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.
@Hartwick
Well, obviously. Not what you said tho:
There’s a lotta dudes (this blog covers them plenty) who think that any, even mildly positive response to being chatted up means a woman likes them. Not least by gals in the service industry, who hafta be nice. I accept it’s not what you meant, but saying that kinda thing to these kinda people… I dunno, maybe I’m being oversensitive
Also, what @WWTH and @Scildfreja said. Unlike my nonsense, perfectly said 🙂
@POM
I’m sorry to hear that. It’s awful. I hope that your ankle heals quickly.
<3 Alan and WWTH, you say things more clearly than me! I don't know where you get the impression that I'm more succinct than you, Alan, but I feel about as eloquent as a freight train at the moment.
(probably just feeling bloaty from ice cream though mind you. Could be that)
@Hartwick, it sure is better to interact with people than seethe in a basement! 100%. That's not the problem.
The problem is that those people that the MRA will interact with are, y'know, people. People who should not be subjected to the hate and bottled aggression of an MRA, and who should not be considered as therapeutic instruments for the rehabilitation of a misogynist. You’re inadvertently placing the needs of the MRA above the needs of the people they would be interacting with.
The MRA should go interact with people who understand and are okay with the situation. Generally, that involves counseling of some sort, be it professional or not. That I’m 100% behind. I’m far less enthusiastic about them glomming onto randoms. Those randoms’ need for security and peace override the MRA’s desire to rehabilitate themselves.
I hope that’s clear! Please correct me or clarify for me if I am confused, everyone. Because that is my normal state these days!
@Policy of Madness – I should have said something sooner, but I hope your ankle feels better soon.
I promise I wasn’t too busy feeling sorry for Nazis – I mean “White Nationalists” whoever they are – to feel some sympathy for you, too. In fact I feel exponentially more sympathy for you and your for-now bum ankle.
:O POM! Feel better! I hope that your ankle heals up quickly and that you are back on your feet soon. Until then, don’t strain yourself! Don’t strain da sprain!
@Axe, that too! It was in my head in your previous comment but I didn’t follow up on it, because my brain is a mess these days. MRAs aren’t very good at understanding relationships, especially with women, so the assumption of “she’ll talk to me” == “she’s a friend” is hideously misguided.
Especially in the service industry. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been cheerful and attentive behind a counter while someone drones on-and-on-and-on about something incredibly dull and I just can’t escape, because I gotta earn my stupid $7.25 that hour.
Women are raised to be polite, thoughtful, attentive and subservient. Too often, people assume that this equates to friendship when it’s really just the barest skin of toleration overtop a bubbling anger-pudding.
My gosh, I must still be hungry.
Anyways, it’s a very good point, thank you for making it!
@dreemr, I’m exactly the same. That was really well put. +1 !
YES, it totally is. I used to be prepared to bend over backwards for people, to accept all kind of behaviour, and frame it as a person needing to emote/ work it through or whatever, but I have seen too many people harming others and not changing to give a shit about them anymore.
I am sorry they are like that, but only because I am sorry for the people they affect and the fact that they make the world a shittier place. .
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.
@ POM
Yeah, sympathies for the ankle. Hope I’m not teaching you to suck eggs but I really recommend the Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation approach.
@ Dreemr
We had a similar thing here years ago in a notorious ‘vicarage rape’ case. The victim very courageously waived her right to anonymity and publicly forgave her attacker. One had to admire her commitment to her Christian principles. Of course there’s then the danger that it puts pressures on other victims to be equally magnanimous or can trivialise rape (“If she can do that, why are you so upset?” sort of thing). But of course victims are allowed to react in any way they wish. There’s is the only opinion that matters in such circumstances. And notwithstanding what I’ve said about expressions of sympathy, I do take comfort in their being compassionate people like yourself, and others on this site, in the world. If everyone was like you we wouldn’t have Nazis in the first place.
@Hartwick
I think you’re probably well-meaning, but it sounds like you may have an unrealistically optimistic view of the world. Yes, these people might be helped by therapy if they’re willing to honestly try to change, though most don’t have mental disorders. Therapy might even make some people worse because it could teach them social skills that make them better at manipulating people (the honesty and wanting to change are really important, or teaching someone new ways to behave is a waste of time).
TW for child sexual abuse
I used to work on a helpline. I had a caller who had been brought up in a very strict religious household and had also been raped by her father at the age of 7. She had been told repeatedly that she could only move on if she forgave him. She certainly did not WANT to forgive him but it was difficult for her to let go of this idea.
Thanks everyone. Sorry for derailing. I was a little intoxicated maybe when I posted that. LOL
I am icing the sprain but don’t really have an option to rest it the way I should. There are a lot of things to get done this weekend and only one more day to get them done. Please ignore what I post when I’m drunk.
POM: You make more sense drunk than most of the world makes sober.
I’m going to bring up something brilliant that WWTH said in the incel thread today:
Bullies are
and that’s somehow more important than what they do to their victims.
“Big ol’ softie?” Not when you’re trampling over someone who’s been hurt so you can shower sympathy on the person who chose to inflict the hurt in the first place.
For most bullies, a 9 to 18 month jail sentence is more effective than counseling because bullies are accustomed to a permissive culture. People take sides with bullies and make excuses for them. The opposite is often true for crimes people go to jail for a lot because someone like a thief usually has problems that let him or her go and steal despite very strong societal disapproval of theft and property crimes.
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson:
“If a Nazi were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity his state of mind; but our first consideration would be to ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards.”
I have a natural sympathy for all suffering human beings, by virtue of their status as fellow human beings. Those who suffer because they hold maladaptive beliefs and engage in deleterious behaviors receive less sympathy from me than those who suffer because of the beliefs and behaviors of others. I do not believe that this is a fault.
