• Making Facepunch better - Don't post about ratings
    5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47790147]no they are definitely fucking dogs get locked together during sex to ensure impregnation provided neither are fixed, that is literally a video of a dog being impregnated[/QUOTE] Then flag it on YouTube then????
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47790147]no they are definitely fucking dogs get locked together during sex to ensure impregnation provided neither are fixed, that is literally a video of a dog being impregnated[/QUOTE] I'm so sorry, everyone.
only fp will turn a thread where somebody is devoting their time fixing up the forums into discussing dog's fucking each other
Related to flagdog the browser/country icons don't seem to be applying to created threads, most likely since garry only put the code for it in the newreply file. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] Actually it does seem to have worked in some threads but quite alot of them don't have them.
[QUOTE=isnipeu;47790649]Related to flagdog the browser/country icons don't seem to be applying to created threads, most likely since garry only put the code for it in the newreply file. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] Actually it does seem to have worked in some threads but quite alot of them don't have them.[/QUOTE] It won't apply to old posts I'm thinking you know that, and it's a different issue
I think he's saying that creating threads still displays the old flag dog (for me it'd say I'm American)
[QUOTE=Scratch.;47790734]It won't apply to old posts I'm thinking you know that, and it's a different issue[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;47790945]I think he's saying that creating threads still displays the old flag dog (for me it'd say I'm American)[/QUOTE] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1467154]Seems to not actually be a problem anymore[/url], but you can see on some older threads the first post doesn't have any flagdog info yet on their next post it does. [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1464606]example[/url] [sp]Yes I did find a random video which hadn't been posted on FP before to test it, I don't think you're allowed to post "test" threads[/sp]
[QUOTE=isnipeu;47791031][url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1467154]Seems to not actually be a problem anymore[/url], but you can see on some older threads the first post doesn't have any flagdog info yet on their next post it does. [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1464606]example[/url] [sp]Yes I did find a random video which hadn't been posted on FP before to test it, I don't think you're allowed to post "test" threads[/sp][/QUOTE] If flagdog can't GeoIP you, it will just be hidden. Like So Although it will be helpful finding more examples, my deducting from what's there, NEO didn't post from the same terminal as they did with one with a useragent. This could mean they used a mobile, and an IP that could not be located
Woah for some reason the flagdog info in my thread post is now gone, it was definitely there when I posted the thread [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1467154[/url] [T]http://i.imgur.com/jDiJs6u.png[/T] [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] Also can you make it so ratings don't show on your own posts? You can't rate yourself so it's pointless having it there.
[QUOTE=isnipeu;47791217]Also can you make it so ratings don't show on your own posts? You can't rate yourself so it's pointless having it there.[/QUOTE] [code].yourpost > .postfoot > .postcontrols > .postrating { display: None !important; }[/code]
[QUOTE=Scratch.;47791241][code].yourpost > .postfoot > .postcontrols > .postrating { display: None !important; }[/code][/QUOTE] It'd be better just to not let the code that output the rating controls get called if the poster id matches the logged in user id. There'd already be a check for if someone is logged in so it can just be added to that.
Anybody else get rendering artifacts like this? [img]http://i.imgur.com/wsWq39T.png[/img] It happens on my phone too, and it only seems to happen on Facepunch.
[thumb]http://img.s-c.pw/2015-05-24_08-40-37.png[/thumb] Is it jsut me or are these weird overlay elements causing the page to be a few % longer than it should be, on the last page of this thread its not as bad as on all others. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] Apparently this could be caused by Video DownloadHelper
[quote][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/events/toobig.png[/img] The thread [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1460221"]ktt - WAYT Edition[/URL] was closed because it had over “[B]5000[/B]” posts[/quote] isn't censored in the ticker. I assume it should be since the thread titles are otherwise hidden.
If we could delete threads that have been inactive for 6 months to prevent necroposting that would be swell.
[QUOTE=Passing;47792038]If we could delete threads that have been inactive for 6 months to prevent necroposting that would be swell.[/QUOTE] Those threads might still interest people though and contain useful content.
-snip
Would it be possible to remove deleted threads from "Latest Created Threads" on [url]http://facepunch.com/fp_read.php[/url] ? It's annoying clicking on a spam post to report it only to find it has already been deleted.
[QUOTE=Leestons;47792794]Would it be possible to remove deleted threads from "Latest Created Threads" on [url]http://facepunch.com/fp_read.php[/url] ? It's annoying clicking on a spam post to report it only to find it has already been deleted.[/QUOTE] I like the Latest Created Threads section, but I do find it odd how it's on the Read Thread page
Along with the ticker and event log, that is. Unless rboy is fixing more important issues, I wouldn't mind having Read Threads split into two pages. [editline]What else is all history, but the praise of Rome?- Petrarch Badboys are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid. Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around. The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male’s gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on, in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him. – Bonecrker Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female. – Elliot Rodger The country that starts off with the smallest government ends up with the biggest government. – Stefan Molyneux THE STORY OF YOUR INCEL – AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH PROLOGUE: I get a lot of messages from women, most of them curious or positive. After reading hundreds of their messages I can think I can safely say I am able to see that I got a message from a young British woman before even knowing anything about her location. Messages which are completely bereft of any capitalization, grammar, sense and sentence structure, messages so atrociously written that a 10 year-old could do better and completely contradictory to the point of contradicting your own claim and then going back to your initial claim, immediately reveal a British girl. This is a consequence of a generation of British girls who grew up without fathers. Sure, they have biological fathers, else they wouldn’t exist, but their fathers are the kind of monsters I will be talking about here and so are their mothers. But this post isn’t just about such issues . It doesn’t just talk about Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle guests. It talks about all kinds of monsters, even extremely well-educated and eloquent ones. This is the story of your incel. It will describe what made you incel and how you can finally end it. But, much more importantly, it is a story on the future of the human race currently threatened with extermination. This isn’t some potential extermination which has not yet begun – it is an extermination which is already almost over. While it would be too much to say that most people on the planet have already been exterminated this is certainly true in Western countries. This is the most important post I will ever write. It is so important that i will change my nickname in a few weeks after enough people see it. This is my magnum opus. If you read just this text from my blog it is enough for a lifetime. It is a great misconception that being an involuntary celibate means you are somehow defective. In fact, it is the completely opposite – in modern society you pretty much have to be degenerate scum to succeed with women. That notion PUAs and Red Pillers have about alphas is ridiculous – what they’re describing as alphas are not alphas at all but omegas, the worst kind of men, and what they see as omegas are simply betas. Men who get women in today’s society are the actual losers. Elliot Rodger was right about many of these things but unfortunately never managed to understand the problem the way I did – had he been given a chance to do so he might still be alive. What caused this? What happened? This is a modest proposal me and men of CoAlphaBrotherhood site have – Liberalism and feminism turned women’s preferences from providers to seducers, thus genetically eliminating all decent men through involuntary celibacy. But before I can get to the crux of our argument let us establish some basic truths that will allow readers to understand our position better. NECESSARY PRECURSORS 1) All civilized societies were patriarchies. 