Categories
alt-right anti-Semitism creepy daily stormer entitled babies homophobia literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism rape rape culture sexy robot ladies shaming tactics

Internet Nazis bitterly divided on the sexbot question

Sexbots: Wholesome fun for lonely Aryan men … or tool of Jewish degeneracy?

The Summer 2017 WHTM pledge drive is! Please consider donating money to enable continuing coverage of Nazi sexbot debates! Thanks! 

By David Futrelle

The Greater Internet Lady-hating community has generally been pretty enthusiastic about the allegedly impending arrival of vaguely realistic sexbots, hoping that the ready availability of faux ladies for sex will render real ladies more or less obsolete. Or at the very least make the real ladies feed bad about themselves, thus achieving a major goal of misogynists worldwide.

But sexbots have gotten a much chillier reception from the subset of internet misogynists who also happen to be Nazis. Last year, for example, a writer for the Daily Stormer denounced sexbots as a plot by Jewish degenerates to lower white fertility and, you know, white genocide the superior race.

A recent poll on the Daily Stormer suggests that most internet Nazis are still wary of sexy robot ladies, with 54% (as of this writing) thinking they’re a bad idea. But a significant minority — 35% — is kind of into the whole thing. A lively debate on the subject has broken out of the site’s BBS. Naturally, these being Nazis, the reasons behind these differing opinions are uniformly terrible.

According to hacker Andrew “weev” Auernheimer, commenting on the Daily Stormer, BBS, sexbots might be good for

nonwhites …(maybe not blacks because they are incapable of caring for any object of high value and it would cost society a lot of money)

for whites no– we implement WHITE SHARIA, and then freely beat and rape women after …

being a faggot with a five figure masturbation machine is probably gonna make you a lot less likely to implement WHITE SHARIA

As someone called Hercules1 sees it,

Having it with a robot is a weird and completely desperate degeneracy.

It’s almost the same as guys who can’t get any, having it with an animal or something out of desperation. …

Have a little self control. We’re not animals, and as National Socialists, we shouldn’t strive for degeneracy.

Fanda is similarly wary

Sounds like either a Semitic scam to further atomise society, a gooky reaction to a horribly atomised society, or a combination of the above.

VorginiaSavior worries about robot-assisted White Genocide:

Sex robots would be not only degenerate but it would go against the propagation of the Aryan race.

But SnakeDoctor has much more immediate concerns:

I’m not sticking my dick in anything that has the potential to clamp my dick off. That’s like taking a gamble getting a blow job from a bitch who has seizures.

But for every commenter denouncing sexbots as “degeneracy” or worse, there are perhaps two others parroting the standard misogynistic argument for sexbots. While running behind the naysayers in the Daily Stormer poll, on the BBS itself the pro-sexbot Nazis are offering much more detailed and passionate arguments as to why sexbots are great news for white dudes.

“Im for it,” declares Exiled_Idiot.

Robots with artificial wombs would pose a giant threat to the female population (cuz noone wants to deal with thots if you can avoid or need to fuck them) and force them to better themself and become more viable. It would essentially force them to evole or die out.

TheOutlander14 sees sexbots as a boon for men in a world teeming with”unmarriageable women.” Echoing pretty much every MGTOW and Men’s Rights Activist who’s ever offered an opinion on the subject, he argues that

Sex robots decrease the marketplace value of sex, essentially taking away nature’s one advantage that women have and exploit to the downfall of civilization in the post-modern era. …

Men have already been FORCED to live lives without women. You have to do everything in the house. Cook, Clean, Work, Maintenance and the only thing your post-modern woman will offer you is a second income, maybe sex, and debt to maintain her consumerist lifestyle. Robots cannot provide money to women or meaningful attention, which works against them.

We’re entering a eugenic bottleneck everyone, and if women won’t shape up and compete against robot pussy, then they will end up without a child or husband. There are more great men out there than there are decent women, and I think they deserve to at least be fucking happy without being called a degenerate because they don’t want to date a 2 ton whale of a woman covered in tattoos who wants to spend their money. Not everyone will be able to mate, and it’s better they do it with a sex robot than a chink. …

If you know a decent chick who isn’t some fat slut with uranium up her vag, don’t fuck a robot. Otherwise, fuck one in the meantime.

The aptly named Terrible thinks that sexbots will force women to stop saying “no” to sex.

