"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

90% of Twitter is either coomers, trannies, or commies. I get Josh's libertarian sentiment but a lot of people forget Twitter is mostly retards.
A visual representation of Twitter's effects on vulnerable minds:
Twatter.png
 
I just don't understand why all these people have a problem with me wanting personal freedom. The mere fact that I disagree is enough to warrant my removal, despite the fact I have no intent to interact with these people, be around them or otherwise impact their lives. Yet they want to come into my living room, wreck my shit to prove a point and then take away my right of self-determination to make themselves feel good.

This is why I keep buying guns. I know I am going to lose to the flood, but at least I can take a bunch with me before I get smashed.
I think it might have something to do with the mindset of someone like elon musk who advocates for zero emissions and environmental shit, while at the same time having aggressively anti consumer policies at tesla. If we want to save mother earth, we must give up our personal freedoms and privacy. Of course, it could just be a smokescreen to assert more control and consolidate more wealth.

I am reminded of the old standby saying of my childhood years - "You're free to do as you wish, as long as you're not hurting anyone". Well, it seems like the definition of "hurt" changes very quickly these days. From physical violence, to verbal taunts, to not wanting to wear a mask in every public place. Things that seem immutable have a depressing habit of turning on a dime.
 
The one way the coomer problem in society can at least slow down is more access/education on sex addiction. I think this creates a healthy assertive line between being a rampant anti-porn puritan and le coomer wojack. But I don't really know if corporations are willing to sponsor those sort of things, and on top of that the LGBTBBQ can easily swoop in and cry about how its an anti-gay idea because 99% of their culture revolves around sex.

I don't know how sex-ed works because I barely remember it, and I know fuck all about raising kids- but I think the PSAs against sex addiction will be most effective if its placed along side sex-ed. But like I said above, it'll be a losing battle for public schools, but perhaps smaller organizations like ones in home-schooling can offer them. It'll be a continuous struggle but imo it'll be worth it in the end.
 
I think it might have something to do with the mindset of someone like elon musk who advocates for zero emissions and environmental shit, while at the same time having aggressively anti consumer policies at tesla. If we want to save mother earth, we must give up our personal freedoms and privacy. Of course, it could just be a smokescreen to assert more control and consolidate more wealth.

I am reminded of the old standby saying of my childhood years - "You're free to do as you wish, as long as you're not hurting anyone". Well, it seems like the definition of "hurt" changes very quickly these days. From physical violence, to verbal taunts, to not wanting to wear a mask in every public place. Things that seem immutable have a depressing habit of turning on a dime.
Yeah, the left spent decades arguing that something is OK if no one gets hurt, I.E. gay marriage, to get what they wanted normalized in a conservative culture, and it worked to the point where most people believed it.

Now they're in power and want beliefs and actions they dislike banned, but they still have to abide by the "do whatever as long as it doesn't hurt others" philosophy they set up. So they have to labelling opinions or statements physically harmful by framing it as "saying this will start a long chain of events that ends in a white person shooting up a black church, and if you question the logic you're racist."
 
The one way the coomer problem in society can at least slow down is more access/education on sex addiction. I think this creates a healthy assertive line between being a rampant anti-porn puritan and le coomer wojack. But I don't really know if corporations are willing to sponsor those sort of things, and on top of that the LGBTBBQ can easily swoop in and cry about how its an anti-gay idea because 99% of their culture revolves around sex.

I don't know how sex-ed works because I barely remember it, and I know fuck all about raising kids- but I think the PSAs against sex addiction will be most effective if its placed along side sex-ed. But like I said above, it'll be a losing battle for public schools, but perhaps smaller organizations like ones in home-schooling can offer them. It'll be a continuous struggle but imo it'll be worth it in the end.
Is it though? I really don't understand how so many people are becoming "sex addicts"- don't they have a sense of shame?

I didn't grow up religious or any particularly strong morals, but even at, like, 13, I knew this kind of stuff was shameful. It's like eating too much junk food or sitting in a chair all day, you feel disgusted with yourself, and you do something about it. Do people really need to be taught not to eat themselves/fuck their hands to death?

I can't fucking stand Wojaks now, they're like 2016 Pepes, but I feel like the Coomer Wojak expresses a powerful and tangible image of shame that is far, far more effective than any amount of "education."
 
Sex addiction isn't real. It's a bullshit excuse that lets you pretend to be a victim.