2) Women are agnostic about male behavior. This means they’re not naturally attracted to any type of man but that their preferences change depending on which kind of men is the most successful with women. 3) In connection to nr.2, women’s preference for a type of male changes simply based on a degree of success a type has with most women. 4) Seduction is worthless, even harmful for most species, as it does not promote any valuable traits that make the species better. It is a form of deceit males make do spread their genes and it creates worthless offspring. This is explained by a phenomenon called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway 5) I believe voting is a privilege that should only be given to intelligent men and shouldn’t be given to women. FOUR TYPES OF MALES There are basically four types of males or male mating strategies in the world. ALPHA MALES General description: These are dominant, strong men who are usually the leaders. Their intelligence and morality are less important but must have at least average intelligence and are often quite intelligent. Alphas are men like a Fortune 500 CEO, mafia leader like Tony Soprano or statesmen like Vladimir Putin. Mating strategy: The way these males reproduce is by dominance/high status/strength. Examples: a strong king, warrior etc (in the past), strong mafia leader, statesman, CEO of a Fortune 500 company BETA MALES General description: Weaker than alphas. Not suited for leadership positions. Providers. Their intelligence and morality are less important and while they’re almost always of average to good morality they don’t think about morality much. Their role as a provider requires them to usually have at least average intelligence. Mating strategy: These men offer their resources for female emotional and sexual fidelity. Examples: A good foot-soldier, worker, employee OMEGA MALES General description: Weakest type. They lack the respect of other men, except the most superficial “respect” from fellow idiots so they’re not fit to lead any organization aspiring for success. They are of low morals and often low intelligence. They don’t necessarily have to be stupid, but they are always immoral. However, since stupid omegas won’t care about child support they also won’t care about contraception, which means they will have as many children as they can. This means that being a stupid omega is currently the best type in terms of reproduction. Mating strategy: These men use seduction. Their lack morals and often poor intelligence means they’re not fit for long-term relationships. Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality. Since they’re despised by all other types and are not in any alliance with them they will not hesitate to seduce other men’s girlfriends and wives. Examples: Throughout most of history/ in societies that aren’t omega societies – a conniving man with a bad reputation for seducing women. In omega societies/many current societies (and practically all Western ones) – an immoral, stupid deadbeat who gets women due to being a moron. For example, a PUA but not just them. Most men today are omegas. COALPHA MALES General description: Weaker than alphas but stronger than betas and omegas. Their possess a high level of intelligence and morality. But the fact that they’re smarter than betas is even a sort a hindrance to them in a modern society, as these men won’t be foolish enough to support a used up slut in her 30s and her child so no women will want them at all (I will explain why later). Mating strategy: Mating strategies of these men depend on the kind of society they found themselves into, which will be explained very soon. In alpha societies these men are usually in position very similar to betas but if the alpha society hold values like intelligence and morality in relatively high regard they might be more attractive to women due to these qualities. But, their best mating strategy is to form a coalpha group, which assimilates both alphas and betas into a monogamous society where each man has a single wife and excludes omegas. Examples: leading class in the golden periods of Athens, Roman Republic, England 1500-1800 AD, early USA, members of CoAlpha forums, any man with high intelligence and morals who wants increased co-operation between men. SEDUCTION I now have to describe the evolutionary impact of seduction. I first have to start by addressing what seduction is NOT. Seduction must not be equated with sympathy or the feeling of what is called falling in love. Perils of Fisherian runaway, process described by Ronald Fisher, closely resemble the perils of seduction in humans The main hypothesis of Fisherian runaway is described like this: The evolution of male ornamentation, an example being the colourful and elaborate male peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued femalepeahen plumage, represented a paradox for evolutionary biologists in the period following Darwin and leading up to the modern evolutionary synthesis; the selection for costly ornaments appearing incompatible with natural selection. Fisherian runaway is an attempt to resolve this paradox using an assumed genetic basis for both the preference and the ornament, and through the less obvious but powerful forces of sexual selection (a sub component of natural selection). Fisherian runaway hypothesizes that females choose “attractive” males with the most exaggerated ornaments based solely upon the males’ possession of that ornament. According to Fisher, if strong enough, female preference for exaggerated ornamentation in mate selection could be enough to undermine natural selection if the ornament under sexual selection is otherwise non-adaptive (naturally selected against). Fisher hypothesized this counteraction would result in the next generation’s male offspring being more likely to possess the ornament (and female offspring more likely to possess the preference for the ornament) than the previous generation. Over subsequent generations this would lead to the runaway selection (via a positive feedback mechanism) for males who possess the most exaggerated ornaments. However, this becomes disadvantageous to for the birds, as…. The plumage dimorphism of male peacocks and female peahen of the species within the Pavo genus are the de facto example of the ornamentation paradox that has long puzzled evolutionary biologists. The peacock’s colorful and elaborate tail requires a great deal of energy to grow and maintain. It also reduces the bird’s agility, and may even increase the animal’s visibility to predators. It would appear that the expression of an elaborate and colourful tail would serve to lower the overall fitness of the individuals who possess it. Yet, it has evolved. Within the context of evolution this would indicate that peacocks with longer and more colorfully elaborate tails have some advantage over peacocks who don’t, that is to say the expression of the costly tail serves to increase overall fitness. Fisherian runaway posits that the evolution of the peacock tail is made possible if peahens have a preference to mate with peacocks that possess a longer and more colourful tail. Peahens that select males with these tails in turn have male offspring that are more likely to have long and colourful tails and thus are more likely to be sexually successful themselves because of the preference for them by peahens. Furthermore the peahens that select males with longer and more colourful tails are more likely to produce peahen offspring that have a preference for peacocks with longer and more colourful tails. Given this, having a preference for longer and more colorful tails bestows an advantage to peahens just as having a longer and more colorful tail does bestows an advantage upon peacocks. I am not trying to judge the amount of validity this hypothesis has in its original context. For one, I am not not educated in that field. Also, not even all of the scientists agree. My point is that this resembles what I will be talking about here in a way that it describes the horrendous impacts of seduction on human species. Seduction is inherently worthless. Being “sexy” alone doesn’t mean anything. In many societies throughout history extreme obesity was a status symbol. Being attractive means nothing on its own. What matters for the betterment of species is why somebody is attractive. If somebody is attractive due to