/mlpol/ - My Little Politics


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/

Name
Email
Subject
By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
Comment
0
Select File / Oekaki
File(s)
Password (For file and/or post deletion.)

scootaloo_pony_heart_by_pyrestriker_d4fhaak-fullview.png
The Deepest Psyop
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352468
352546
I want to make a serious attempt at trying to convince you of something controversial.
You're going to have a strong emotional reaction but bear with it.

Think of how retarded leftists look when they talk about racism as an inherent undefendable evil, anyone arguing against it is de facto wrong even before they open their mouth.
They've been psyoped over generations into thinking that loving your own people is an inherent evil, they see it as an axiom, and they're 100% emotionally and morally invested into it.
Don't be like that. Everything is open to question.

Child marriage was an historical norm. It was always seen as acceptable.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/child-marriage-rationale-historical-views-and-consequences.html
>Child marriages involving only one marriage partner below the age of 18, usually the female, are also quite common. Throughout history till the 20th century, child marriages were the norm in most parts of the world
>Girls were usually married off as soon as they reached puberty or sometimes even prior to that

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States&oldid=1104610475
>In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v16n02_03
>Age of Consent throughout history has usually coincided with the age of puberty although at sometimes it has been as early as seven. Early on age of consent was a familial or tribal matter and only became a legal one in the Greco-Roman period. The Roman tradition served as the base for Christian Europe as well as the Christian Church itself which generally, essentially based upon biological development, set it at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352470
ElXLLa7XgAAEokA (3).jpg
Things that are harmful don't evolve into universal norms. There's every excuse made for it after the fact but it's as ingrained in us as something like racism.
Loving your own is a feature. It's a good thing. It's evolved.

The benefits of it are that when you're monogamous, picking early means that you get first dibs. Her entire sexual history is yours.
Sure, you could pick when they're more mature but you're competing against everyone else.
Think of it as buying a stock early at a low price. It's an investment, you have to wait, but it pays back dividends

It became taboo started with feminism. It was actually the very first feminist act.
It was the first act of female sexual "liberation."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-raising-age-sexual-consent-taught-women-about-vote-180975658/
>The very first bill ever proposed by a female lawmaker in the United States came from Colorado state representative Carrie Clyde Holly in January 1895. Building on a decade of women’s activism, Holly’s ambitious legislation sought to raise the age of consent in the state to 21 years old. In 1890, the age at which girls could consent to sex was 12 or younger in 38 states. In Delaware, it was seven.

>By petitioning legislators in dozens of states to revise statutory rape laws, these women forged interracial and cross-class collaborations and learned the political skills they’d later use to push for suffrage.

The consequence was that girls did not get married young, they're supposed to idle for 6+ years when they've become sexual, and so they have one time stands at a young age and ruin their future.
They're supposed to go to school and get a job, or "experiment" with their sexuality, nothing good, nothing natural, and we know how that turned out.

The age at which you have kids acts as a multiplier. When you're competing with other groups this is extremely important.
When you look at jewish fertility reduction measures such as the Jaffe Memo, the first thing they list is delaying marriage.
Almost everything on this list has been implemented. They all followed that first step in feminism. Do you think they just so happened to do us a favour?

The criminalisation and demonisation of young marriage was a calculated step in White-genocide
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352471
352491
Purple at the library.png
Now we get into reproductive health

>But a teen can't bear a child, that's unsafe, we get told this constantly!

TL;DR is that it's confounding with CSE (race). It's another psyop.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219236/
>Although blacks were overrepresented in the entire sample
>These sample hospitals served a primarily black, low SES area of their respective cities. Thus the results from Marecek and Hardy may differ from those of the other studies.
>Among whites, in contrast, first born children of mothers 20 to 25 scored lower on the average than children of mothers 18 to 19; children of mothers under 18 did not differ from the other groups.
>Marecek also failed to find a difference on the Stanford-Binet by age at first birth among whites.
>In the Marecek study, no difference in intelligence by mother's age at first birth was found for whites.
>These models were developed only for blacks, since the white samples were too small for meaningful analyses
>Belmont el al. found the contribution of maternal age in years to be very small, contributing less than 1 percent of the variance explained in intelligence.
>In general, the results from the three data sets were very similar. The authors' (Belmont et al.) conclusion was that the offspring of teen mothers suffer IQ depression only because of associated social disadvantages and not because of any “immaturity of the mother.”