I'll grant that a handful of people might have a medical problem that causes insatiable desire; but even then, most people that claim to have something like that are also lying to excuse their behavior and play the victim.

Get a hobby. Weave baskets or make furniture. Problem solved.
 
Yeah, the left spent decades arguing that something is OK if no one gets hurt, I.E. gay marriage, to get what they wanted normalized in a conservative culture, and it worked to the point where most people believed it.

Now they're in power and want beliefs and actions they dislike banned, but they still have to abide by the "do whatever as long as it doesn't hurt others" philosophy they set up. So they have to labelling opinions or statements physically harmful by framing it as "saying this will start a long chain of events that ends in a white person shooting up a black church, and if you question the logic you're racist."
That's why they use the word "violence" in nonsensical ways all the time. One of the few things nearly everyone agrees on, even libertarian nuts, is that randomly inflicting violence on the innocent is unacceptable. So they use that universal taboo against things that are clearly not violence. "Speech is violence," they say. What you notice when you argue leftists enough is that all of their slogans, all of their methods of argument, all of their cliches are based on some form of language manipulation or trickery. They simply cannot sell their social policies without some form of deception.
 
I can understand the sentiments about libertarianism. Believing that you shouldn't be restricted from doing something doesn't mean you should do it, or doing it is good, or that you should advocate other people to do so. Just because libertarianism is individualistic doesn't make the selfishness in libertarians unique or special. Farmers that want subsidies aren't advocating it because they believe the United States would benefit from having food grown at home. How many people that want free college for all want it because they want the government to subsidize their lifestyle as perpetual students? Probably a lot.

Libertarianism has always had non-selfish/societal arguments in favor of its ideas, the most famous being the "free market of ideas" benefiting society by letting all viewpoints hash it out. That doesn't mean that all viewpoints are valid or correct to those within the marketplace, and it doesn't mean that you have to acquiesce and not question anything someone does. John Stewart Mill's liberalism was based on his utalitarianism, which differentiated between the "higher" and "lower" pleasures. He would say that we have the right, but also the responsibility to use our built-in reason to figure out how to live. Would the guy that wrote
It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other's conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. [...] Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be for ever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations.

[...]

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. [...] If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings.

Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself. It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming.

We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.

A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit—who cannot live within moderate means—who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences—who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect—must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favourable sentiments; but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.

[On Liberty, Chapter 4]
think that "jacking it to tranny porn is my god-given duty" is responsible reasoning? Libertarianism doesn't mean moral relativism.

Society is always going to have disgusting, self-serving people, and they are going to hide behind anything because their true desires come down to "what I want is right and what attains it is right," with various caveats. (How many South Americans are attracted to Christianity for liberation theology rather than belief in Jesus as the Son of God, or even in the societal beliefs of the Catholic Church?) I like libertarianism because it helps to give room to the people that deserve it, and allows anyone to step up to the plate and try. It allows those who give an effort to shine while trying to lower the amount of hoops they have to jump through as much as possible. It's like this forum: there's always going to be people with low-effort posts or constant circular arguments about the jews or whatever, but this liberal stance also allows others to come in and contribute good posts without having to worry about pissing off someone by not using preferred pronouns or by saying nigger. The point of libertarianism is to argue and promote this good behavior to others, with the knowledge that trying to hammer it into people is counterproductive.

I'm not here to shill Mill in particular. There's probably many counterarguments or problems with his conception of liberty and its relation to society (how would Mill feel about Mastercard and Visa deciding not to do business with those that are "properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt"?), and I would not call myself a utilitarian, but my point is that you should give some more thought and analysis to libertarianism deeper than facial current-politics stuff (even if you still come to dislike or reject it) if people like ShortFatOtaku shake your belief in it.
 
Last edited:
@Null likes to share this graph on twitter and recently on Mad At The Internet made by Washington Post Data Reporter Christopher Ingraham in the below tweet. Maybe due to incels, the editor did not include it on his story about The share of Americans not having sex has reached a record high at the Washington Post or removed it. If it is still there it isn't appearing in my copy of the story.

