The sun is a deadly laser and is 90% of what ages you

[Kamui]

same reason for why black people age better than other races cuz of melanin

 

[Deleted member 17791]

same reason for why black people age better than other races cuz of melanin

That's exactly it. Whites have to be exponentially more careful

 

[justbentbro]

did you get a sunburn? i remember spending more than that amount of time and i was orange nigga i could barely move for 2 weeks it was actually agony

nah im half ethnic and i got this super easy tannable skin so no sunburn

 

[GalacticHero]

You can reveal your mogger skin at the age of 72.

You Won't prevent saggin like this though

You have to live on your hand to have tight skin at 72.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

You Won't prevent saggin like this though

You have to live on your hand to have tight skin at 72.
View attachment 1837693

 

[Schizoidcel]

Sun your balls & body, and don't let the sun hit your face if you want to delay face aging.
Most sunscreens are crap or estrogenic so I'm not sure you want that on your skin most days.

 

[It'snotover]

no he wouldn't. He gets mogged by several users already.

Copers won't believe this but sun is the biggest looksmin. I never took a bath this summer, just 20 mins of sun for the bones. I'll let other people to age like shit with much pleasure

 

[Mr.Proper]

Sun exposure has other benefits than vitamin d. However, antidepressant effect can be simulated by special lamps and cognitive benefits, which are partially attributed to mitochondrial stimulation, can be simulated to by things such as red light therapy.
There was a study on mice where they got them tanned using topical forscollin, a natural compound, which is already commonly used as an oral suppliment. So far, there were only few anecdotes of people applying it to isolated skin spots to test the effect and it worked, but it's quite messy, DIY solutions look dirty and greasy, and no professional grade one yet. But the most interesting thing about this is that you get actual tanning with melanocytes, just like natural tan, but without UV at all. Somebody curious can buy a forscollin from Chinese suppliers in bulk and try it on themselves.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Sun your balls & body, and don't let the sun hit your face if you want to delay face aging.
Most sunscreens are crap or estrogenic so I'm not sure you want that on your skin most days.

Why sun your balls?

Copers won't believe this but sun is the biggest looksmin. I never took a bath this summer, just 20 mins of sun for the bones. I'll let other people to age like shit with much pleasure

Sun exposure has other benefits than vitamin d. However, antidepressant effect can be simulated by special lamps and cognitive benefits, which are partially attributed to mitochondrial stimulation, can be simulated to by things such as red light therapy.
There was a study on mice where they got them tanned using topical forscollin, a natural compound, which is already commonly used as an oral suppliment. So far, there were only few anecdotes of people applying it to isolated skin spots to test the effect and it worked, but it's quite messy, DIY solutions look dirty and greasy, and no professional grade one yet. But the most interesting thing about this is that you get actual tanning with melanocytes, just like natural tan, but without UV at all. Somebody curious can buy a forscollin from Chinese suppliers in bulk and try it on themselves.

I think you should just expose your skin that's not on your head to get the benefits like what many users are saying. You'll avoid the loss of looks in your face with no drawbacks.

 

[Deleted member 11126]

Thought about this post more I think it depends on a few things.

Where you live is important if you are in Seattle there is no sunlight there vs if you live in Florida with pale skin you get burned in 20 minutes. If you are from a people group that evolved in a place with less sunlight (Northern Europe) you will not be adapted to the sun in a place like Florida. Also just because the sun can be bad doesn't mean it has no benefits I think having some sun is good but just try to minimize it in the face and don't overdo it.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Thought about this post more I think it depends on a few things.

Where you live is important if you are in Seattle there is no sunlight there vs if you live in Florida with pale skin you get burned in 20 minutes. If you are from a people group that evolved in a place with less sunlight (Northern Europe) you will not be adapted to the sun in a place like Florida. Also just because the sun can be bad doesn't mean it has no benefits I think having some sun is good but just try to minimize it in the face and don't overdo it.

Northern and southern areas still have lots of UV light which is what is damaging your skin.

Yeah, this is mainly directed towards whites as I am white.

 

[JBcollector]

That's why Muslim foids burka maxx

 

[Deleted member 17791]

That's why Muslim foids burka maxx

Based. Maybe we should put burka on jb?

 

[JBcollector]

Based. Maybe we should put burka on jb?

