saying, because political revolt, it would seem, is a GREY area subject. its not obvious whether its a morally good or bad thing
and this is dis-analogous, because, by definition, "evil actions" are morally bad, by definition. whatever those actions might be, like lighting innocent children on fire, for instance

> An established system or power cant meet everyone's needs so the people left behind will be hostile against it
sure, but how does that entail that people cant do morally evil things or cant be held morally reponsible?
surely atleast SOME of the powerful elites engage in needlessly evil things?

>So its not about women's morality
i think i was saying that it was about men's morality, in particular their shit moral failings as people

>>82244870
>,its about how they can benefit under the system that kept them in a safe spot for many eons. That's why women favor the natural system over men. because nature is inherently gynocentric.

i do think that women disproportionately benefit from society, and im sure they favor it (as it benefits them), and i also suppose that it is in their nature to be power-seeking and continue to perpetuate a system (like our gynocentric world) that further seeks to benefit and empower them, at the expense of men

ill concede they do this, but my point is that, its not intuitively obvious why this is MORALLY wrong, because so many men are moral trash evil people, and thus could be argued deserve it

like simps, for instance. simps are really pathetic people who dont care about morals and just worship females. i dont see how anyone could have sympathy for them

>>82245038
if your argument against men is because of the simps then I can agree, but your posts went well beyond that to murderers and rapists, and meat eaters. Which either women choose or the men left behind will behave like this. In this case if the women choose those types of men how would they be any morally different? do those women too not deserve to be killed and cheated on for perpetuating the cycle of hostility and violence through favored mating selection? it seems to ne men are the product of the natural meat grinder and are supposed to obey the fundamental laws of it to keep life givers safe at all cost. as if we are nothing but mindless meat shields in the eyes of nature. and men bend to the will of women despite the false sense of dominance the female peppers into the man for manipulation purposes. it seems like an unfortunate design of creation at this point.

>>82245245
>if your argument against men is because of the simps then I can agree, but your posts went well beyond that to murderers and rapists, and meat eaters
yes. i think men are largely moral trashcans

>Which either women choose or the men left behind will behave like this
you can argue that women choose violent shit men (and i think they do), but thats irrelevant as they're still morally trashcan men. just because they were sexually selected for doesnt abrogate them from moral agency

>In this case if the women choose those types of men how would they be any morally different?
because genetics is not destiny if people can the ability to choose against their genetically forced inclinations. this is the "free will" defense against genetic determinism. personally im REALLY not sure how much i even believe it, but it is a reasonable and popular defense. many days im very sympathetic to genetic determinism

>do those women too not deserve to be killed and cheated on for perpetuating the cycle of hostility and violence through favored mating selection?
yeah well i suppose it could be argued that reproducing and bearing the children of evil people is wrong in and of itself, so i suppose females would be morally guilty of this. but thats sort of irrelevant to the point about men being evil

the rest of your post was about men being a product of their environement and gentics, but i addressed this with my free will defense

>as if we are nothing but mindless meat shields in the eyes of nature
you made a point about the eyes of nature, but i dont care about nature because nature has nothing to do with morals

> and men bend to the will of women despite the false sense of dominance the female peppers into the man for manipulation purposes
this is just a descriptive fact of reality, not really any point or argument?

>>82245324
>you can argue that women choose violent shit men (and i think they do), but thats irrelevant as they're still morally trashcan men. just because they were sexually selected for doesnt abrogate them from moral agency
its very much relevant because people arent moral because we have adapted to survival mode for as long as time can tell. If something is favorable and rewarded, said behavior is going to persist. and morality doesn't seem to be far off from this conditional reward and punishment system either or the way it is portrayed. Regardless how it is reworded this will always be the fundamental concept of pretty much anything. making morality more of a whimsical idea.

>yeah well i suppose it could be argued that reproducing and bearing the children of evil people is wrong in and of itself, so i suppose females would be morally guilty of this. but thats sort of irrelevant to the point about men being evil
not not really irrelevant, you birth what you perceive to be as evil people, evil people will be the perpetrators of future generations in turn creating morally evil men. its basic cause and effect.

>you made a point about the eyes of nature, but i dont care about nature because nature has nothing to do with morals
thats because morality itself doesn't exist outside of thoughts, we can mimic it but it wont truly be held up to the standards we wish it would be held up to.

>this is just a descriptive fact of reality, not really any point or argument?
isnt that what an argument is supposed to be?

>>82242571
>I wouldn't have appreciated him when I was younger
do women not realize that feels like a slap in the face?

>>82245387
yeah. if you reject free will entirely (as a lot of top philosophers do), then nobody is ultimately responsible for their actions, as everything is cause and effect from a previous action

this is a perfectly respectable and (depressingly) strong line of reasoning. id have to defend free will for there to be moral responsibility, and i really dont know how to do that. i just conveniently assume its there for my sanity, but i cant actually defend it

>thats because morality itself doesn't exist outside of thoughts
see, i think id have to disagree...
moral realism, the idea that morals exist independently of any human, is a strong position, i think

lets look at math. i think most people would say that math is an objective truth that exists outside of space, time, and anyone's ability to perceive it. its "real" by but of any physical existence
it would seem morals are also of this domain, and the same arguments we use to argue for math realism, we could argue for moral realism

i dont think its so easy to claim morals dont objectively exist