/fur/ - Furry★

>>45768 (OP)

that's a really small and badly drawn penis

>>45775

actually scratch that, all of the anatomy on these is really wonky and nonsensical

>>45779

>really small penis

You've been in the fandom too fucking long, retard. If the guy is 6' tall (and given the bara fetish, it would be reasonable to assume such) his cock here is over NINE AND A HALF INCHES LONG. And it's fucking flaccid!

>>45815

>barafag

Wow super gay people got super gay political views! Who could guess?

>>45815

>liberal SJW IDpol

>leftist

Please stop.

>>45821

>leftist

>not sjw

Are you British or French?

>>45821

Sorry nigga, if you don't wanna be called sweet, don't be sugar. SJW IDpol crybabies are never rightwingers, sorry that busts your lil tankie buns.

>>45823

American. Don't blame me for getting your terms mixed up because this is the most economically and politically illiterate country in the world.

>>45825

>never rightwingers

Alt-right SJWs literally want to turn the country into a safe space for white people. "Degeneracy" is their substitute for the "triggering" word.

>tankie

Sorry ameriburger, but I'm a communalist, not a tankie. Google Bookchin.

Can we bumplock this thread already?

>>45815

>I don't think men should have rights

Well, at least we now know the artist is a woman.

>>45834

I'm pretty sure it's a guy. I don't think he's referring to men having rights at all, I believe he means to talk about the "men's rights movement." which is also heavily associated with MGTOW. Their main complain is that women get special rights/privileges over men, which may be valid in a few cases; we know that women more often than not get custody of the kids and property during divorce, alimony, child support, and police are more likely to arrest men during domestic disputes with women. But most of them seem more interested in bagging on "those hateful bitches."

>>45825

Yes they are. Liberalism is right wing ideology; identical to fascism in all but rhetoric.

>>45846

>Do you mean Libertarianism?

It depends on what you mean. True libertarianism is socialist by definition. In the United States, """libertarianism"" was co-opted by hypercapitalist liberals. So what you think of as libertarianism is probably just a rebranding of liberalism AKA woke fascism.

>>45846

>People with a legitimate concern over actual elements explicitly against them

>White women don't want to fuck me, THIS IS WHITE GENOCIDE!

Reminder aut-reichs actually have a plan that nationalizes women and distributes them via arranged marriage through the state to other white men.

>Do you mean Libertarianism?

He wasn't wrong. What you refer to as libertarianism is actually called anarchism (AKA statelesss socialism) by the rest of the world. Your "libertarians" are actually called neoliberals. Gonna read you a quote now from Murray Rothbard, the father of american right-wing "libertarianism" (neoliberalism):

We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

>>45851

Take your lithium, David.

>>45851

I was big into NatSoc and AnCap (kind of am still) but I've recently been going through "The 5000 year leap" (which explains the divinely inspired and intelligent nature of the founding of the United States) and have been having second thoughts. The Homogenization aspect of NatSoc appeals because there's many fewer Social and Genetic issues with a Monoculture (and that those benefits should be had by each nation) The AnCap side argues for maximum potential freedom (though an increased responsibility as a consumer).

>>45857

>maximum potential freedom

>capitalism

Have fun with that.

>>45860

Take your lithium, David.

>>45855

Who the hell is David?

>>45857

>NatSoc

Reminder natsoc isn't socialism, it was capitalist. the nazis invented the term "privatization"

>The 5000 year leap

Pure ideology, nothing more. America didn't prosper because muh teachings of god or muh rights, it prospered through fucking over the working class and expansionist policies such as imperialism, "muh manifest destiny", and slavery. Put that crap down and pick up a real book;

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/00ca8233b35c36cffa310998238ab93bc74f4e8b388f5ed766e7ac8447f43537.pdf

Debt: The First 5000 Years isn't explicitly leftist. It's an analysis of the role and philosophy of debt in human society from an anthropological perspective. However, it contains within it an insightful critique of capitalism. In short, it utterly destroys with the weight of 5,000 years of history, both the moral and logical philosophical underpinnings of liberal economic theory. It expertly wipes away false assumptions so deeply entrenched in modern culture, so internalized in modern consciousness that you didn't even know you had them.

>because there's many fewer Social and Genetic issues with a Monoculture

Aside from the fact that class divides caused by capitalism are the problem, not "the blax" or "muh immigrants", monoculture isn't possible in a capitalist system, the society, and world society, is subserviant to capital. The capitalists will push their own artificial culture to the masses in order to sell more products.

>The AnCap side argues for maximum potential freedom

Freedom for the slaveowners, not the slaves.

>>45768 (OP)

>these proportions

>human penis

I don't think it was a significant loss.

It ain't the worst work in the world, but it's definitely not good.

Then again, maybe I don't have a place to say. One of my favorites disappeared a while back, and his stuff was absolutely terrible. Just imaginative enough for me, though.

>>45842

Are you talking modern 'liberalism', commonly referred to as 'libcucks', or the classical lot, with more emphasis on individual liberty?

Because I don't really think you could argue the 2nd is really "fascist".

Unfortunately, modern terminology on these matters is a bit muddled now a days.

>>45851

Libertarians are definitely not anarchists. Modern libertarians are definitely neo liberals, though, I'd grant you. Assuming that, again, refers to those calling themselves 'liberal' and not the actual, classical liberals.

The quote you show even puts this rather plain as day, I'd argue.

>>45944

>Are you talking modern 'liberalism', commonly referred to as 'libcucks', or the classical lot, with more emphasis on individual liberty?

They're the same.

>>45945

They are very much absolutely not, mate.

One's an individualist group, who value liberty.

The other is largely collectivist, who work consistently against liberty usually arguing for 'muh feels' and 'safety'.

>>45946

>One's an individualist group, who value liberty.

>The other is largely collectivist, who work consistently against liberty usually arguing for 'muh feels' and 'safety'.

Again that's 100% rhetoric and only attempts to hide that any and every form of liberalism/fascism is just redressing itself to appeal to different interests and values.

>>45949

Elaborate.

I fail to see how a movement built around individual liberties could be fascistic.

The other, sure, I understand completely. After all, they're inherently authoritarian.

But a system built on liberty is inherently going to be against a system what'd erode the rights of others.

Is this just low-quality bait? Are you that one guy from /furry/ a while back when it was about completely dead?

>>45951

Because individual liberties can't exist within a capitalist hierarchy, brainlet.

>>45868

>America didn't prosper because muh teachings of god or muh rights, it prospered through fucking over the working class and expansionist policies such as imperialism, "muh manifest destiny", and slavery

Wrong. It prospered because it was plopped down in an entire fucking continent of completely untapped resources and mostly empty space, set entire oceans away from any political rivals at a time when crossing them meant months-long voyages, at a time when Europe had all but run out of its own resources and were constantly at each other's throats, and largely developed just in the nick of time to take maximum advantage of Industrialization, and just so happened to be overflowing with coal: the main resource necessary for this.

The World Wars leveled entire cities in Europe --- literally reduced them to ground rubble as effectively as any nuclear bomb would — while America got one little harbor a little blow'ed up. Boo hoo. Oh yeah, and there was the part where Hitler went crazy over Teh JooZ and sent all the best scientists to America. And then there was the part where England decided Turing's computer was too gay for them, and just gave it to the CIA because nobody would ever need such a thing.

America is an excellent example of why the capitalist brainwashing that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it rich is complete bullshit; the entire country only became what it was through geography and a shitton of dumb luck.

>>45781

6' 3" here

Unless his balls and his big toes are also massive, That is not a nine inch dick if he's only 6'

>>45966

You /can/ "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" though.

Luck is always a factor in pretty much anything you do no matter where you live or who you are. That's life as is, If you don't like it then I guess you'll have to kill yourself.

Saying that being lucky means you don't have to do anything to be successful or that being unlucky means that there's nothing you can do to be successful are two equally retarded statements that are only said by butthurt unlucky people and scared lucky people.

really scraping the bottom of the barrel for art here barafags

>>45966

>hitler went crazy over the jews

Hitler did nothing wrong. Have you even looked into history? And I'm not talking about the bullshit they made up, I'm talking about the stuff with hard empirical evidence.

Basically, they deserve everything that didn't happen

>>45966

And how is capitalism a bad thing?

You screech about muh luck, but it takes skill and education and a certain personality to recognize opportunity. The quakers fled because of religious persecution. They had an opportunity to start a new life and took it.

And besides that, luck is uncontrollable which means its completely fair for everyone

>>46006

Ultimately, luck is worthless if you don't take any risks. Incidentally, likewise, bad luck won't do much if you never take chances.

Best way to move forward, though, is always going to be to take chances. You can try to minimize your likelyhood of losing, but ultimately, you still have to wager.

Big thing, though, is you gotta keep trying. You can't be afraid of losing.

My family's massively unlucky. We've had such luck that I genuinely think we might have a curse floating about, because the amount of times we've been screwed over by raw chance is rather absurd. Still, put forth enough gables for low costs and high rewards, you'll eventually do good. Right now, we're in that good light thanks to careful consideration of the odds.

>>45815

>"Also I like to think that I'm a feminist."

