/random/ - random

>>167467

It does not seem possible to be from the UK and not be left wing. Are you poor? It's normal to only have sex with or befriend people who look like you.

>>167470

>>167470

>>167470 I'm actually from nz but my I'm a British citizen. I just refrain from mentioning nz on the internet bc everyone always immediately starts talking abt Brenton Tarrant

>>167476 not that Brenton Tarrant is bad

>>167476

They both are left wing.

You don't have to be left-wing if you're bi, that's a fabricated consensus.

My opinion is this: Not finding most or even all people of a certain race attractive is not racist at all. Crossing off certain races from the get-go - as in you don't even consider if you find a given person attractive, you just reject them out of principle - is probably a little racist but no big deal. Doing that because you feel it's wrong and tainting, and you can't articulate a good reason why you feel that way - that sounds pretty damn racist. It doesn't mean you're a bad person if you treat them fairly outside of dating, though.

Also, telling a woman when she rejects you "you'll change your mind when you get a taste of my big dick" is hella weird.

>>167490

It is true. If you don't, you will be socially ostracized for being against your own interests.

>>167467

Are you here for good girl points coming to a place to announce an entirely popular position?

Yeah, that is completely normal and most women think like this, they just have been repeatedly told that they are not allowed to have racial preference. Most women will say they don't think like this but they do. You can tell when women realise something is shameful and gross, because they will use it to shame or socially destroy other women.

Women will say having a high body count doesn't matter at all but then will "accidentally" mention to a guy they like that another woman (who they see as competition) is a slut, or something like "oh you know she is really brave and is able to explore her sexuality, I wish I was as able to deal with that as her but I am just more a relationship girl". They know that will sabotage his perspective of her. Similar thing for race mixing. Women know how women and men really feel about it, but they simply can't be outward with it as it would make them "racist" which is basically a synonym for "bad" in the modern world.

The whole concept of racism is ridiculous and was invented to be Anti-White and to destroy White societies, which it has been very successful in doing, allowing massive immigration that is destroying White countries because "It would be racist to deport them/only allow people from certain countries".

I could never look at a White woman that has had sex with a Coloured with respect. It is corrupting and is a permanent stain. I do feel bad for women that get psy-oped into thinking it is ok and then ruin themselves though.

>>167540

That lying proves my wolf and sheep theory.

>>167540

I don't recognize labels like racism but not always. Once you are infected by the social virus, it is very difficult to break out unless you are a wolf.

>>167542

I'm not sure what that means. If you mean people lie, then yeah. Women especially have to as being outwardly aggressive and confrontation isn't acceptable if you are a woman, so you have to be clever and play social games. It isn't their fault, just how they are. Men have to be a certain way with things, so do women. Most people conform to society and it is good that they do. If they didn't society would collapse and no one would work together as no one would ever be able to agree on anything.

>>167543

You can refuse to recognise the concept of racism and not be a dick. You can still be polite and cordial to other races, you just have rules that are moral and just. You don't have to run around calling every random black person a nigger or throwing rocks at Asian people, you just have a greater moral obligation to your own people. Just like it is right for a man to put his family, his wife and children first and give them special treatment. He would be immoral for not prioritising them. Obviously your race isn't as close as your direct family, but they are your extended family, ultimately - and some of your extended family can be dicks, but they are still your family, you owe them at least a reasonable respect.

>>167546

Yes, that's why I noticed in the wolf and sheep theory and through independent research that wolves conform too.

It is impossible to not be polite to other races in real life. I don't respect the lives of many bugs because they are not weak. I respect the lives of most non-bugs because they pose a direct threat to my life. Humans, dogs, cats, birds, are very dangerous. My aim is bad. When my aim is bad, intent goes out of the window.

>>167550

Fish are dangerous too. They are unpredictable.

>>167551

>>167550

You seem a little out there but I hope you are doing ok.

>>167563

It is impossible to know someone's true intent.

>>167564

Cogito ergo sum

>>167565

What are you thinking?

>>167566

It means "I think therefore I am", which conveys the idea that you can only truly know that you exist, and everything else is not truly verifiable. It is Descartes, trying to go back to what he can 100% be certain of, and he determined he could only be certain that he existed. It was following "it is impossible to know someone's true intent".