‘Female’ sex robots designed for men are a good idea because they will take a lot of leverage away from women, dealing a deadly blow to the thot institution of ‘consent’. If a guy can just bang his robot and it feels better than banging you, then I guess you’d better learn to cook and clean and be a mother, right? Got some serious competition if all you’ve got to offer is a wet slit.

What must never be allowed to happen, though, are sex robots designed for women, for obvious reasons

Red_In_T_and_C offers an extended take on the threat sexbots pose to the power of pussy.

Our problems may be Jewishly inspired, but the lever that moves us is pussy.

Sex is both the carrot and the stick used to control men. We do the most ridiculous and destructive shit to get our nut. Which is harmful. We are then punished afterwards via things like “harassment” claims, child support etc…

Sex robots will allow men to develop the tools needed to resist being manipulated by women. 

For those still unconvinced, Red offers an argument that even the dullest Nazi should be able to understand. Because it involves vaping.

Being against sex robots is exactly like being against vaping. Pussy and tobacco are addictions that are expensive, that are undignified, and which have serious and life ruining real world consequences.

Consider a man of potential being sperm jacked at 20. He may never see his child, but would still be a slave to the child support machine until around 40. His career, ruined. His ability to raise a family, ruined.

And all because a bunch of feminists who hate men wish to deny us our liberation. And because a bunch of insecure men fear shaming language.

The only argument against sex bots is some sort of nonsense about no babies getting made.

Where are the arguments against condoms, the pill, sex ed, and abstinence?

And, hey, if you’re worried about the fertility rate falling amongst whites, Red adds, just “imagine the endless benefits if we gave sex bots to muds.”

Sorry, I’m still imagining the benefits of sexbots designed to clamp Nazi dicks off.

192 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
History Nerd
History Nerd
5 years ago

@Dalillama

Well, depends on who in the Church of England you’re talking about. 😛

dslucia
dslucia
5 years ago

WWTH said:

I also don’t take it as a given that these guys don’t get any social interaction. Most people aren’t cool with the bigoted extremes that the people David cover go to. But people do tolerate or even agree with quite a bit of bigotry. It’s not necessarily hard for these guys to blend in with the rest of society.

Very much this.

Not directly related to incels, but related to the manosphere in general and GibbleGoons in particular, this exact thing is rampant within the video game community. In fact, until the gators started showing their true faces I was pretty well convinced that a lot of them were far more, well, reasonable than they turned out to be. And the wake of it has been three years of people excusing virulent sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia for various reasons, even if they aren’t actually taking the gator side of things. That’s why Anita Sarkeesian is still such a hot button topic, because so many gamers are convinced that her only mission in life is to ruin video games forever.

Moggie
Moggie
5 years ago

History Nerd:

I get the feeling that militant atheism in the UK is more anti-leftist, while left-wing atheists there don’t really care as much about promoting atheism. There are more progressive/liberal militant atheists in the US because we have the Religious Right.

Remember, atheism is unexceptional here in the UK. The majority of Brits are non-religious, especially so among the young and the educated. Being non-religious simply isn’t something most of us feel a need to make a noise about, because, in our milieu, it’s the default.

Our leading campaign group is Humanists UK, formerly the British Humanist Association, and I think most people would agree that it’s a progressive group, not “anti-leftist”. Whether it would meet your criteria for militancy, I don’t know; it’s a very polite organisation.

Unaffiliated online atheism in the UK has always mostly been about poking fun at believers, I think. The main target used to be the reliably ridiculous creationists, particularly American creationists (the level of religiosity in the US is endlessly fascinating). But, in more recent years, these atheists have increasingly targeted Islam, so I think it’s almost inevitable that they would drift to the right.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
5 years ago

You get right wing atheists, and left wing atheists.
You get right wing Christians, and left wing Christians.
Being a conservative isn’t dependent on belief in God, just the upholding of traditions.

History Nerd
History Nerd
5 years ago

It’s similar in the US. “Humanists” are almost always liberal/progressive, while those associated with “New Atheists” (especially Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and “Rationalists” are centrist to far right. I’d say Humanists tend to bash religion less.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

grumpy

Brawn was also highly desirable in many of the occupations that were available in a society where the majority of people were engaged in agriculture, where only human and animal muscle power were available. Women were molded into breeders and nurturers …

The only women who didn’t develop much muscle themselves were the idle rich. Even women who didn’t labour in the fields needed pretty strong musculature to do the milking, carry the milk, churn the butter, etc. Quite apart from the seriously dangerous business of making soap and doing laundry. Then there’s all the “fun” of making sausages and all the rest of it whenever a beast is killed. It’s hard enough nowadays with modern equipment, doing everything by hand is another matter entirely.