positive traits that is the most important factor for it’s betterment. If one is attractive due to negative traits that is horrible for its betterment. One of the greatest lies told today is that just by being reproductively successful you’re successful participating in a betterment of the species. But how is that logical or possible if the main tool for this success today is seduction, which offers nothing but “pretty feathers”? What needs to be accentuated is that things like presentation of strength, material goods or intelligence/morality aren’t seduction. Seduction is “smooth talk”, it is a desire to procreate by giving nothing at all. In other words, seduction is an evolutionary tool that is, if successful in a large number, disastrous for the species, since it removes the incentive to produce from men unskilled in it (but skilled in vital things) by removing their ability to ever enter relationships, have sex or create a family. It is the single greatest negative aspect of modern society. Nothing is more disastrous for men, women or children than seduction being a successful evolutionary tool. Seduction is disastrous for men since it enables the most stupid and immoral men to procreate while destroying the incentive of decent men. Seduction is disastrous for women since it turns them into sluts who pick any man if he is immoral or stupid enough (which modern Western women believe is “sexy”) and it eventually likely turns them into single mothers Seduction is horrible for children since it means they will be a product of most immoral and stupid men as well as sluts and that will likely live in a single-parent household and in poverty (since they will understand that wealth is no great reproductive tool). Seduction is simply an all-round disaster. But let us go deeper. FOUR TYPES OF SOCIETIES 1. ALPHA SOCIETIES General description: In these societies alphas are allowed to mate guard. This means that they are allowed to have entire harems. This carries a great survival risk, though, as many men would like to take out an alpha and take his possessions. So these societies, the most common ones in history, are never extremely successful, as they lack sufficient co-operation between men. Currently very popular TV series Game of Thrones is a good example (minus the supernatural elements) of how such societies would look like in medieval times. Obviously, alphas are the most successful ones in terms of reproduction. In cases of very efficient mate guarding they can have entire harems. In cases of less efficient mate guarding they are still very successful, with their multiple legitimate children and bastards. Betas, omegas and coalphas are moderately successful here, depending on how much access to mating alphas allow them, or, in other words, how many women do alphas mate guard. In essence, success of all other three types depends on the scope of mate guarding done by alphas and by how the particular alpha society sees intelligence and morality. In alphas societies which somewhat value providers (in case of betas), or decency, intelligence, morality (in case of coalphas) such men will get some remaining women while omegas will get less remaining women. In societies which are of low morals and intelligence omegas will be more successful than betas and coalphas. These societies aren’t feminist societies – providers are still recognized as necessary and are allowed to breed. I will talk about how feminist societies are different in that aspect later on. Mating success ranking: 1. alphas 2. betas/coalphas/omegas (depending on other traits of the particular society, as explained in the general description) Examples: Most societies throughout history. 2. COALPHA SOCIETIES General description: In these societies male mating strategy is co-alpha, because men in the alliance effectively form a cooperative, collective alpha-male that dominates and guards the females. Hence the name, as these coalphas are effectively working as a single alpha made out of many men. These men can absorb alphas and betas, but alphas have to accept that they are now limited to a single wife. This alliance can benefit betas, since a number of them are excluded or close to exclusion in alpha societies. Omega males are not a part of this alliance and, since women are attracted to a type that is most successful with women, they are seen as utter losers. Yes, the kind of men erroneously called alphas today by PUAs and Red Pillers, the kind of many every advice tells you to become are actually seen as utterly worthless losers and pieces of shit in such societies ! Only the dumbest and most immoral women, women stupid enough not to observe their poor evolutionary potential and poor genes, women of such low intelligence that not even the kind of societal rejection they will face when choosing such men will dissuade them. So, in such societies omegas will barely be able spread their genes at all. These societies have four basic traits 1. monogamy 2. female premarital chastity 3. solid moral religion 4. legal and easily available prostitution. In such societies every decent man is guaranteed a wife, while prostitutes provide valuable sexual experience before marriage, as well as sexual variety during marriage. The lack of competition for women and the fact that their emotional and sexual needs are satisfied at any time due to everyone having a wife and easy access to prostitutes to fabulous level of cooperation. When it comes to economy competition usually increases the quality and decreases the price. But competition among men for women destroys trust, which makes men stab each other in the back and become scumbags. Also, men are motivated to be good providers and to be successful in all areas since in such societies, because sex is always readily available to them in such society, since they are sure to get married and easily available prostitutes provide sexual variety. There are no frustrated incels distracted from work. Men, who are already selected by women for their intelligence, loyalty and morality, are always sexually satisfied and they don’t waste their time struggling among themselves for women. Most successful societies in history were almost exclusively coalpha. Notable examples include Athens, Rome, England 1500-1800 AD or early America. Ancient Athens was the most productive society per capita in history because women had almost no rights at all and the state subsidized prostitution, which allowed men to turn their minds to become extremely productive, as they turned their minds to arts, craftsmanship, creation of a navy, economy and statesmanship. Mating success rating: 1. coalphas/alphas and betas integrated into a coalpha society 4. omegas, who are excluded from this alliance and shunned by women (Btw, a good example of an alpha society turning into a coalpha one was the end of Roman Kingdom and foundation of the Roman Republic around 509 BC, which happened after an alpha Etruscan king raped the wife of a patrician. Roman men took down the kind and established a coalpha Roman Republic) Examples: Ancient Athens prior to its decline, Roman Republic, England 1500-1800 BC, early United States of America, possibly Florence during its Golden age (?) (superiority of coalpha societies) Imagine a pitched battle in which two ancient armies fight each other. One army is a from an alpha society and is larger in number in comparison to the opposing army. A king rides with a group of other noblemen. They are alphas. Who are the the remaining cavalry and infantrymen? They are betas, coalphas and those omegas they managed to press into service. Sure, almost all of them have wives, lest they wouldn’t be fighting. But how will this army fight, if a common man knows that a king or his nobles can take his wife whenever they want to? That omegas still have some power and might seduce their wives at home? In fact, it could be argued that, unless the potential occupation of their lands will be very brutal, they have a vested interested in alphas (king and the nobles) being killed, so that they might lessen the risk of their wives being stolen by alphas later or seduced by omegas back at home ! Now let us look at an army from a coalpha society, which is smaller in number. In this army every man knows with utmost certainty that his wife will wait for him at home if he survives, just like any young man knows that he will surely get a wife who nobody will be able to steal. There are no sexually frustrated men in this army, for wives and prostitutes provide all the necessary sexual release. Every man can be virtually certain that his children are really his. Omegas are completely suppressed and shunned by everybody. Which army will win? Of course, in 9 out of 10 cases the winning side will be the army from a coalpha society. The deciding factor in most battles aren’t things like armament or terrain but morals. Coalpha men will be ready to fight and die for they know that they’re appreciated by everybody and that their wives are waiting for them at home. This army is very unlikely to break ranks and flee. The scenario I’m describing was actually very common during the battles between the Roman Republic and their enemies, ever since they started taking the Italian mainland in early fourth century BC. Being coalpha made them able to crush their enemies Take a look at a long list of Roman battles. While Romans did suffer some defeats this list is basically an unparalleled string of victories. Most of these victories were achieved against foes that were at a similar level of development (other Italic tribes) or on an even higher one (Macedonians and Greeks). What they lacked is a coalpha structure, so they were smashed. 3. OMEGA SOCIETIES Omega societies are always feminist societies. Only in feminist societies can providers be unimportant to the point that they’re now unattractive to women.There are two types of omega societies. A non-feminist omega society and a feminist omega society. I will first describe a non-feminist omega society, as these societies are older. 3a. UNDEVELOPED OMEGA SOCIETY General description: Such societies are usually previously existing societies which were feminist. Good example of such society was late Roman Empire. These societies belong in a specific category which should be separated from modern feminist societies. The reason for this is basically that they lacked or currently lack the sufficient development and technology to resemble modern feminist societies in all aspects. Yet, in some other areas they were appallingly similar. Late Roman Empire resembled modern America a lot (just like its rise resembled the rise of Rome). These societies are feminist and game societies in a structure which doesn’t support the kind of feminist policies one can see today. For example, limited forms of democracy never survived by the time such societies came about in the states they appeared in, so they never enacted women’s suffrage. All of them lacked the technology to effectively enforce feminist laws. Also, due to such societies being on a low technological level there were marked differences between cities, especially larger ones, and villages, where some sanity still prevailed. As Roman Empire declined as Roman Empire declined many of the old customs and legal institutions, especially those regarding women, were abolished. For example, it is very telling that tutela mulierum, an institution of legal guardianship over women, ended around the same year Romans abandoned their province of Britain (410 AD). The most successful type here are, for the first time, omegas but alphas still retain a lot of power because strength (for example, in battle) is still appreciated, nobility still rules and mate guarding isn’t forbidden. Betas and coalphas have somewhat similar mating success, as the society lacks the technology to make women successfully mooch of men with full legal protection. Mating success rating: 1. omegas 2. alphas 3./4. betas/coalphas (depending on other factors) Examples: late Babylonian Empire, certain Greek city states towards their fall, late Roman Empire, (maybe South American Native Americans toward the arrival of Europeans?) 3b. DEVELOPED OMEGA SOCIETY General description: These are modern feminist societies. These are societies which were once successful and are now in decline. Some of the reasons why they’re in decline, paradoxically, have to do with their success. This is because they essentially use their own wealth, that was created prior to feminism, to destroy their own substance, thanks to liberalism. Unlike undeveloped omega societies these societies, these societies are comparatively rich. In fact, when compared to basically any prior society they are insanely rich. This is what enables them to be a lot different than undeveloped omega societies, as a developed omega society can very effectively enforce alimony or child support, just like it can very effectively deal with any perceived enemy. I once read that you can’t have real feminism without computers and I tend to agree with that. Such vast technological differences between old omega societies and the society portrayed here are why I decided to make a separate category for each of them. In such societies there is no longer any real monogamy – things like adultery and no fault divorce are allowed. Just like in omega societies, alphas can no longer mate guard, but this time it is for a different reason – all mate guarding is banned because women have “rights” (which are actually massive privileges). The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children. So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this. Betas lose a lot of their value, as women no longer need their resources, unlike in alpha societies (as the state now mostly provides for women) nor they are a member of a coalpha coalition any longer, since it has dissolved (else you wouldn’t get an omega society). This means that betas are quite undesirable in their youth but become somewhat desirable again when used up sluts in their 30s want an additional source of income. These sluts use betas as meal tickets to feed them and worthless kids they had with omegas or alphas (much more likely omegas). Coalphas are in a worst position, since they are too smart to allow themselves to be meal tickets, plus their traits like intelligence and morality are hated by modern society and repel women. So, who dominates in these societies? Omegas, of course. Most immoral and dumbest men are now the ones who are most successful in terms of evolution. Stupid omegas are the most successful ones because they, like I said, don’t care about contraception or child support. I will explain how these societies come about later. I have just described them for now. Mating success rating: 1. omegas (with stupid omegas being more successful than those who are not) 2. alphas 3. betas 4. coalphas Examples: North America, Western Europe, Australia and Scandinavia since around 1970s, now almost all of Europe, huge parts of South America, parts of Asia 4. POST OMEGA/POST GAME SOCIETIES – These societies are a natural consequence of omega societies. Since omega societies are completely unsustainable (for one, they allow no incentive and many disincentives for decent men to work) they eventually collapse. A book describing one such society is Edward C. Banfield’s 1958 book The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. His conclusion is that members of this culture act as if they were following this rule: “Maximize the material, short-term benefit of the nuclear family; assume that all others will do likewise” He calls this “amoral familism”. These are societies that have collapsed at some previous time in history. They’re, as previously mentioned, almost certainly a collapsed omega society. After their collapse they continued to exist in a low equilibrium. Fragments of Franklin’s description of such a society do a far better job of describing them than I ever will – In a promiscuous culture, men either become players or become extinct. Men literally evolve to become players. This is why Latin men have natural game. But this has a cost. Since the men are natural players, instead of PUAs who fake it, they actually have the characteristics that women are attracted to. In other words, they are unreliable and focused on women, which makes them unsuitable for supporting modern civilization. This can be seen clearly after spending some time in a Latin American country. Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer. This means that co-alpha characteristics, those traits needed to maintain civilization, have been far more fully bred out of Mexico than out of Argentina. And this can be seen in the behavior of men in these countries. America is in early stage decay, Argentina in mid-stage decay, and Mexico in complete decay. In Mexico, men are exactly as MGTOW/PUA advocate. They go their own way and seduce women for sex. They don’t cooperate and they don’t contribute to society. The government is too incompetent to enforce feminist laws, so men don’t have to worry about child support and other such issues. …I call Latin America “post-game” because after the widespread use of game has destroyed a society, it becomes poor enough for women to once again value men as providers. This does not solve problem but rather produces some equilibrium at a low level. Most men in these societies cannot be very effective providers because the country is poor. And the men must constantly guard their wives against cheating, which is widespread. American men are seen as super providers and this is why we are attractive to these women in spite of our lack of game. We are super providers because we have not yet fully gone the MGTOW/PUA route, but I assume that we will and we will wind up as just another third world country. Mating success rating: 1./2. alphas/omegas 3./4. betas/coalphas Alphas and omegas are, remarkably, leveled here despite provider abilities being valued for one reason only – there simply isn’t enough money for men to very effective providers. Alpha men in the West are often good providers but here being an alpha usually means little more than being very aggressive at mate guarding. Since almost everybody in such a society is a backward hick omegas fare well and betas and coalphas are at a quite similar, low level. Betas can’t use the “advantage” of used up sluts in their 30s marrying them since they can’t provide effectively and coalphas at least don’t have the disadvantage of being intelligent and moral since women in such cultures are usually too dense to even recognize that. A good example of this was the friend with benefits I had in 2013, who came from such a culture – she was too dense for any relationship but also too dense to be repulsed by my intelligence and morality. Examples: Southern Italy, Mexico, Egypt, elements of Argentina The only type of man that isn’t the most dominant one in any societies are betas. But this isn’t to say that betas are irrelevant or useless. They are essential for any society, because all societies need providers. It’s just that they’re unsuited for creating a culture that would benefit them (unlike alphas and coalphas) and biologically not apt to being the most attractive type in constellation (unlike omegas). SOME EXAMPLES OF TRANSFORMATIONS Here I’ll give some examples of transformations from one form of society into the other. I will not give all of them, just the ones I think were most common throughout history. 1. Alpha society to an coalpha society- This could happen once a strong enough coalpha group is formed in an alpha society and decides to overthrow the reign of alphas. An example I already mentioned was when Roman patricians overthrew their Etruscan king around 500 BC. 2. Coalpha society to an alpha society – if morals of a governing coalpha group loosen and there is an alpha (or several alphas) strong enough to take power we may see a reversal of the first example. This used to happen during the decline of Ancient Greece, when in many cases kings would take power over governing bodies that consisted of coalpha men. Also, it might happen in or be a part of a transitional period towards an omega society. For example, early Roman Empire first transitioned like this – from a group of men governing during the Republic to emperors and then onward to feminism. 3. Transition of alpha or coalpha societies to an omega society – this might happen in an alpha society which is so successful that it enables feminism. Also, it could be imposed from the outside by trends like globalization. A good example of an alpha society transitioning into an omega society was the example I mentioned of early Roman Republic. Examples of coalpha societies transitioning into feminist ones might be England or America. Quite similarly to what happened during the Roman era, It was their enormous success that enabled feminist policies. (A bit on history – repetition) A huge part of transition into an omega society was played by liberalism, which developed from Protestantism. People have a horribly skewed vision of the Middle Ages, considering it to be an extremely pious and chaste time. This is pretty far from the truth. The rule or ideal of clerical continence was not always observed either in the West or in the East and was widely opposed. Rulers often had bastards or entire harems. In fact, the end to this chaos happened with the advent of Protestantism, which enabled speedy development of places like England, northern Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland. Protestantism brought on much stricter morality. It is no coincidence that two great coalpha societies after Athens and Rome, England and early America, were protestant. While events like The Renaissance mostly still did take place in Catholic areas of Europe like Northern Italy or France but didn’t contribute to huge technological and societal advancement the way Protestantism did. Max Weber’s famous work on protestant ethic is a must read if you’re interested in finding out more. It is a great irony that liberalism developed most rapidly in societies which used be the beacon of morality. In fact, it is safe to say that modern liberalism is, judging my many of its elements, a mutant form of Protestantism. Purist nonsense many liberal countries are for, like a ban on prostitution, ridiculous ages of consent, ban on drugs etc. are all aberrations of Protestantism. This is also a good reason to mock all the moronic haters who claim people like Franklin and me want to “return to the Middle Ages”. 4. Transition of an omega society to post-omega/post-game society Franklin says: Mexico has been promiscuous for a long time, probably hundreds of years. The Spanish conquerors came from a chaste culture, but the Spanish influence was superficial and concentrated in the elite. The masses continued with their promiscuous behavior under a chaste veneer of Spanish style. I want to clarify what it means for feminism “to run its ugly course”. What it means is the destruction of civilization, usually permanently. This has happened many times before. When civilizations fell, they almost never recovered. Rome/Italy is the only example of a place that I can think of that was civilized twice. Every other successful society became a basket case permanently. Visit Egypt today and look at the museum. They had a great civilization 4000 years ago. Today they are pathetic as a culture. In Mexico, they had the Olmecs, the Maya, and Aztecs, each from a different area and each more primitive than the preceding culture. My theory is that when a civilization falls, its co-alpha genes get wiped out. There is no good genetic material left to start a new culture. What was different about Rome? It had a key subculture, Christianity, that saved the right values and therefore saved some co-alphas. But Christianity grew when Rome was at its peak. It could not have grown as it did in a barbaric environment. We are now in a situation where most of the world has been absorbed into Western culture. If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization. The time to address this really is now. In 100 years, I think it will be too late. Basically, what happens in this case is that the unsustainable omega culture collapses and you get a post-omega society. This has happened in southern Italy when Roman Empire collapsed. In movie Godfather II his wife Kay tells Michael Corleone something about a mentality that hasn’t been changed for 2,000 years. She is not that far from truth. Unlike Northern Italy, Southern Italy never benefited from numerous invasions which introduced other cultures. Rome itself was feminist during its decline, so most of Italy, except the north, is post-feminist. Rome itself was feminist during its decline, so most of Italy, except the north, is post-feminist. WHERE ARE WE NOW – PART 1 We are obviously in latter stages of a omega society. The decline has been steep, painful and disastrous SOME HISTORY – HOW DO OMEGA SOCIETIES COME ABOUT? 1. A bit of old history These societies always appear when liberalism appears. Liberalism is not some new concept in history. It was present in most declining societies. For example, in the Hellenistic Empire, you had philosophical developments like the Stoics whose founder Zeno said unisex clothing should be worn as a way to obliterate unnecessary distinctions between women and men, and the Cynics among whom women and men alike were free to follow their sexual inclinations. It was developments like these that put an end to Greek culture. Liberalism was evident in decline in Roman Empire as well, as the breakdown of its society had to be contained as early as in reign of Augustus. I already mentioned that as Roman Empire declined many of the old customs and legal institutions, especially those regarding women, were abolished. But liberal decline happens over a very long time and is usually exacerbated by wealth. 2. A bit of new history Unlike what modern fables tell you Middle Ages weren’t as chaste as they are believed to be. Much of its squalor and staleness (I am talking about the West) came from untidy sexual morality and the fact that the Church, which held almost all of the knowledge was somewhat like modern liberalism is – closed- minded and believing it should compete with God. What really created a significant change was the advent of Protestantism, which advocated for stronger moral values and work ethic. The moral strength of Protestantism is well documented in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and is apparent from studying history. During this time, Protestants were the most biblical and most moral people in history. They more closely conformed to the spirit of the Torah than anyone else ever did, including Jews. But what caused this to happen and what caused it to stop? One possible interpretation can be found here. In any case, amazingly, modern liberalism was born as an aberration of Protestantism. First decline liberalism causes is that in minds of people. This is what causes them to even think about things like making all men the electorate, let alone making women a part of it. When that happens the rest is soon to follow. A good example of liberalism initially working alongside Protestantism was an influential proto-liberal William Jennings Bryan, who was a devout Christian, opposed the gold standard, supported prohibition, was a big advocate of women’s suffrage, and he hated evolution and atheism and used ridicule against both, much the same kind ridicule used by liberals today. In 1920 USA ratified the Nineteenth Amendment of its Constitution. This was the moment it was already gone, for no society which institutes women’s suffrage can be saved but during the next 40 years observable decay did not start. World War II was a defeat of forces which instituted many reactionary values in what were Axis countries during the war. An alliance of Western democracies and a communist juggernaut won a devastating victory, the first kind of such victory in world’s history – for at no prior time could such a victory been achieved due to a lack of sufficient technology. But what did enable the Western democracies (alongside with Germany, but I am talking about the victorious side here) to develop such technology? It, of course, dates back to beginning of Protestantism. What created such progress and wealth was extreme morality of it. Before Protestantism some of the places where it took hold were among the least developed, true backwaters of Europe ! However, Protestantism seems to have carried a seed of its own destruction. Allied soldiers in WW2 didn’t fight for feminism or liberalism. In fact, most of them would be considered extremely misogynistic and racist by today’s standards. But they saved a system which had already carried a fatal germ. Then in 1960s there were LBJ’s Great Society programs and sexual revolution. During that time the world got its first generation of sluts. No-fault divorce started during that time as well. Not all of the things that happened during this time were harmful. Homophobia and racism were issues that affected the society in a negative way and a fight against them was a noble one. It is a common fact that most things in the world aren’t black and white. However, some positive developments couldn’t change the fact that irreversible decline began. During the 1970s second wave of feminism swept accross North America and Western Europe, making stunning “progress” by successfully sweeping men away from their belongings, families and perception as human beings. Third wave feminism that followed introduced a totalitarian nightmare designed to turn all men into fear ridden obedient servants. After the fall of Berlin Wall and communism in Southeastern and Eastern Europe this started spreading to those countries as well, helped by the rising standard of the population and abolishment of artificial barriers. This was helped by many laws already made by communists, which were much more anti-family than those in non-communist countries, and by monopolizing of their judicial position and social services by women. Once women in West and in the East no longer needed husbands, as the government became their husband, their mating preferences, like several previous times in history, turned to men who use seduction – omegas. They also obtained the protection of the state from all men they deemed unworthy, which, in this society, are decent, intelligent and moral men. This is well explained here Women wearing revealing clothing, make up, jewelry, perfume and all the rest is nothing more than hyper-sexualizing yourself to demonstrate you’re in heat. There is absolutely no other reason for something like high heels which are totally detrimental to your legs, however it give a woman’s legs and butt a sexual look of readiness. Make up is more of the same, no other reason than a look of the sexual excitement of being in heat. A short skirt that swishes just right when a woman walks and a low cut top are all signifiers of being in heat and ready for sex. In this age of so called enlightenment we deny reality. All these things that women do demonstrates a lack of self control, if men were to simply take any woman they felt like having sex with, that would be men acting like animals in heat and lacking self control. Humans are after all sexually dimorphic. Sexual frustration for men is unhealthy to say the least, and being surrounded by women in heat will always be sexually frustrating. Sexual fear for women is unhealthy to say the least which is why men are punished for acting like uncivilized animals in heat. The traditionalist of old knew the obviousness of human sexuality so they developed a code of public conduct that allowed civilization to flourish. Women didn’t show overt displays of sexuality which is respectful to men, and men didn’t show overt signs of sexuality to women which is respectful to them. An example would be if a woman was acting like an animal in heat in public and a man came up and groped her they would both be acting like animals in heat, they would both be charged with indecent displays in public. Conversely if a woman was acting respectful in public and a man groped her only the man would be punished. There was respect both ways in public and what anyone did in the privacy of their own homes was their own business. Fast forward to today and the don’t slut shame movement is nothing more than women demanding to act like uncivilized animals in heat in public while demanding men act civilized in public at all times and also demanding men protect women from men acting like animals in heat. The argument, provided here as well as every feminist site is that men as a whole will get lots more sex if only they endorsed this slut movement. This assumption is the exact opposite of reality from even a cursory glance at the western world. What happens in reality is 80% of women will go after the top 20% of men, the top 20% consists of very good looking, wealthy, talented and so forth. The 80% of women are basically sharing the top 20% of men, going from one to another. 20% of women and 20% of men stay together for life and 60% of men are left sexless and loveless, particularly their young lives. Women don’t desire sex as much as men, testosterone is the biological composition that determines sex drive and men have much more, totally un-pc but reality none the less. This is why the 80% of women will be sexually satisfied with the 20% of men, and certainly those men are satisfied as well. The more promiscuous and slutty women become the less sex men as a whole will get as most women, particularly in their younger years will become a harem for the lucky few. Eventually the top 20% of men either get married or move on to greener pastures and those women not married to them or dumped so often become bitter since the top 20% no longer want them. And of course the 60% of losers who these women wouldn’t touch for 15 years aren’t exactly thrilled at shacking up with a bitter woman. The entire cultural system of the western world will inevitably collapse due to the current social situation. The more promiscuous and slutty women become means the further herding of women to the lucky few. The women acting like animals in heat will demand protection from the men acting like animals in heat. The top 20% of men might pay lip service that they care about women but they have a harem and don’t really care. The 20% of men who are in life long relationships do actually care because they are essentially living the traditionalist code of conduct. The 60% who are loveless and sexless increasingly don’t give a crap. So the premise of this article is that men as a whole will get more sex and less dry spells if they stop discouraging women from having sex is completely false. The more promiscuous women in a society are the more women will herd to the lucky few and the less men as a whole will have sex. nwoslave is mostly right but he I am not sure if he understannds a very point point, probably the most important one – what he calls top men are (in terms of reproductive success, not in terms of power and wealth) more like omegas than alphas. Men they choose are more like Roosh than Tony Soprano or Putin. Of course, this doesn’t mean that powerful men who are the actual alphas will ever be incel. That is not the issue here. The issue is that their numbers are small. They must be most successful in terms of the almost non-existent rejection rate, that much is evident. But the kind of men that are picked in greatest numbers and can attract even more women (as they have less obligations) are not alphas – they are omegas. Let us define evolution as something like this ““Evolution is the heritable change in a population over successive generations”. Now compare some powerful man like a CEO of Fortune 500 corporation with a PUA or just an immoral, stupid deadbeat from a poor neighbourhood. Who do you think has more time to chase women? So, which is the better evolutionary model in terms of producing more children? Obviously, being a deadbeat. MYTH OF PROGRESS PART 1: DEMOCRACY OF NORTH KOREA One of the silliest myths, parroted by fools, is that feminism and liberalism were somehow the cause of societal progress. Of course, that is utter nonsense, as it was only the progress made by formerly religious (Protestant) areas of the world that made this happen. Sure, there were feminist societies in the past, but there are strong reasons I made modern feminist/omega societies into a specific category. Only the wealth produced by strict sexual morality could have created feminism. But let’s examine liberal “progress”. Franklin accurately states that Freedom itself is a tricky concept. One issue is the distinction between rights and regulations which Liberals regularly blur for their own benefit. A right is something that you are free to do, that the government will not punish you for, while a regulation is something that the government compels you to do. So the “rights” for equality are actually all regulations compelling people to treat each other equally. Liberalism places high value on certain types of equality, and that’s fine. The problem is that Liberalism lies when it describes its regulations that compel people to abide by its values as “rights”. The purpose of this lie is to portray Liberals as being pro-freedom and then condemn everyone else for legislating morality. This is hypocrisy and Liberalism is really no different from any other religion in that it has its own values which it seeks to impose through regulation. And of course we all know that in economics, Liberals generally don’t support freedom at all. Even accepting the proper distinction between rights and regulations, the idea of freedom is still not so clear. As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.” When almost any moral issue is discussed in terms of freedom, you can be sure that this is being done to avoid the real issue. As an example, I will discuss adultery. This is defined in the Old Testament as sex with another man’s wife. Liberalswill claim that adultery is a private issue between consenting adults and the government has no business being involved. This is a lie on many levels. First of all, Liberals dictate the terms of marriage and divorce and do not give couples the freedom to marry under a private contract of their own choosing. Such a contract could well punish adultery. Second, virtually all civilized rising cultures allowed the harmed husband to take revenge. Usually the husband was permitted to kill the guilty man and to throw the wife out with nothing. This was the case in early America and in Ancient Athens. The Liberals prevent this through government regulation, not allowing the husband to take revenge. This is anti-freedom. The Liberals will say that the freedom to murder isn’t a legitimate freedom. Most would agree that to murder in self defense is fine. Who is to say when murder is legitimate? That is a value judgement. The fact is that Liberalism supports adultery and does everything in its power to promote adultery. The Old Testament takes a different approach. Since the Old Testament bans the murder of one member of society by another without exception, it must provide the punishment through the government, and this is why adultery is punished under the Old Testament. But again, the point here is that Liberalism claims to be for freedom when this is clearly not the case. Liberalsocieties tend to be very highly regulated and not free at all. The Liberals themselves can’t see this because those things that Liberals want to do are generally permitted, it is what everyone else wants to do that is banned. The issues I brought up, equality laws and adultery, were to make specific points. But looking at the big picture, we see that Liberal societies tend to be over-regulated which makes the claim that Liberals support liberty obviously false. A good video on the over-regulation of America is Illegal Everything. Two of the issues mentioned in this video are drug laws and anti-prostitution laws. These are usually not seen as Liberal laws, but in fact they are. When America was primarily a Christian nation, neither of these were illegal. They became illegal when America became more Liberal. Today’s “conservatives” in America are really nothing more than another sect of Liberalism. These “conservatives” do not stand for the values found in the Bible. They do not worry about the Ten Commandments. Instead they worry about issues like drugs and prostitution, neither of which are condemned in the Old Testament. Another Liberal lie is that Liberals support equality and are more caring. This lie can be seen in dating. The most egalitarian dating system is monogamy because then everyone gets a mate. Liberals hate monogamy and support promiscuity which is the most unequal mating system. With promiscuity, some men get many women and many men get no women. It is extreme reproductive and sexual inequality. Liberals support this system because it is immoral and selfish. But this also explains why Liberals are so concerned about women and children, or at least say they are. Liberal men are concerned that women and children are cared for because they are promiscuous and so have no idea who their children are, so they want children generally cared for. It’s true that contraception changes this practically, but it doesn’t change the instinct. The promiscuous male instinct is to care about women and children, but not care about other men. The monogamous male instinct is to be part of a loyal male group and care for that group where each man has his wife. Of course the Liberal caring for children is also a kind of lie. Liberals only care that children are provided for, they don’t really care what is in the child’s best interest because that would be having both parents there to raise the child. Liberal men care about economic equality because they do not want to compete for women on the basis of how good a provider they are, but only based on their seduction skills. Economic freedom allows men to attract women as wives based on their ability to provide and this removes these women from the shared harem enjoyed by Liberal men. Of course Liberal women support economic equality because they want to be provided for. SEXUAL REVOLUTION – A PATH TO LESS SEX AND LESS EVERYTHING EXCLUDING DECLINE, EVIL AND STUPIDITY It is a common lie that Sexual revolution made it easier for men to obtain sex. This might had even been the truth for a very short period in the wild 60s but decades and decades have passed since this stopped being the case. A modern slut will not sleep with a men who has not proven his stupidity and immorality – TONS OF IT ! In the process, they will also destroy society. Franklin talks about this, along with other negative aspects of a slut culture, in the following post (I would like to thank cretins from FSTDT for saving it when it otherwise disappeared from where it was originally posted on) [An answer to the question, "what exactly is wrong with being a slut?"] Well, sluts are bad for men, women, and children. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, sluts destroy civilization. Sluts are bad for men because they only have sex with the “top” men. Most men have much less sex in a slut culture than in a monogamous culture where every man gets a woman. In a slut culture, men are trained to behave in whatever way attracts women. Sluts are attracted to jerks, so men are trained to be jerks. So the quality of men declines in a slut culture. In a slut culture, men constantly hit on women. This causes women to become hostile, rude, and obnoxious. Because men are desperate and will take anything, women lose any motivation to care about their appearance. So sluts become ugly hostile creatures. As sluts age, they lose their ability to attract the “top” men, but still reject all other men. So they become spinsters. So now, not only are they ugly and hostile, but they are also miserable. In a slut culture, illegitimacy rates go way up. Children are raised without fathers. This usually makes for a less happy childhood. So children are less happy in a slut culture. In the book “Sex and Culture”, Unwin showed that civilization depends on female chastity and that a civilized culture cannot survive more than three generations of sluts without collapsing. We can see this process before our eyes. What caught my eye while copy/pasting this post was the first comment of some moron there. Crocz says : This man posts on a site for desperate virgins, and decries women that he claims have indiscriminate sex. Fuck, people are dumb. Truly hilarious. Indiscriminate sex ! Haha. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, sluts are extremely picky about who to have sex with – any man who hasn’t passed the immorality/stupidity test (a test in which sluts check if your level of at least one of these traits is high enough) will never be given a chance by them. It is a hard fact that, even if we just take sex into consideration, more men are able to have sex in a monogamous society, even in a monogamous society without prostitution ! After the Elliot Rodger incident a woman under the nickname chibbity came to this blog to ask me why I oppose feminism if it means that “love-shy men like me” (she had obviously been unaware that I am not one since 2011, which indicates something about her but I won’t go into that now) would be approached by women. Truly hilarious ! Of course no woman is going to approach a love-shy male. It has never happened to me or any incel I met. This also has to do with the types I describe here. Do you really believe that an omega male could be love-shy? These morons are not only chased by young girls since their early teenage years but are also extremely “assertive”, which almost always means they’re actually ignorant, obnoxious, loudmouths. Sure, I did have some experiences with women but never were they initiated by women approaching me (chibbity also reveals her ignorance and a lack of understanding regarding the level of desperation me and many incels feel when she tries to make a point about my change from 2012, when I said I’d date a moderate feminist but completely misses the facts… yes, my attitude about this has changed since 2012. I’d now date the most radical feminist in the world as long as she would not became a threat to me. I said I’d only date a moderate feminist in 2012 because I wasn’t that desperate). FEMINISM A context of feminism is that it a part of liberalism and a symptom of dying societies. It is in its essence a slut power movement. Every single feminist policy is there to benefit sluts who act like decent, loyal sluts and ban women who don’t, including sluts who sleep with men who have not yet had the chance to prove their immorality and stupidity (teenage boys). Being a slut movement, it completely supports seduction. But the way feminism is criticized and hated is completely useless for incels. We need to hate it much more. It has taken our ability to ever have a loving girlfriend and a wife, family, everything. MYTH OF “PROGRESS” 2: FEMINISM GAVE ME A CAR AND TiVo WHILE CURING TUBERCULOSIS Another lie, by this point in my essay debunkable just if you followed it by now. It were strictly moral, protestant societies which gave humanity all of this. The kind of morality which didn’t exist in the Middle Ages created this. Feminism is just a monster that grew out of progress. It didn’t cause progress. In fact, progress is declining and will continue to decline. It could be successfully argued that Enlightenment ended around 2000. This is well described here The fundamental idea of the Enlightenment was to use reason to arrive at objective truth. In my opinion, the Enlightenment both depended on religion, particularly the Reformation, and undermined religion. In other words, the Enlightenment undermined the very thing that it depended on, and so it was doomed from the start. The demise of the Enlightenment took time and finally ended around the year 2000, so the Enlightenment lasted about 300 years. In order to objectively search for truth, one must place external facts above one’s own opinion. Such an approach requires humility. Without humility, one will always rationalize away facts to protect one’s cherished opinions. The scientific method is itself an extreme expression of humility, requiring that all scientific theories provide an experimental procedure to falsify the theory, and that the theory be experimentally tested independently by several people before even being considered possibly valid. (See The Logic of Scientific Discovery.) The problem with this is that humility is not natural for people, particularly for people in power. And without humility, there can be no advancement in objective knowledge. So we should ask what is the source of humility? There is only one answer that I know of, and that is religion. Religion teaches us to respect something greater than ourselves. In modern Western religions, that something is God. But whatever it is, the important thing is to recognize something sacred and above humanity. As long as God (or the gods) is recognized as above humanity, people learn humility. But when people place themselves on the level of God, humility is lost. So religion only works when religion restricts what is sacred to non-human things like God or nature. When human institutions become sacred, and people thereby compete with God, humility is lost, and so scientific advancement becomes impossible. Now we can understand the Enlightenment. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church (and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) was sacred and competed with God. This caused the Pope and those at the top of the Church to lose humility. And so they rejected objective truth in favor of their preferred views, and called all those who disagreed with their views heretics. Galileo is a well known example of someone who suffered the consequences of this. The Reformation changed all this by rejecting the Catholic Church and rejecting the idea that a human institution can be sacred. By insisting that humanity should be humble before God, the Reformation made possible the Enlightenment which insisted that humanity should be humble before objective truth. But unfortunately Christianity’s dependence on faith came into conflict with the Enlightenment‘s demand for reason. And so the Enlightenment undermined Christian faith. As religion faded, humility faded. Culture became arrogant. And this arrogance has produced our modern culture which places personal opinion over objective facts. Our current modern culture, which is basically a Leftist culture, teaches people to be selfish and to ridicule all those who don’t hold popular views. Such a culture is easily manipulated by those in power to suppress views that threaten those power. The result is a situation remarkably similar to the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Today, anyone who holds politically incorrect views is treated by the establishment the way the Catholic Church treated heretics in the Middle Ages. Today there is no tolerance for differing views because tolerance requires humility, and humility requires religion, and we ha
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;47793694]Is there a windows phone icon? Whenever I post it says Android,idk if its just mine[/QUOTE] It's a red windows icon [editline]25th May 2015[/editline] [url]http://useragentstring.com/[/url] post it
[QUOTE=Scratch.;47793732]It's a red windows icon [editline]25th May 2015[/editline] [url]http://useragentstring.com/[/url] post it[/QUOTE] Windows phone likes to identify as both itself and android for some reason. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] "Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; Windows Phone 8.1; Android 4.0; ARM; Trident/7.0; Touch; rv:11.0; IEMobile/11.0; NOKIA; Lumia 830) like iPhone OS 7_0_3 Mac OS X AppleWebKit/537 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile Safari/537" [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] And even Safari too wtf
What the fuck is useragent like that supposed to do now? Can't it be something simple like "Opera 29.xxxx" "Firefox xx.xxxx" I mean, everyone is string to adhere to standarts and render everything in the same way
[QUOTE=aurum481;47794430]What the fuck is useragent like that supposed to do now? Can't it be something simple like "Opera 29.xxxx" "Firefox xx.xxxx" I mean, everyone is string to adhere to standarts and render everything in the same way[/QUOTE] So that you get mobile content from shit developers only giving "iphone" or "applewebkit" mobile content
[QUOTE=xmariusx;47794573]So that you get mobile content from shit developers only giving "iphone" or "applewebkit" mobile content[/QUOTE] But then shit like this happens: [T]http://i.imgur.com/tVTRt87.jpg[/t]
Microsoft just wants everyone to check if [I]their[/I] UA string exists before all others.
My Lumia 730 useragent shows it as Windows 8 using IE11. :v:
If your browser is detected incorrectly, just post here with that browser/device and I will make sure to correct it. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] ( No need to post UA string )
Now I'm curious what my WP7.8 Lumia 800 shows up as... Edit: Nice, even old WP7 works.
A windows phone, what else?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.