>>167572

If a "sheep" commits a wolf act, they are a wolf.

>>167575

I don't think you are following me but that's fine, doggo.

>>167576

I am a sheep, not a dog.

>>167467

Isis, fuck you.

>>167591

I don't think they are Egyptian.

>>167467

It isn't racist, you just have common sense. All race mixing does is DESTROY racial diverisity.

>>167467

Not being attracted to a certain race is fine. I don't think it is racist. It is a matter of preferences

I feel like saying that it is tainting to be romantically involved with someone who is not white is a bit racist. But then again it's just a matter of phrasing it correctly. Saying that it is tainting implies that they are dirty. I don't know if you truly believe that or if it is just badly expressed

As long as you are fine with interacting with them outside of what is considered sexual or romantic it's fine I believe

>>167467

You're a fag anyway so just rope

>>167801

Heterosexuality is a sin. It's animal-like, based on primitive instincts to perpetuate the species. Homosexuality is blessed, it can only exist thanks to ascended, heavenly qualities like tolerance. If you aren't a faggot or at least a half-faggot, you will burn in hell for eternity.

>>167805

Both are wrong for different reasons.

>>167805

That's false. Everyone is multisexual.

>I'm a white British girl and I'm bisexual

Are you into pegging?

>>167939

Pegging is a stupid concept. Fake sex uses toys. Real sex uses organs.

<"i'm a grill :3"

>control plus f tits or gtfo

>zero results

[-]

>>167627

Firstly, they are dirty. Logically, if intercourse with them makes you feel tainted, they must be dirty. "I don't want to have sex with a massive smelly fat guy, it would make me feel tainted" "No you can't say that, that implies that massive smelly fat people are dirty, you can't say that." Why? People can choose to feel anyway they want about having or not having sex with someone. Telling someone they have to be ok with it, and aren't allowed to feel that it is gross, or that you have to consider certain sexual acts good when you are disgusted by them is you trying to force sexual libertine morality on them.

Secondly, you don't have to fine with interacting with them either. That is your choice. Freedom of association is very important. People being allowed to have the friends they want, have groups, clubs, social events for the people they want makes people comfortable and more likely too contribute to others around them. When you force people to do otherwise, you are tyrannising them. "No, you have to let a man into your woman's book club", "No you must be friends with this person you don't like because I deem the reason you give wrong, so if you don't spend time with them you are a bad person". Incredible tyranny and arrogance.

>>168045

How are they dirty? Is it an objective fact? Or an opinion? I believe that anyone can be dirty. A black man can be dirty. A black man can also be clean. A white man can be dirty. A white man can also be clean

If OP's statement about feeling tainted has a subjective drive that she acknowledges then it's fine provided she does not publicly state that she feels tainted because that might cause her problems. People will label her as racist and get angry about it. It can easily be avoided by phrasing it differently. I am trying to express this idea with «a bit racist». Is it wrong? In this case no. I do not believe that such a thing can always be controlled. It falls under the umbrella of sexual preferences

Sexual preference is a right. I myself would feel tainted if I had to have sex with a man. I find the idea of it extremely repulsive and humiliating even. I do not go around stating that in this way however because people would get angry and call me a misandrist. I already have enough to deal with. I do not need more problems

If OP's statement is driven by a belief that «people who are not white are dirty» is a fact then it is absolutely racist. By definition. I am inclined to believe that this is true since I believe that she is behind the pregnancy post where she states that other races are inferior

Whether racism is right or wrong is another question. I do not believe that it is right to mistreat someone or consider them inferior because of something they cannot control. I would dislike it if rich people stomped on me because I was not born with a silver spoon whereas they were. They do it anyway but I still think it is unfair. And I believe that if I dislike this then I have no right to inflict a similar treatment to others. Especially since the odds of being born non-white are quite high. If one believes that racism is right then it is ultimately their problem

Interacting with people and being actively involved with people are different things. Friendships and romantic relationships and the things you mention are part of the latter. You do have freedom of association therefore you can choose who you do that with. But the odds that you have to interact with a person who is not white are non negligible. In such a case I believe that basic ethics should be respected. If you are working as a cashier and the client is black you are not going to treat them rudely. If you do so because you think they are sub-human then you are racist. And it will generally not be accepted by the general public