And housemaids didn’t score much better than scullery/ dairy maids when it comes to heavy work. Carrying buckets of water a dozen or more times up and down stairs to fill and empty washbasins and baths. Carrying wood for a fire is perfectly fine – carrying the wood for half a dozen fires is pretty heavy work. Then there’s the literal playing with fire when transporting coal scuttles with burning embers to light all those fires set earlier in the day and those oh-so-nifty long handled bed-warmers also filled with live coals.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ mildlymagnificent

Even women who didn’t labour in the fields needed pretty strong musculature

I’d never even thought of that, although it’s obvious now you mention it. There’s a lot of interesting archeology that uses bone development to infer lifestyles. It’s how we ‘know’ neanderthals were apparently predominantly left handed (I’m not so sure about that though). But there’s some fascinating stuff around weapon usage, especially longbowmen.

But I’m curious now about whether anyone’s looked at how stong women must have ended up in the pre industrial age. I’ve got a mate who’s an osteo-archelogist. Time to pester her I think.

Moggie
Moggie
5 years ago

mildlymagnificent:

The only women who didn’t develop much muscle themselves were the idle rich. Even women who didn’t labour in the fields needed pretty strong musculature to do the milking, carry the milk, churn the butter, etc.

My maternal grandfather was a farmhand, and the impression I got from my mother (born in 1922) was that the farm essentially owned the family. Everyone in the family would have work to do around the farm, including the kids, particularly at harvest time. And a large proportion of farm labourers lived in “tied cottages”, owned by the farm, so you had to keep the farm owner happy: losing your job meant you and your family would be immediately homeless.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

ETA: I’ve just dropped her a message. On a related note I noticed our most recent chatting session. I’d asked about whether you could detect indicators of ‘stress’ archaeologically and this was her response. Interestingly she seems to be suggesting that in early development, females are more robust than males. At least that’s my take, but I could be misinterpreting her answer:

Hi – big can of worms that question – what do you mean by stress? I will presume -you thinking about bone/tooth indicators of physiological response be it to psychological stress or disease processes, malnutrition etc? In utero stress on the mother and foetus – often malnutrition or maybe even thing like foetal alcohol syndrome (produces specific problems – some skeletal i.e. pinched face, wide set eyes) Other defects – often midline defects – so maybe a consequence of lack of folic acid – spina bifida, cleft palate – big and obvious expressions – but also other midline defects like semi-vertebrae – not visible or of consequence necessarily and those effected may not know about it as no other side effects) During growth and maturation – period of stress (disease/psychological e.g. growing up under conflict, domestic violence etc) big indicators are the teeth (usually the permanent teeth) showing enamel hypoplasia and the tibias (harris lines). Enamel hypoplasia -teeth develop in incremental rings, so any ‘stress’ means the body reserves or uses its resources to maintain the body and not to continue with growth and development – so less emamel laid down and shows up as rings on the teeth once they erupt. – can be useful to show chronological timing i.e. state of tooth development happens within known range – young babies maybe show evidence of weening stress – ie. the timing of the EH is inline with this period in a child;s life. Harris line also similar basis – transverse lines visible on x-ray of the shaft of the tibias – shows up even during adulthood – lines correspond to cessation in growth of the developing skeleton- like EH some chronological estimation of the timing of these periods of ‘stress’ can be estimated. Other stress indicators – tho there is some debate – cribra orbitalia and porotic hypersostosis – likely link to iron deficiency anaemia. Body proportionally may indicate growing up under stress (conflict for e.g.)more affluence in general correlates with better diet – life expectations etc and longer leg to trunk ratio than poorer folk….. usually effects males more readily than females – male physiologically less robust during growth and maturation – basic biology need females to carry the next generation one male to many females will work as well as many males…..Adult stress indicators on the skeleton – this would be more grey area – as we are more likely to look for underlying illnesses that may in turn have an effect on the skeleton. Link to a paper by Mary Lewis here if you need to read more – prob this is only a pub quiz question and this level of detail unnecessary…….

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ mildlymagnificent

Ok, asked about whether there were any answers from archaeological research into this, and short answer appears to be, no.