Yes of course also jbs shouldn't go to school or collages

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Yes of course also jbs shouldn't go to school or collages

I'll give them a proper British education from home

 

[JBcollector]

I'll give them a proper British education from home

Education is simply the ability to read and write and retain information and learning problem solving skills

What's the point of learning about quadratic equations?

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Education is simply the ability to read and write and retain information and learning problem solving skills

What's the point of learning about quadratic equations?

I agree.

I'll teach my jb philosophy and shit. turn her into a well read ubermensch

 

[Schizoidcel]

That's why Muslim foids burka maxx

Burkas are based. Now most women run around half-naked or in flattering clothes (yoga pants, etc) that make them look infinitely more aesthetic & arousing than if you get them naked. There is no mystery anymore and our brains are so desensitized from all the 4K 60 fps porn and filtered instagram pictures.

It is time to retain our seed and regain our powers against this gynocentric feminization agenda.

I was reading this earlier while sunning my balls and it has some based passages, makes you think:

Bliss Of The Celibate : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

One of the best books on the subject of chastity.

archive.org

 

[Aladin]

Burkas are based. Now most women run around half-naked or in flattering clothes (yoga pants, etc) that make them look infinitely more aesthetic & arousing than if you get them naked. There is no mystery anymore and our brains are so desensitized.

It is time to retain our seed and regain our powers against this gynocentric feminization agenda.

Bliss Of The Celibate : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

One of the best books on the subject of chastity.

archive.org

im schizoid

 

[güss]

we must VAMPIRE MAXX

 

[Deleted member 17791]

im schizoid

schizomaxxing

we must VAMPIRE MAXX

based. I'm already pale and weak.

 

[Aladin]

schizomaxxing


based. I'm already pale and weak.

not schizo
schizoid. its autism for adults.
read this

Schizoid personality disorder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deleted member 17791]

not schizo
schizoid. its autism for adults.
read this

Schizoid personality disorder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

autism is autism for adults

 

[Aladin]

autism is autism for adults

comfy, only autists are around this hour of the day lol @wannalooksmax

 

[Deleted member 17791]

comfy, only autists are around this hour of the day lol @wannalooksmax

autism hours

 

[Deleted member 5892]

comfy, only autists are around this hour of the day lol @wannalooksmax

autism hours
View attachment 1844503

favorite aspie users

 

[Deleted member 17791]

favorite aspie users

which one of us

 

[Deleted member 5892]

which one of us

both ngl and @SpeitzJi but hes more of a paranoidcel

 

[Deleted member 17791]

both ngl and @SpeitzJi but hes more of a paranoidcel

yey

 

[Crusile]

Important sunscreen meme image
92 yrs old and used face moisturizer with spf

 

[Deleted member 17791]

View attachment 1849387
Important sunscreen meme image
92 yrs old and used face moisturizer with spf

FAURK. you need to moisturize your whole body.

 

[Schizoidcel]

im schizoid

Diagnosed, or?

 

[Aladin]

Diagnosed, or?

yes, in 2018

 

[SteveRogers]

Muh internal clock, reduces risk of certain cancers (while increasing risk of others), reduces depression, muh boosts IQ, high T

First one is just bull. You can keep your internal clock in check easily. I'm a perfect example of just that.

second, I already answered this. It increases risk of certain cancers and lowers risk of others. So who cares? You're still at risk of cancer.

muh reduce depression. sounds like bullshit. even if it wasn't, I'd be much happier in the long run with my far better aged skin.

It doesn't boost cognitive function. That's dumb.

prolly does boost T levels

Stupidity.
If you pair a perfect natural diet with perfect natural lifestyle (or as close as possible), the sun is ONLY good for you. Of course, don’t burn, but get a good amount early in the day and later in the afternoon, cover up during peak UV (wear either a natural oil sunscreen like coconut or olive oil on exposed areas, or if you are pale and not on MT2, just use a natural zinc).
You will feel zero depression and ascend harder than you’d ever imagine possible.

 

[softlysoftly]

You're a low IQ person that can't defend his own position, so you go straight to personal attacks after your linked shitty youtube videos don't work.

Bingo! you hit the nail on the head mate
this is exactly what that gay curry does all the time
@MakinItHappenReturn has like spread so much misinformation in attempt to appear high IQ to impress a bunch of teenagers

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Stupidity.
If you pair a perfect natural diet with perfect natural lifestyle (or as close as possible), the sun is ONLY good for you. Of course, don’t burn, but get a good amount early in the day and later in the afternoon, cover up during peak UV (wear either a natural oil sunscreen like coconut or olive oil on exposed areas, or if you are pale and not on MT2, just use a natural zinc).
You will feel zero depression and ascend harder than you’d ever imagine possible.

started with an insult and then made an unsupported claim.

i dont feel the need to argue with you.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Bingo! you hit the nail on the head mate
this is exactly what that gay curry does all the time
@MakinItHappenReturn has like spread so much misinformation in attempt to appear high IQ to impress a bunch of teenagers

 

[SteveRogers]

started with an insult and then made an unsupported claim.

i dont feel the need to argue with you.

28.5k posts in just over 6 months, keep coping with muh sun is bad, nigga you just don’t want to go outside to expose the world of your sub humanity.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

28.5k posts in just over 6 months, keep coping with muh sun is bad, nigga you just don’t want to go outside to expose the world of your sub humanity.

so you decided to yap now?

 

[B.T.N.O.M.A]

This guy spent his life working as a truck driver and one side got exposed to the sun a lot more than the other
View attachment 1836524

Now imagine if you never go out and rot inside all day.

Well, you don't have to imagine. Look at old people, their faces are all wrinkly and shit but their legs and other parts of the body are still smooth. This is because those parts didn't get exposed to sun light much at all, they would be constantly covered by clothing.

The face area has by far the worst skin.
View attachment 1836525


This is undeniable proof that if we want to age well, we have to combat the great looksmin in the sky.

You should cover yourself up like fully.

View attachment 1836531


even wear sun glasses
View attachment 1836532

so when you're inside, safe from the sun's rays. You can reveal your mogger skin at the age of 72.
View attachment 1836536

The claim that 80% of skin ageing is due to UV damage is pretty widespread.

You’ll find the claim repeated in online magazines, this sub, the WHO, and our favorite Youtube dermatologists. Sometimes it’s a lower 70%, and other times a higher 90%, but the core message is that sunlight (UV) drives the majority of skin ageing.

But I’ve always suspected that this is 100% BS — not only because this would be very, very difficult to prove experimentally, but also because the diligent sunscreen users I know (myself included) still look approximately the age that they are.

I was inspired to debunk this myth since there’s growing sun paranoia in subs like this, which I don’t think is healthy. It’s also trickling down to children & teenagers who are becoming terrified of the sun, under the utter delusion that if they block UV they won’t age.

So I took a dive into the literature to see where this claim originated.

TL;DR? It’s completely made-up. Pure fiction.

---

Upon searching for the claim in Pubmed and Google Scholar, you’ll first see that the claim is repeated in a LOT of dermatology & allied literature. These aren’t renegade journals – they’re high-quality, reputable journals in the field. Here are some of the most highly cited examples:

1. “… sun exposure is considered to be far and away the most significantly deleterious to the skin. Indeed, 80% of facial ageing is believed to be due to chronic sun exposure.” – The Journal of Pathology
   
   
   
2. “It has been estimated that photodamage may account for more than 90% of the age associated cosmetic problems of the skin” – British Journal of Dermatology
   
   
   
3. “Chronic UV exposure which is responsible for around 80% of the effects of facial skin ageing is termed photoageing." – International Journal of Cosmetic Science
   
   
   
4. “Extrinsic skin ageing primarily arises from UV-light exposure. Approximately 80% of facial skin ageing is attributed to UV-exposure.- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology
   
   
   
5. [Discussing skin ageing] "Several authors have estimated that this ratio could be very important, up to 80% of sun impact for a large part, and some publications have discussed a ratio closer to 90%." - Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
   
   

So let’s take a look at what evidence these highly cited papers use to justify these claims.

In paper 1, if you follow the citation for the claim you’ll end up at a 1997 letter in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine


. It says:


“It has been suggested, at least anecdotally, that as much as 80 percent of facial aging is attributable to exposure to the sun, although other factors, such as cigarette smoking, can contribute to premature facial wrinkling.”

Already, you can see that this was a poor citation by the original paper. Skin wrinkling is just one aspect of skin ageing, and so it is some sloppy scholarship. What’s more, this source paper even admits that this is anecdotal evidence, and bizarrely uses an irrelevant smoking study to justify this, which doesn't even address this issue


.


For paper 2, if you follow the citation you end up at a 1989 review written by Barbara Gilchrest, a US dermatologist


. Once again, this review says nowhere that UV drives 90% of skin ageing. Instead, it says this: “Photoaging is unquestionably responsible for the great majority of unwanted age-associated changes in the skin's appearance, including coarseness, wrinkling, sallow color, telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and a variety of benign, premalignant, and malignant neoplasms”. Crucially, no evidence is provided for this claim; it seems to be an anecdote without quantification.


In paper 3 and paper 4, their claim uses the NEJM letter that is also cited by paper 1, and so it encounters the exact same problem.

Paper 5 makes the bold claim that it may be 90%, and includes a citation for a study that allegedly supports this. But does it? No. If you go to the citation, it’s a small study on soybean extracts. It regurgitates the “UV drives 90% of skin ageing” in the introduction to justify the experiments, but includes no citation, and there is no experimental evidence in the paper to support this. It is only mentioned in passing.

In these 5 examples, it’s crystal clear that this claim has been propagated by poor and lazy scholarship. The idea that UV drives 80-90% of skin ageing seems to come from a few opinion pieces in the 1980s-1990s that did not use real data or experimental processes… just anecdotes. This is the very opposite of evidence-based medicine, and a real problem in academia.

--

So the medical literature is sloppy. But is there any real science addressing the exact contribution of UV to skin ageing?

Yes – Paper 5 above, and ironically, it seems to be used as a resource to further the “UV causes 80% of skin ageing” claim, despite showing the opposite.

In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed


. They sought women of similar age and ethnicity who were either “sun-seeking” (sunbathers, sun-bed users etc) or women who actively avoided the sun (“sun-phobic”). They then performed extensive analysis of things like wrinkles, redness, sagging, etc.


At the end of the study, the authors proudly declared “With all the elements described in this study, we could calculate the importance of UV and sun exposure in the visible aging of a Caucasian woman’s face. This effect is about 80%.”

But if you look at the data, did they really?

No.

If you look at the wrinkle data in Figure 4, they found NO statistically significant difference between the two groups for most ages. They found that for women in their 50s and 60s, there was a small increase in wrinkles for the sun-seeking group (around 20% more in a higher wrinkle grade). But the data actually shows that increases in wrinkles are driven by age, and not UV, since there was a much, much greater difference in wrinkle scores between age groups than sun behaviour groups. The main thing that seemed to be aggravated by sun damage was pigmentation, but this was just one parameter.

So how did they arrive at the 80% figure? Well, here’s where you have to watch the hands closely to understand the magic trick.

If you look closely, they calculate this by taking all of the categories if skin ageing, and then determining how many of those were affected by the sun.

"A sum was done of all signs most affected by UV exposure (the 18 parameters marked with an asterisk in Tables 2-5, which was then compared with the sum of all clinical signs established for facial aging (22 parameters). We are able to determine a new ratio, sun damage percentage (SDP), which represents the percentage between specific photoaging signs and clinical signs. By computing this SDP, we could assess the effect of sun exposure on the face. On average, the parameter is 80.3% ± 4.82%."

So wrinkles, sagging, brown spots, redness, etc? All the things we associated with skin ageing? Well the sun can affect 80% of these CATEGORIES to varying degrees. NOT that UV drives 80% of the effect size, as you can see clear as day (no pun intended) in Figure 4. I can only speculate as to why they phrased this so poorly, although I note that some of the authors were employed by companies that sell anti-ageing & sun products...



So in summary, the idea that UV/sunlight drives 80-90% of skin ageing is garbage, a claim that doesn't have a basis in the medical literature if you dig deep enough. And the studies that we do have seem to suggest that in fact chronological (intrinsic) skin changes are responsible for most of the signs of ageing.



**********************TLDR*********************
Aging comes from dietary reasons predominantly, the goyslop you eat is full of anti nutrients and lectins etc which age the skin. There is a woman in italy who has eaten raw eggs and meat since she was a child and is still living today and is 120+ with better skin than a 70 year old.

Do you really think the source of life which our beloved ancestors shamanistically interacted with and parabolised through evolution is there as some pantheistic miscalculation in nature? Pleeassseee.

 

[B.T.N.O.M.A]

Stupidity.
If you pair a perfect natural diet with perfect natural lifestyle (or as close as possible), the sun is ONLY good for you. Of course, don’t burn, but get a good amount early in the day and later in the afternoon, cover up during peak UV (wear either a natural oil sunscreen like coconut or olive oil on exposed areas, or if you are pale and not on MT2, just use a natural zinc).
You will feel zero depression and ascend harder than you’d ever imagine possible.

you dont even need fucking sunscreen just eat raw meat and eggs and drink raw milk

 

[Deleted member 17791]

The claim that 80% of skin ageing is due to UV damage is pretty widespread.

You’ll find the claim repeated in online magazines, this sub, the WHO, and our favorite Youtube dermatologists. Sometimes it’s a lower 70%, and other times a higher 90%, but the core message is that sunlight (UV) drives the majority of skin ageing.

But I’ve always suspected that this is 100% BS — not only because this would be very, very difficult to prove experimentally, but also because the diligent sunscreen users I know (myself included) still look approximately the age that they are.

I was inspired to debunk this myth since there’s growing sun paranoia in subs like this, which I don’t think is healthy. It’s also trickling down to children & teenagers who are becoming terrified of the sun, under the utter delusion that if they block UV they won’t age.

So I took a dive into the literature to see where this claim originated.

TL;DR? It’s completely made-up. Pure fiction.

---

Upon searching for the claim in Pubmed and Google Scholar, you’ll first see that the claim is repeated in a LOT of dermatology & allied literature. These aren’t renegade journals – they’re high-quality, reputable journals in the field. Here are some of the most highly cited examples:

1. “… sun exposure is considered to be far and away the most significantly deleterious to the skin. Indeed, 80% of facial ageing is believed to be due to chronic sun exposure.” – The Journal of Pathology
   
   
   
2. “It has been estimated that photodamage may account for more than 90% of the age associated cosmetic problems of the skin” – British Journal of Dermatology
   
   
   
3. “Chronic UV exposure which is responsible for around 80% of the effects of facial skin ageing is termed photoageing." – International Journal of Cosmetic Science
   
   
   
4. “Extrinsic skin ageing primarily arises from UV-light exposure. Approximately 80% of facial skin ageing is attributed to UV-exposure.- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology
   
   
   
5. [Discussing skin ageing] "Several authors have estimated that this ratio could be very important, up to 80% of sun impact for a large part, and some publications have discussed a ratio closer to 90%." - Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
   

So let’s take a look at what evidence these highly cited papers use to justify these claims.

In paper 1, if you follow the citation for the claim you’ll end up at a 1997 letter in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine


. It says:


“It has been suggested, at least anecdotally, that as much as 80 percent of facial aging is attributable to exposure to the sun, although other factors, such as cigarette smoking, can contribute to premature facial wrinkling.”

Already, you can see that this was a poor citation by the original paper. Skin wrinkling is just one aspect of skin ageing, and so it is some sloppy scholarship. What’s more, this source paper even admits that this is anecdotal evidence, and bizarrely uses an irrelevant smoking study to justify this, which doesn't even address this issue


.


For paper 2, if you follow the citation you end up at a 1989 review written by Barbara Gilchrest, a US dermatologist


. Once again, this review says nowhere that UV drives 90% of skin ageing. Instead, it says this: “Photoaging is unquestionably responsible for the great majority of unwanted age-associated changes in the skin's appearance, including coarseness, wrinkling, sallow color, telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and a variety of benign, premalignant, and malignant neoplasms”. Crucially, no evidence is provided for this claim; it seems to be an anecdote without quantification.


In paper 3 and paper 4, their claim uses the NEJM letter that is also cited by paper 1, and so it encounters the exact same problem.

Paper 5 makes the bold claim that it may be 90%, and includes a citation for a study that allegedly supports this. But does it? No. If you go to the citation, it’s a small study on soybean extracts. It regurgitates the “UV drives 90% of skin ageing” in the introduction to justify the experiments, but includes no citation, and there is no experimental evidence in the paper to support this. It is only mentioned in passing.

In these 5 examples, it’s crystal clear that this claim has been propagated by poor and lazy scholarship. The idea that UV drives 80-90% of skin ageing seems to come from a few opinion pieces in the 1980s-1990s that did not use real data or experimental processes… just anecdotes. This is the very opposite of evidence-based medicine, and a real problem in academia.

--

So the medical literature is sloppy. But is there any real science addressing the exact contribution of UV to skin ageing?

Yes – Paper 5 above, and ironically, it seems to be used as a resource to further the “UV causes 80% of skin ageing” claim, despite showing the opposite.

In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed


. They sought women of similar age and ethnicity who were either “sun-seeking” (sunbathers, sun-bed users etc) or women who actively avoided the sun (“sun-phobic”). They then performed extensive analysis of things like wrinkles, redness, sagging, etc.


At the end of the study, the authors proudly declared “With all the elements described in this study, we could calculate the importance of UV and sun exposure in the visible aging of a Caucasian woman’s face. This effect is about 80%.”

But if you look at the data, did they really?

No.

If you look at the wrinkle data in Figure 4, they found NO statistically significant difference between the two groups for most ages. They found that for women in their 50s and 60s, there was a small increase in wrinkles for the sun-seeking group (around 20% more in a higher wrinkle grade). But the data actually shows that increases in wrinkles are driven by age, and not UV, since there was a much, much greater difference in wrinkle scores between age groups than sun behaviour groups. The main thing that seemed to be aggravated by sun damage was pigmentation, but this was just one parameter.

So how did they arrive at the 80% figure? Well, here’s where you have to watch the hands closely to understand the magic trick.

If you look closely, they calculate this by taking all of the categories if skin ageing, and then determining how many of those were affected by the sun.

"A sum was done of all signs most affected by UV exposure (the 18 parameters marked with an asterisk in Tables 2-5, which was then compared with the sum of all clinical signs established for facial aging (22 parameters). We are able to determine a new ratio, sun damage percentage (SDP), which represents the percentage between specific photoaging signs and clinical signs. By computing this SDP, we could assess the effect of sun exposure on the face. On average, the parameter is 80.3% ± 4.82%."

So wrinkles, sagging, brown spots, redness, etc? All the things we associated with skin ageing? Well the sun can affect 80% of these CATEGORIES to varying degrees. NOT that UV drives 80% of the effect size, as you can see clear as day (no pun intended) in Figure 4. I can only speculate as to why they phrased this so poorly, although I note that some of the authors were employed by companies that sell anti-ageing & sun products...



So in summary, the idea that UV/sunlight drives 80-90% of skin ageing is garbage, a claim that doesn't have a basis in the medical literature if you dig deep enough. And the studies that we do have seem to suggest that in fact chronological (intrinsic) skin changes are responsible for most of the signs of ageing.



**********************TLDR*********************
Aging comes from dietary reasons predominantly, the goyslop you eat is full of anti nutrients and lectins etc which age the skin. There is a woman in italy who has eaten raw eggs and meat since she was a child and is still living today and is 120+ with better skin than a 70 year old.

Do you really think the source of life which our beloved ancestors shamanistically interacted with and parabolised through evolution is there as some pantheistic miscalculation in nature? Pleeassseee.

 

[B.T.N.O.M.A]

Youre the only one who reacts to my posts with emojis so my rep to post ratio doesn't look like utter shit JFL

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Youre the only one who reacts to my posts with emojis so my rep to post ratio doesn't look like utter shit JFL

I read half your post. but its long as fuck so i skipped the rest.

 

[B.T.N.O.M.A]

I read half your post. but its long as fuck so i skipped the rest.

Sorry man I'm a sperg. I ramble a lot. But I hope I changed your opinion

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Sorry man I'm a sperg. I ramble a lot. But I hope I changed your opinion

im also autistic.

I didn't know that claim was originally bull but got sited a shit tonn

 

[B.T.N.O.M.A]

im also autistic.

I didn't know that claim was originally bull but got sited a shit tonn

Autisticbros

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Autisticbros

nya

 

[B.T.N.O.M.A]

nya

Embrace your autism.heightened vanguardian tribalist sense of awareness

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Embrace your autism.heightened vanguardian tribalist sense of awareness

we're more evolved than the nts