Once again it is ultimately your life and you are free to do whatever you want but behaving in such a way because you believe that they are inferior as a fact is racist by definition and whether racism is right or wrong is once again another matter

I believe that OP's main worry is how people perceive her. I think that she doesn't want to be called racist by others because that would cause problems. It is an assumption however and she is free to correct me

I never called OP a bad person. You are putting words in my mouth. I do not like it when people do that. And either way I do not believe that good or bad are judgements that can be applied to people. An action can be bad. A person cannot be bad. If I ever called a person bad then it was driven by anger. But it is not something that I truly believe. And in fact I am pretty sure that I never did that even as a child

I am not trying to force morality either. I want to refine my own morals and knowledge. It already is a tedious task. I cannot afford to spare efforts in order to correct people since most people do not wish to be corrected and hence behave in an extremely obstinate way. I am open to logical conversations. I do not wish to waste time on discussions driven by feelings

I should have detailed my first comment to make it clear. Apologies

>>168046

Well, what you can't control is a spectrum. What you can't change does not mean what you can't control. It's not a problem. Every social counterargument is always temporary because most people in that environment cannot handle being for a taboo for so long. You can't control your response. The disgust response is blinding on both sides, proracism and antiracism. It's impossible to be neutral in every situation.

It's always, "You fit this definition," accompanied by social ostracization and disdain.

Racism is a low priority thing for most people. A job matters more.

It means the person is a socially bad sheep. You will not meet over 99% of people in this world so private views and labels are redundant. I don't care about most things except for physical reality.

>>167959

Okay, but I didn't ask you, and a woman can't fuck an ass with their vagina, retard.

>>168046

It doesn't matter if it is an opinion, but I'm going to say it is a fact. To sleep with someone way beneath you, especially as a woman, is dirty. Negroes are below Whites, many levels below. Not their "fault" really I suppose but it is the truth.

Whether or not you go around telling everyone "I would not fuck you" is up to you and is generally a retarded and pointless thing to do, but if a group of people that you find disgusting keep coming up to you being like "Hey wanna fuck or go out" that is insulting to you regardless of intent so when they are like "hey why not" or even as is likely from them "hey you never go out with black guys, you a racist" then going "yeah I do not date black guys" and they respond with "muh dicc" or get angry haven't they easily earned "fuck you, you are dirty"?

I think it is immoral for a black man to even approach a white woman with a romantic or sexual intention anyway and I'd be more comfortable in a society where that got them lynched for doing so. It is crossing a deep moral line. White women are off limits, at least that is how a moral society would see it.

If more women, though a bit of a little attention whore OP probably is, were clear about their disgust for non-whites in any romantic or sexual context instead of keeping it hidden (though I understand why they do given society bullies them over it), I would respect them more as it is essentially a woman saying "I respect myself and my own race, I understand my value, and I wouldn't do something gross and immoral".

Yeah I don't treat random blacks badly but perhaps if people did they wouldn't be in our countries making them objectively worse, and women are victimised because they are. One white woman is worth more than a thousand of them, so being "mean" to them so they aren't here, if it saves one white woman from being assaulted (and it would save far more) then it is justified.

I'm not mad though anon, perhaps I seem salty but maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I just have strong views about this as is completely natural and moral.

>>168105

It is obvious that how your race is viewed is dictated by wealth. East Asians were treated badly before they climbed up the ladder and became rich. All white people worship East Asians and all East Asians worship white people. If black people have a civilization with western values, and other black countries follow. First World blacks will be proud of their heritage. All countries are defined by their governments and multinational corporations. The purchasing power, GDP, soft power, and public services dictate how the people are seen on the global stage. A Japanese woman gets millions of questions just for saying she is from Japan.

>>168107

It isn't dictated by wealth, though historically wealth over many generations can be an indicator of a people's quality.

>All white people worship East Asians

I'm not sure where you are getting this from because that just isn't true.

By the rest of your comment I assume you think all people are equal and anyone can just make a functioning successful government, and compete at an equal level. That just isn't true. Negroes are simply racially inferior because they has no selection pressure towards intelligence, conscientiousness, creativity etc... because of the environment of Africa which they lived. They were in the Stone Age when we showed up, not even having the wheel.