>The evidence is consistent that perinatal problems increase among mothers above age 30; however, recent evidence from the Danish Perinatal Study and from the Collaborative Perinatal Project in the U.S. show a linear relationship between maternal age and perinatal mortality with low rates among young women, and increasing rates with maternal age (Mednick and Baker, 1980)—or that there is no relationship (Broman, 1981), at least for ages 12–29.

>In general, the results from the three data sets were very similar. The authors' (Belmont et al.) conclusion was that the offspring of teen mothers suffer IQ depression only because of associated social disadvantages and not because of any “immaturity of the mother.”

>Although these relationships appear to hold in the population as a whole, there appears to be little difference between children of adolescent and non-adolescent mothers in special samples where prenatal and postnatal care are good. Sandler et al. (1981) evaluated the relationship between the age of mother and two measures of newborn behavior: 1) the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (Brazelton) and 2) a measure of infant temperament (Carey “My Baby” scale). No differences were found on the Brazelton Scale or Carey scale between children of adolescents and post adolescents (age not defined) within the first few days after birth.

>A number of recent studies failed to find any difference by age of mother in health status of neonates at birth (Apgar score, birth weight, prematurity, birth trauma, etc.) once initial differences such as differences in SES between adolescents and non-adolescents were controlled (Zuckerman et al. 1983; Rothenberg et al., 1981). Net of SES, Broman (1981) found older women to have higher birthweights among blacks, but not whites. Also net of SES, Broman (1981) found the youngest adolescents (12–15) to have lower Apgar scores than older adolescents among whites and blacks. The differences were very small, however.

There is much more to it, but I don't want to make it any more of a dump. I'll discuss it more as it's brought up. Thanks if you bothered to read even a part of it
Anonymous
20931e6
?
No.352490
352496
Colleges prey on kids too stupid to know what gender they are, what role they want to fill in society for pay, and how the world really works. I do not think these people have the mental capacity to consent to sex now or ever. You and I both know that whether the age of consent for the commoner is 16 or 18 or 21 or 14 or 12 or 25, the jews will still rape kids.
Anonymous
8af8e11
?
No.352491
352510
clipart1861510.png
>>352471
>Marecek
>MAREcek
Hmm...
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352496
>>352490
Yes, girls are not smart enough to make their own decision. Neither at 12 nor 18. The parents were always involved

Being able to consent means you're able to make a decision and say yes. You can argue whether they should be allowed to or not and that's a less obfuscated way of talking about it

>jews will still rape kids
Well, yeah. So long as they exist. That's kinda separate from anything here
Anonymous
833bcc0
?
No.352510
>>352491
What did they mean by this?!
Anonymous
62be2f4
?
No.352546
>>352468
>Child marriages involving only one marriage partner below the age of 18
Everything is fine as long as women return to their natural status: they are kinda property with rights similar to ones conceded to domestic animals. No more, no less.
Anonymous
20931e6
?
No.352548
352549 352554 352556 352560
I remember the last time a thread like this was made on this site. It was full of people saying "No, it's wrong to do what Jews do to kids". But it was screenshotted by faggots from another site the second the most recent replies lacked a post that said "I don't think the age of consent should be lowered to 12".
Anonymous
62be2f4
?
No.352549
HbgDGOu.png
>>352548
>screenshots
They gonna be booped.
Anonymous
4dc8b34
?
No.352550
women.jpeg
women2.jpeg