Final datapoint: the share of young men reporting no female sex partners since they turned 18 -- a rough a proxy for virginity -- more than tripled since 2008. I say rough proxy bc 1) some had sex in their teens and 2) some exclusively have male partners. pic.twitter.com/nCJly8s3Ok

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) March 29, 2019

1621790869481.png


Well as he mentioned in the tweet, the numbers are inflated as they include homosexuals. I wasn't happy with that number of gay and gay people who also had sex with women being included. and was hoping for a huge drop. The University of Chicago's General Social Survey didn't include questions about molestation or other teen sex so that part can't simply be removed from the dataset.
Python:
import csv


with open('Vmeter.csv', newline='') as csvfile:
    print("Year Men Virgins Percent")
    year_men = 0
    year_v = 0
    year = ""
    reader = csv.DictReader(csvfile)
    for row in reader:
        #select out people between 18 & 30, and sex == 1 is men
        if (18 <= int(row['age']) <= 30) and (row['sex'] == "1"):
            #if on a new year print the previous year
            if year != row['year']:
                if year != "": print(year, year_men, year_v,"{:.2%}".format(year_v/year_men))
                year_men = 0
                year_v = 0
                year = row['year']
        #only count men who answered 0 or more, many lots, several, some,1+ women and had 0 men or N.a. for men
            if ((0 <= int(row['numwomen']) <= 900) or row['numwomen']=="995" or row['numwomen']=="994" or row['numwomen']=="991") and (row['nummen'] == "0" or row['nummen'] == "996")   :
                year_men += 1
                if row['numwomen'] == "0":
                    year_v += 1
    #print out the final year
    print(year, year_men, year_v,"{:.2%}".format(year_v/year_men))
      

#year,id,age,sex,numwomen
#1989,1,22,1,20
#1989,2,40,1,-1


'''
VALUE LABELS
  AGE
      99       "No answer"
      98       "Don't know"
      89       "89 or older"
 / SEX
      2        "Female"
      1        "Male"
 / NUMWOMEN
      999      "No answer"
      998      "Don't know"
      997      "Refused"
      996      "N.a"
      995      "Many,lots"
      994      "Several"
      993      "Garbled text"
      992      "X"
      991      "Some,1+"
      990      "Dash or slash"
      989      "989 or higher"
      -1       "Not applicable"
 / NUMMEN
      999      "No answer"
      998      "Don't know"
      997      "Refused"
      996      "N.a"
      995      "Many,lots"
      994      "Several"
      993      "Garbled text"
      992      "X"
      991      "Some,1+"
      990      "Dash or slash"
      989      "989 or higher"
      -1       "Not applicable"
'''

So using the above code, here is his chart without the gays
Year​
Men​
Virgins​
Percent​
1989​
135​
8​
5.93%​
1990​
111​
6​
5.41%​
1991​
121​
12​
9.92%​
1993​
126​
12​
9.52%​
1994​
203​
16​
7.88%​
1996​
240​
15​
6.25%​
1998​
200​
25​
12.50%​
2000​
216​
19​
8.80%​
2002​
218​
17​
7.80%​
2004​
205​
17​
8.29%​
2006​
201​
16​
7.96%​
2008​
133​
9​
6.77%​
2010​
142​
12​
8.45%​
2012​
148​
15​
10.14%​
2014​
179​
15​
8.38%​
2016​
152​
22​
14.47%​
2018​
117​
23​
19.66%​
1621793903213.png

Unfortunately, the number is still high, and a sudden sharp increase of incelness at the end, at least there is a moderate reduction once we exclude men who are into playing with other men's asses or having other men play with theirs.

If anybody wants any other charts like 60-70 year old virgins or for female virgins, etc, speak in the next day or forever hold your peace in your hand.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
@Null likes to share this graph on twitter and recently on Mad At The Internet made by Washington Post Data Reporter Christopher Ingraham in the below tweet. Maybe due to incels, the editor did not include it on his story about The share of Americans not having sex has reached a record high at the Washington Post or removed it. If it is still there it isn't appearing in my copy of the story.



View attachment 2195015

Well as he mentioned in the tweet, the numbers are inflated as they include homosexuals. I wasn't happy with that number of gay and gay people who also had sex with women being included. and was hoping for a huge drop. The University of Chicago's General Social Survey didn't include questions about molestation or other teen sex so that part can't simply be removed from the dataset.
Python:
import csv


with open('Vmeter.csv', newline='') as csvfile:
    print("Year Men Virgins Percent")
    year_men = 0
    year_v = 0
    year = ""
    reader = csv.DictReader(csvfile)
    for row in reader:
        #select out people between 18 & 30, and sex == 1 is men
        if (18 <= int(row['age']) <= 30) and (row['sex'] == "1"):
            #if on a new year print the previous year
            if year != row['year']:
                if year != "": print(year, year_men, year_v,"{:.2%}".format(year_v/year_men))
                year_men = 0
                year_v = 0
                year = row['year']
        #only count men who answered 0 or more, many lots, several, some,1+ women and had 0 men or N.a. for men
            if ((0 <= int(row['numwomen']) <= 900) or row['numwomen']=="995" or row['numwomen']=="994" or row['numwomen']=="991") and (row['nummen'] == "0" or row['nummen'] == "996")   :
                year_men += 1
                if row['numwomen'] == "0":
                    year_v += 1
    #print out the final year
    print(year, year_men, year_v,"{:.2%}".format(year_v/year_men))
     