I have no pity to spare for worshippers of Hitler.
Robert Walker-Smith – that would be how I feel. I mean, hmm, well. I rather LIKE chickens. I know a lot of people don’t, but to me they’re fascinating little weird dinosaurs.
I also kill and eat my own chickens. I break their necks, and I do all the gory stuff that comes next. I do kind of feel a bit sad, but well, it’s something that has to be done. My empathy for my feathered little would be tyrants extends to proper medical care, healthy food, some mental stimulation (bored chickens suffer), and so forth. And it heads on into a clean kill. I feel strongly that modern chicken farming is a horror, and I grimace when I participate in it by buying fillets, etc, when I run out of frozen roosters.
So my empathy for Nazis filters into: Treat them like human beings, and do whatever you can to eradicate that belief system. I’m not opposed to various forms of institutional suffering they sign themselves up for – at least if it helps them unlearn that mental state. Not a huge one for suffering for suffering’s sake, not a huge believer in prisons either.
But none of that means I’d put them above a victim, as was claimed above. Or that if I saw something (as I have) I’d treat both people equally (I didn’t – the blameless must be assisted first).
Anyway, ehhh. My comments about empathy come down to it always welling up in me over time regardless of what I go through. Might be different if something happened to my kid. But it’s never the only feeling, everything always has exhausting layers.
This.
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
I saw (maybe read) a brilliant discussion/comment on this topic the other day. The conversation was about conservative versus liberal/progressive attitudes. Someone made the point about liberals showing more acceptance-tolerance-empathy for people they’d never met than conservatives do. The other party pointed out that conservatives can be extremely supportive and empathetic to people they know or who are, at least, like them in some obvious way.
The difference between them is not in their capacity for empathy. The difference is in the definition of the word ‘us‘. All that is needed for most conservatives to become “liberal” is for a wider, more inclusive approach to considering who is and who isn’t “like” them.
(Personally, I don’t think this would help much with people like the US Speaker of the House and his ideological clones. But it probably would with a lot of the thoughtlessly racist and sexist or similarly us-not-them folks.)
‘Anyway, the thing about this particular nauseating group that stands out for me is the continued idea that women have somehow evolved separately from men.’
As I’ve done several times before in various venues, I’m going to ask the hive mind here if they have any information about this…but isn’t that more or less what Darwin himself suggested? I know that if I really want a satisfactory answer it’s on me to go through Darwin’s work myself to find out exactly what he argued, but (and I may be completely wrong about this, so please share if you know better) I believe Darwin argued that sexual selection in humans has led, and is continuing to lead, to males becoming more strong, brave and clever (because that’s what females are looking for in a mate) and to females becoming more docile, pliant and caring (because that’s what males want in a mate)–i.e. that the forces directing evolution in humans lead in divergent directions for the sexes. Now, as far as I know (and again I have pretty much no idea what I’m talking about here) divergent directions for the sexes doesn’t actually make sense, as offspring have qualities of both–if a gracile human and a robust human have a child that child (whatever its sex) ends up with both gracile and robust genes. So what did Darwin actually argue was going on, and how much of his argument was genuine observation of humans vs unreflective sexism based on observation of the middle-class Victorian humans he was surrounded by? (We are aware that although Darwin doesn’t seem to have been an actual misogynist he was certainly capable of thinking of women as some species of pet: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/tags/about-darwin/family-life/darwin-marriage .)
I’ve had no luck to date getting people who understand these things to help me understand it–I’m asking for expertise from people who understand both genetics and Darwin’s work, and I don’t know if there are that many people who meet both requirements (unfortunately experts in the history of science generally don’t know much actual science). I’ve looked online, and discovered that finding useful information about Darwin’s work is impossible through general searches because they’re bogged down with Christian agendas (i.e. it’s very easy to find criticism of Darwin’s arguments, but not any of any real value). I’ve asked on various online forums, and IRL when I meet people who I think might be able to shed some light. I’ve even asked people at Down House, when I happened to find myself there!
But now that I’ve typed all this out, I’m thinking that reading The Descent of Man is now on my to-do list for this afternoon….
Choose your words carefully. I would not advocate sympathy or empathy for the creep class, because those words imply a shared or relate-able experience. I do think, perhaps, that pity may be warranted for fellow human beings with hearts so dark that they have lost their humanity.
Further, I still think it’s a good idea for creeps to leave the basement and go talk to people. Perhaps they can regain some of that lost humanity, and that would be a benefit to all of us. If you check my earlier comment, however, I also said that some people might not talk back. I do not — as some have suggested — mean to put the needs of the creeps above the needs of those they might interact with.
And, yes, by all means take the stick out of his hand first. Pity can come later.
I appreciate all of the responses — it’s always good to get opinions and perspectives different than mine. Good night all.
OT: Effety-eff, this is so not normal
White House sent Melania into Trump-Putin meeting in a failed effort to get Trump to stop talking
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/7/1678707/-White-House-sent-Melania-into-Trump-Putin-meeting-in-a-failed-effort-to-get-Trump-to-stop-talking?detail=emaildkre
@ guest
Sexual dimorphism isn’t the same thing as separate evolutionary paths. Humans exhibit relatively little sexual dimorphism. Darwin argued that sexual selection caused the Victorian social gender roles and associated personality characteristics. There is no evidence for this proposition. He was principally rooting it in an unthinking assumption that the way he’d grown up was the natural order of human life.
@Dalillama that’s definitely the impression I get…but I wish I knew someone with enough expertise on Darwin’s work to substantiate it. I’m remembering now another reason why I’ve had such difficulty getting any information about this–people who do work on Darwin, used to having to fend off Christianity-based criticism, are understandably not interested in engaging with critical questions from someone they don’t know.