Anonymous
d958516
?
No.352554
352556
>>352548
This. Concessions were made banning lolicon. Either OP fucks off or the ban rolls back.
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352556
352559
>>352548
You can fake screenshots to begin with and if it was a frame job it wouldn't make sense to put actual arguments forth. And if we're remembering the same thread, there were plenty of people agreeing

>>352554
The way the actual rule is worded it sounds like they were forced to ban it but didn't want to. I don't get what you mean but you're not banning anyone
Anonymous
24cdf42
?
No.352559
352560 352561
>>352556
>You can fake screenshots to begin with
A screenshot is not the same as having the link of an active bread.
>And if we're remembering the same thread, there were plenty of people agreeing
And later on, there was a huge fuss about CP on this site. The consensus was that breads like these should be nuked on sight.

>I don't get what you mean
Keep the same energy, simple as that. Tbh I don't even care about lolicon, it's just a very compelling argument to remove both things off this site.
Anonymous
1d1969f
?
No.352560
352561 352565
>>352559
>>352548
Iirc, the last time we had this thread l, it was ultimately deleted after it was revealed to be a troll thread.
I remember because I got quads.
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352561
352564 352565 352569
>>352559
We've had the CP posts way before that thread and way after that thread. They're not in any way related, that's just well poisoning

Why not discuss why you think it's wrong instead of saying you want to ban the discussion?

>>352560
I think it just 404d like normal
Anonymous
1d1969f
?
No.352564
352565
>>352561
I don't see it in the archive.
Anonymous
1d1969f
?
No.352565
352567
Screenshot (500).png
>>352564
>>352561
>>352560
I was mistaken. It was not deleted. I found the thread >>326515 →

For the record, I do not wish to ban or suppress any opinion or thought, but I have a strong distaste for this particular topic, and I think anyone else is justified in expressing their distaste.
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352567
352568
>>352565
That wasn't the thread I was thinking of, the one I was thinking of I actually can't find in the archive though

Either way, my thread is legit

>I do not wish to ban or suppress any opinion or thought
Cool and good

>I think anyone else is justified in expressing their distaste
Sure, but it's an important topic and so far the only real discussion is about trying to associate the thread with something else
Anonymous
1d1969f
?
No.352568
>>352567
Again, I think it's fine to talk about, even if I dislike it.
Anonymous
018f5a3
?
No.352569
352570
>>352561
>We've had the CP posts way before that thread and way after that thread. They're not in any way related, that's just well poisoning
If you can't see how CP, lolicon and this absolutely vital thread/topic can go together. You are either disingenuous or an absolute retard.
These threads were specifically brought up.
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352570
352574
>>352569
You wouldn't say that a thread that promotes heterosexuality or marriage is linked to heterosexual porn. That's what this is
Anonymous
0f1bd45
?
No.352571
we should just do the norm age of consent in medevial times which was 12-14 yrs old and if approved by the father of the wife. all else is philosophy cringe larp
Anonymous
865009a
?
No.352574
>>352570
Absolute genious equivalence.
What you, staff or I consider as related doesn't matter.

Still, if Anons decided to make a fuss out of this earlier this year. But no longer give a fuck, I guess I'll just cringe at it.
Anonymous
20931e6
?
No.352580
352581 352582
Wouldn't it make more sense for OP's picture to be something more related to the topic than that particular pic of Scootaloo? Something seems off.
Anonymous
1d1969f
?
No.352581
352582
>>352580
All OP pics should have ponies, imo.
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.352582
353066
>>352580
Filly + heart
I thought it was obvious

>>352581
Also this
Anonymous
8dd4489
?
No.352624
woman-define-1909-1919-2022.jpg

Anonymous
6da11d5
?
No.353066
353069 353070
>>352582
*Ahem* >>353062 →
Anonymous
1d1969f
?
No.353069
>>353066
Why are you linking to threads that all of us can clearly see on the catalog?
Anonymous
82dd793
?
No.353070
>>353066
Schizo
Anonymous
82464b6
?
No.353074
Concern trolling pedo bait thread is concern trolling pedo bait thread.