Lovely human variation probably wouldn’t give such a neat line in the sand and we’d be short on testing what the individuals did in life without a time machine. But the skeleton is of course a dynamic tissue and responds and adapts to stresses placed upon it. There’s research into musculoskeletal markers ie tendon/muscle insertion points on the skeleton corresponding to particular muscle groups and therefore a range of movements e.g deltoid on the humerus of the upper arm. Some researchers have tried to correlate these to suggest they are markers of occupational stress, but a divided school of thought. Especially as some people are just generally more heavily musculatured than others. So how they would compare I don’t know and don’t know off hand of any particular research. But google markers of occupational stress and you may get some sort of hit. Needless to Say, someone who was a heavy weights lifter would probably have a few more grooves and pits and boney response as muscle insertion sites than me?

Robert Walker-Smith
Robert Walker-Smith
5 years ago

Regarding sexual selection – I just finished an enjoyable book, “Nature’s Nether Regions”. The details of reproductive technologies was dazzling; I learned more about beetle genitalia than I knew there was to know. The intricacies of human reproduction are also covered in a degree of detail that would give any MRA the screaming fantods.
Basic message – in species with two sexes, both evolve to maximize the effectiveness of their reproductive strategies. Whether it’s roundworms, honeybees, or humans, it’s more complex and complicated than most of us realize.

guest
guest
5 years ago

@Dalillama–yes! Thank you, that’s exactly what I was looking for. I think there’s another piece of the puzzle as well, but that is definitely a good place for me to start.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

Alan

But I’m curious now about whether anyone’s looked at how stong women must have ended up in the pre industrial age.

Not necessarily pre-industrial, just agricultural. I remember vividly being told about my paternal grandmother (born 1896). She began working when she was 14 on a sheep farm. When shearing was on, she’d have to get up before 4 am to get the wood stove working in time to give the workers a cup of tea before they started before 6ish. Then she’d have to start setting up for hearty breakfasts of chops and eggs and heapings of toast served around 8am. After which she’d immediately clear the table and get on with morning tea – basically a couple of (or more) roasting pans worth of scones.

Then lunch. Then – and this was when it hit me just how hard and heavy the work was – she’d mix, by hand, a huge plain buttercake mixture which was then divided into 4, four!, one plain, one with lemon flavouring, one with caraway seeds, one with sultanas or currants and bake them for afternoon tea. Think about the size of the mixing bowl held against one side of the body while you vigorously whip all the ingredients with a wooden spoon with the other arm. Makes my wrist-arm-shoulder ache just thinking about it.

In between times, she’d be chopping kindling and wood for the fire, refilling the “fountain” for boiling water on the stove, washing dishes, and peeling mountains of veg for lunches and evening meals. Shearers were like miners – they needed massive doses of calories+protein just to be able to do the work. Even with modern equipment and better training, it’s still pretty demanding.

I don’t know whether she was also responsible for laundry – pretty hard to fit in a whole morning standing over a wood fire and lifting boiling clothes with a pot-stick with all that other work needing to be done.

Robert Walker-Smith
Robert Walker-Smith
5 years ago

Mildlymagnificent – and humans of all genders lived like that for thousands of years. There’s a reason why so much inventiveness was applied to the question of ‘how can this necessary work be done without working people to premature death?’

I read a book recently, “Fannie’s Last Supper”, about recreating a late Victorian era dinner party using period kitchen equipment. Wood fired stove/oven was just the start – the dessert jellies involved cooking down calves’ feet.

Often, when I’m making my morning tea, I reflect on how I did not have to spend a half hour gathering wood or persuading the coals to light.

Ah, the good old days – may they never return.

GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina
GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina
5 years ago

Or when you want to take a bath, and you have to heat the water in a kettle over the hearth or, if you’re lucky, on the wood stove. We take so much for granted.

Katz
5 years ago

For me it’s not even the work, it’s the uncertainty. Like this year grasshoppers ate all our seedlings, so we won’t get any fresh vegetables (except beans and tomatoes, which grasshoppers apparently don’t like).

Back in the day, grasshoppers ate all your seedlings and you DIED.

Evan
Evan
3 years ago

@guest – please keep in mind that Darwin had no idea how genetics worked. Mendel was starting the science of genetics around the same time, but was not widely published in his lifetime.

For example, we now know that most genes are shared by male and female humans; the Y chromosome is much smaller than the others. (BTW, this applies to mammals; non-mammals have different methods of sex-determination)

Sexual selection can work differently on the male and female of a species – though probably less on pair-bonding, low-sexual-dimorphism humans than on some other species.

But it does not work on one sex wholly disconnected from its effects on the other, and internet misogynists sometimes seem to think.

Darwin’s ideas on how sexual selection worked in animals are now thought to be partly right and a bit too simple.

1 6 7 8
%d bloggers like this: