>>315886
>Normalfags aren't really "bad," they just aren't capable of anything extraordinary by definition.
most of the things you're using and creations that have happened were done by normalfags
>If you see a cow in the field, do you resent her for not pondering philosophy? Of course not, she's doing exactly what she's supposed to.
philosophy is a meme, underground man-tier mental gymnastics
>Normalfags are often pretty terrible, but that's as much the fault of the "cattle ranchers" as anything. A healthy society would have healthy normalfags.
definition of healthy is very variable. as long as someone provides that is enough really.
>It's true that if you're a superior specimen, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
for what
>But it's also true that some of the hatred for normalfags is ressentiment from the defective.
things yearn for belonging so they will gather for the easiest of fruits, hating people.