East Asians are obviously far above Blacks but still below Whites. They are intelligent but are like bugs, lacking creativity and a spirit of liberty. They lack empathy and a value for life. They are perfectly capable of running complex systems however, following rules (when they are set for them), appreciating hierarchy and respect, even though they don't understand them in the same way as Whites. Negroes will never succeed at doing anything like this unless they went through massive levels of selection to the point they basically weren't the same people, we are talking a mass eugenics campaign for over 1,000 years. It is testament to the power of modern liberal indoctrination that people in the West can look at modern historical and current Negro Africa and pretend that there isn't a very clear indication of inferiority in how they live and have achieved (or not).

East Asian women are a popular race sex fetish for White guys because they are cleaner than other races (body and clean society compared to some others), are able to run an organised society and take orders well, aren't unpredictably violent, and essentially do worship White people in a sense of realising "wow they really are above us, even if we deny it a bit" and so slot White people into a worshipped position, which often leads to sexual worship as well. That makes East Asian women an obvious fetish playground for degenerate White guys, seeing there are way more of them than there are of us and a below average White guy can go around receiving a level of sexual worship from higher tier (within their race) Asian women than he could get from his own women. A lot of those dudes are pretty fucking skeevy and mistreat the women too so it is pretty morally questionable when looked at deeply. White people like East Asians simply because "something different/exotic/interesting that is alien but not massively dangerous in the modern world that also basically kisses your feet", it is a positive response to very strong praise and is quite one sided.

The dealing with them for trade and money is purely a self-interested affair because they have a massive population that they are willing to use as an almost slave force with few rights for very cheap production. That isn't respect, and many Asians are aware of this and do have some understandable resentment because of it.

>>168113

Black people have many high tier wolves. It's that they never liked innovation which is valued today. Innovation is a valuable trait because social conformity forced the majority to love it. Europe is small compared to Africa. Europeans had the Middle East and Asia to trade with. They prioritized material goods. Black people innovated locally to solve problems and traded in their continent. Since white people set the standards, they have to build up to them and be rich like East Asians. Black wolves are decentralized compared to white wolves. I can't isolate exactly where culture comes from but statistically there are more black wolves than white wolves globally because they are more black people. They are playing someone else's game. It's impossible for "intelligence" differences to be isolated into races because the only accurate measurement is a family tree. Intelligence is meant for social cooperation and black people have it so it's impossible for them to have lower intelligence than white people. It is obviously based on the First World. If a race has a First World country, they are loved.

>>168123

Intelligence is not an inherent evolutionary advantage.

>>168161

I didn't think anyone actually believes in evolution. I think evolution is very false. Evolution sounds very evil......

>>168123

Obviously there are individual black people that are above their peers, even superior to average Whites, but the overall average is far far lower, and the standouts much rarer. Any Negroes that are superior I feel great pity for because they get dragged down with the rest of them.

You are also completely wrong about intelligence being separable from heredity.

The reason some races have a "First world country" is because they created it, everywhere used to be low development, without systems and laws, infrastructure etc... Negroes certainly do not have good social co-operation and they are like crabs in a bucket. They have a low trust society out of what they naturally are. Every Negro nation is terrible, even when attempting to have structure and good law. They are fundamentally a low trust race, which frustrates them from having a developed "first world" society.

Europeans showing up in small groups in places, very isolated, managed to completely transform places by their skills and co-operation alone, Negroes have done it nowhere at all. Pick any Negro majority and led nation and you will find the same.

The reason White people set the global standard is their inherent racial superiority and consequent success. If Negroes had been successful, they would have set the rules. The historically used to wherever they lived, and still do now and many areas, and it is shit, they create poor and unstable standards because of their inferiority.

Negroes do not innovate because they lack they intelligence and creativity, the long-term planning to do so. The few Negroes (often with non-Negro admixture) that can, historically chose to be second class citizens living near Whites than being equals among niggers, because at least the Whites are consistent and fair to a far higher level. Obey the rules, stay in your position, and you won't get randomly shot in the street. Niggers will just murder each other for the smallest advantage, no honour.

All the money given to BLM was just siphoned and stolen by a couple of niggers for themselves, they don't care remotely about their fellow blacks unless it is personal advantage in getting as a group, as soon as they see an individual option that benefits them and screws their fellows, they take it.