#year,id,age,sex,numwomen
#1989,1,22,1,20
#1989,2,40,1,-1


'''
VALUE LABELS
  AGE
      99       "No answer"
      98       "Don't know"
      89       "89 or older"
 / SEX
      2        "Female"
      1        "Male"
 / NUMWOMEN
      999      "No answer"
      998      "Don't know"
      997      "Refused"
      996      "N.a"
      995      "Many,lots"
      994      "Several"
      993      "Garbled text"
      992      "X"
      991      "Some,1+"
      990      "Dash or slash"
      989      "989 or higher"
      -1       "Not applicable"
 / NUMMEN
      999      "No answer"
      998      "Don't know"
      997      "Refused"
      996      "N.a"
      995      "Many,lots"
      994      "Several"
      993      "Garbled text"
      992      "X"
      991      "Some,1+"
      990      "Dash or slash"
      989      "989 or higher"
      -1       "Not applicable"
'''

So using the above code, here is his chart without the gays
Year​
Men​
Virgins​
Percent​
1989​
135​
8​
5.93%​
1990​
111​
6​
5.41%​
1991​
121​
12​
9.92%​
1993​
126​
12​
9.52%​
1994​
203​
16​
7.88%​
1996​
240​
15​
6.25%​
1998​
200​
25​
12.50%​
2000​
216​
19​
8.80%​
2002​
218​
17​
7.80%​
2004​
205​
17​
8.29%​
2006​
201​
16​
7.96%​
2008​
133​
9​
6.77%​
2010​
142​
12​
8.45%​
2012​
148​
15​
10.14%​
2014​
179​
15​
8.38%​
2016​
152​
22​
14.47%​
2018​
117​
23​
19.66%​
View attachment 2195110
Unfortunately, the number is still high, and a sudden sharp increase of incelness at the end, at least there is a moderate reduction once we exclude men who are into playing with other men's asses or having other men play with theirs.

If anybody wants any other charts like 60-70 year old virgins or for female virgins, etc, speak in the next day or forever hold your peace in your hand.
I'd be interested to see it for women. It's always informative to see the incel v. Chad dicotamy in the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwifarmsfan1
I'd be interested to see it for women. It's always informative to see the incel v. Chad dicotamy in the difference.
1621799594460.png
1621803115732.png

Of course same disclaimer applies, these women might of been molested or had teen sex, but this chart excludes the lesbians and bi women.

Year​
Women​
Virgins​
Percent​
1989​
149​
12​
8.05%​
1990​
136​
10​
7.35%​
1991​
144​
7​
4.86%​
1993​
169​
14​
8.28%​
1994​
255​
15​
5.88%​
1996​
286​
14​
4.90%​
1998​
266​
19​
7.14%​
2000​
219​
22​
10.05%​
2002​
240​
23​
9.58%​
2004​
252​
28​
11.11%​
2006​
250​
24​
9.60%​
2008​
167​
9​
5.39%​
2010​
190​
24​
12.63%​
2012​
156​
12​
7.69%​
2014​
182​
20​
10.99%​
2016​
147​
20​
13.61%​
2018​
113​
17​
15.04%​

Null's theory "People are growing up with false ideals for partners and it's damaging to their ability to form normal, healthy relationships." of which he attributes to porn obsession. These women must be tickling themselves crazy and watching hours upon hours of videos to get these number then if his theory holds up for this sex.

If you notice that the times that women have the least amount of virgins before 2008, men soon after have the most, I'd imagine a more accurate theory would be the one floating around with online dating and the swipe effect of keeping the bottom percent dry, which is even more pronounced due to phone apps which can finally eat away at women as well. Porn viewing might go up, but if 20% of the men in the country aren't getting any, I'd imagine that most of the clicks are going to that as an effect, not the cause.
 
Last edited:
These women must be tickling themselves crazy and watching hours upon hours of videos to get these number then if his theory holds up for this sex.
I know you're being sarcastic, but they're probably just not having as much sex. There's fewer men available if they've self-selected themselves out of the gene and dating pool. I don't believe in the 80:20 theory, the reality is probably closer to 20:20 but those hypergamists just swap with each other a lot.

Incels delude themselves into thinking that women are super picky, not just excluding creepy men (them). The truth is probably closer that men are now more picky, and they simply decide that dating average women is less desirable than abstaining and watching porn while replacing relationships with consumerism - which is exactly what incels accuse women of doing, ironically. Women are left on the shelf and then go fucking insane and adopt a bunch of cats.

There's a lot of facets to the disharmony between the sexes right now and the fractures between the two are complicated and hard to describe succinctly. If you try to sum it up with one universal theory, you'll be wrong. I don't believe hypergamy is as common as porn, media (shows like the Jersey Shore), and other people try to make it out to be. Most people I talk to (men and women) have a few long term relationships by the time they're 30 and not many do one night stands at all. Only in very rare cases do I hear of people with a huge number of partners, and they're usually gay/trans.


Your chart shows that sexlessness is on the rise and I still believe that this boils down to the availability of pornography because men lead, women follow.
 
Your chart shows that sexlessness is on the rise and I still believe that this boils down to the availability of pornography because men lead, women follow.

Regarding which sex has the most influence, it oscillates over time and presents itself in differing ways. If you look at the temperance movement, while it originated with religious revival that included men, its spearhead was women who were tired of men being slobs in public and they used their influence to form apolitical organizations(something hard to do today) to get laws and amendments passed to its effect.

Here is an excerpt about their taming and controlling ability from Steven Pinker's book Better Angels of our Nature:
1621856629952.png

----------------------------------

I'll concede to multiple major factors, as with the degree of the problem getting insane, is most likely the case with them acting in synergy. We both come from different background so perhaps that is why we are seeing different primary factors. I have a friend who is getting so much action on Bumble and similar apps that he is practically complaining his dick hurts which probably skews my perspective to emphasize phone apps.


Regardless, the state of things are going straight to hell, and if there was 2020 data I'd include it to demonstrate if as we both speculate, the fire is rising, but for whatever reason, they didn't include the question in the 2020 survey as far as I know. I'll confirm things in the fall which is when 2020 data will be fully released if I remember to do so.
 
Last edited:
I know you're being sarcastic, but they're probably just not having as much sex. There's fewer men available if they've self-selected themselves out of the gene and dating pool. I don't believe in the 80:20 theory, the reality is probably closer to 20:20 but those hypergamists just swap with each other a lot.

Incels delude themselves into thinking that women are super picky, not just excluding creepy men (them). The truth is probably closer that men are now more picky, and they simply decide that dating average women is less desirable than abstaining and watching porn while replacing relationships with consumerism - which is exactly what incels accuse women of doing, ironically. Women are left on the shelf and then go fucking insane and adopt a bunch of cats.

There's a lot of facets to the disharmony between the sexes right now and the fractures between the two are complicated and hard to describe succinctly. If you try to sum it up with one universal theory, you'll be wrong. I don't believe hypergamy is as common as porn, media (shows like the Jersey Shore), and other people try to make it out to be. Most people I talk to (men and women) have a few long term relationships by the time they're 30 and not many do one night stands at all. Only in very rare cases do I hear of people with a huge number of partners, and they're usually gay/trans.


Your chart shows that sexlessness is on the rise and I still believe that this boils down to the availability of pornography because men lead, women follow.
Not sure if this complicates the study or not but most women when they are childless and hit their mid 30's, something clicks in their brains and go into hunt mode where they get really desperate about finding a dude to get them preggers. This probably has to do with biological and hormonal changes in their brain because the clock is ticking to have a kid because shit starts to dry up fast in their 40's and conception rates plummet. For men this happens much later. In theory I would imagine people will end up sexually active later in life then prior generations. This isn't really good news though because having 50 year old parents when you are 10 could be limiting to the quality of upbringing in certain areas of childhood development. The fact of the matter is it seems like easy access to porn at a young age is delaying the intimate relationship of young people, furthermore there is many more distractions available like how addicting the Internet as a whole has become where as back in the day it was more catered toward nerds and kids. Back in the day the most popular thing to do was go out and socialize in person with friends outside of the home which leads to more sexual based interactions and encounters.
 
Back