>"Tell me if you wanna talk about men's rights so I can block you!"

Because nothing says gender equality as "Fuck men, they shouldn't have any rights!"

And the asshole is a guy, you can't get more self-hating than that.

>>45996

I literally cropped it down and measured a ratio of pixels. If he's 72" tall, the cock is like 9.4".

>>46012

>luck is uncontrollable which means its completely fair for everyone

Wow. That may be the stupidest thing I've heard in literally YEARS! I'm impressed.

If everything is fair for everyone, how do you account for the fact that some children are born into absurdly wealthy American families, and some are born into poverty in Somalia? While you're pondering that, why don't you head on over to your nearest children's hospital, find a six-year-old that's got terminal cancer, and tell them luck is fair to everyone.

this thread got no content and the commiefag "fanta" is already derailing it

Mods?

>>45768 (OP)

So many bara artists ave gone full-retard sjw. Real shame.

>>45768 (OP)

Just checked his fa, he just posted something a few days ago.

>>46137

>>45815

That's kind of expected with the gay community in general. They refuse to judge people on their vices, but they insist on judging people on their virtues. They think that being inclusive of anything makes them good people by default, but that's not necessarily true.

Being a good person is not about insincerely and temporarily making people happy, it's about carving a good path for people so that they won't be hindered by ideal and non-ideal circumstance. Whenever I tell people not to be PC or offended, it's not that I think that I'm better than them. It's that I don't want them to heavily fixate on a superficial issues when they can be focused on important ones. Nothing wrong with telling people not be distracted by an arbitrary thing that will always exist, but SJWs think that personal improvement is a bad thing.

A lot of impressionable artists unfortunately fall for SJW shit on twitter because they determine the value of a statement by the amount of buzzwords or phrases they chant in under 140 characters.

why do 90% of threads here turn into polshit

>>46153

I'd say "Because Bell isn't very good at doing his job", but that's dealing with political shitposting, rather than explaining why they happen.

I suppose it's because /pol/ and /leftypol/ are some of the most popular boards on this website, filled to the brim with rampant sperglords that have their keyboards ready in-case ANYTHING slightly related to politics shows up so they can shove their agenda and prove they're superior. This might also be happening because of the current events, which are very political in nature and have a black and white us vs you attitude.

Then again, I don't even live in america.

>>46145

I wonder when this sjw nonsense is gonna end.

This ideological bullcrap is nothing new, at least in American society.

It happened in the 70s, it dwindled in the 80s and then died out in the 90s.

Maybe once this godforsaken decade ends it will start to die out too? Although I get the feeling that it's gonna take longer thanks to the Internet and social media.

Generation Z can only take so much crap before they lash out against the liberal radicals.

>>46145

That might be because 99% of "judging people on their vices" when it comes to gays is "you're gay, so you are automatically evil/perverted/pedophile/diseased/monster/shit-eater/going-to-Hell who doesn't deserve any rights and, in fact, should all be murdered or at least imprisoned, and nothing can ever change my mind on that".

You try living your entire life with all the world around you telling you that kind of shit, and see what you judge to be important.

>>46184

It'll die out when twitter dies.

>>46197

I grew up in that environment as a gay person and I get how it feels. It wasn't exaggerated as you claim for it to be as it was decriminalized a long time ago and there was no death penalty for it in western countries, but I did get repeatedly beaten because of it.

That said though, two wrongs don't make a right, and it's no excuse for you to act as judgemental as your opponents. You should use your bad situation as an incentive to become a better person instead of using it as an excuse to become the same enemy.

>>46153

Because a fucking barafag commie autistic as fuck derail every single thread into a political debate.

>>45944

There's literally no reason for classical liberals to exist today, since their ideology they had back then predicted much different than what we have today. It's the equivalent of believing the world will end in 2012 despite the fact that it's 2017.

>>45953

other guy is correct, you have to sell your labour for less than what it's worth in capitalism, that's how the capitalist makes his profits.

>>45966

you cannot deny slavery set the infrastructure tho

>>46011

Provide evidence or go back to /pol/

>>46134

lol butthurt. saging in a bumplocked thread.

>>46168

There's a reason those hips are so great.

>>46391

Labor only holds value in how much you are willing to sell it for, and how much someone is willing to buy it for.

All other metrics are nonsensical.

Classical liberals are just individualists who believe in rights. Not complex. Predictions of the future do not invalidate these beliefs, and besides, by that metric, marxists, communists, and socialists should all not exist, because their little expectations've completely fallen flat on their faces.

>>45815

This is the worst and stupidest reason for an artist to take down his art.

>>45775

Can you link me to "FArchive"? Google has no idea what I want.