How to creep out the entire internet, lovelorn banker edition

Meller: Yes, if the FED were abolished, private banks would tend to keep 100% gold reserves on their deposits. They would be afraid of bank runs (very serious if the government doesn’t bail you out)!

hahahAHAHAhhahahahhahahha Ooh Lord! Dayummmn! We got us a comedian. Banks routinely failed to have adequate reserves for the money they issued. It’s part of why there is a Fed. With no gov’t there will be no one to write (much less enforce) any sort of laws regulating banks.

Brandon: You either don’t understand his point, or you are a rape/abuse apologist.

Full Stop.

KathleenB: There is no dissonance. He doesn’t really think women are people. As such he doesn’t think they have rights.

If you consider that he thinks of women as a cattle rancher thinks of cattle, the ones who break fences, don’t suckle their young, are aggressive to the ranch hands, etc. need to be put down.

He’s just upset that he can’t say that in plain language, but it leaks out when you look at the common elements in the things he does write.

Addendum to Pecunium’s point, though generally I agree.

Unlike the cattle rancher, who knows that if he decides to put down some of his cattle he can because he has absolutely power over them, Meller knows that in reality he has no power over most women. This is why, unlike the rancher, he is a very angry person. He feels that he has been deprived of a power that he has a right to have, and to add insult to injury now the cattle are talking back. He can’t actually do anything about this, so dolls and screaming at strangers on the internet about how he would totally understand if the man in their life beat the shit out of them it is.

Cassandra: Yeah, I should have made it explicit. It’s in the rage which voices itself as, “when the men regain their rightful place we’ll kill all the women who don’t worship us”, and the, “good master doesn’t beat his dog” comments.

He knows what he wants isn’t going to happen, so he has to dream that in the future, after he’s dead, it will. There will be paradise for some men, somewhere, when the women are all adoring slaves who ask to be beaten so they can show their love and adoration.

I really do wonder if Meller saw The Stepford Wives during a pivotal point in his life and that’s when the specific shape of his dreams came into being.

I wonder if Meller came out of the theater really excited and tried to talk to other guys about how wonderful it would be to create a town just like that, and then was first confused and then upset when he realized that most men recognized that the movie was supposed to be dystopian, not aspirational.

Whenever he starts babbling about Sweet Old Fashioned Girls and how they will totally be down with his future plans I’m reminded of when the Hachi movie with Richard Gere was about to come out, and the American Kennel Club contacted the filmmakers to express their concern about it possibly inspiring a run on Akitas being adopted. Their concern was that people would go “oh, cute!” and run out and get an Akita, not realizing that despite the fluffiness they’re really not biddable, easily trainable dogs at all, and then end up either abandoning or abusing the dogs when their actual personalities became clear. (Try to get an Akita to fetch and it will just look at you like “you’re joking, right?”.)

That’s what I think of whenever Meller starts babbling about how really women’s true natures are just being suppressed by feminism and actually we want to be fluffy, and if we were just trained right…he has fundamentally misunderstood the true nature of women, and because of that every conclusion he draws based on that misunderstanding is of course going to be nonsensical. I’m concerned about what would happen if he ever got a hold of a woman who he initially deemed to be sufficiently fluffy, and then later her actual personality became apparent.

Now, the wife and best friend don’t deserve to be killed, but one can understand why he might have committed such a heinous crime.

Explanations are not excuses. You are treating this as partially exusable, which it is not, and it is creepy that you are doing so. Let me give you an example of how we do not speak this way when we are actually explaining things we think are horrendous and inexcusable:

“Hitler used rhetorically tying Jewish people with Communism (partially by using Marx’s ethnic Judaism) as both a way to bring anti-semitism into his anti-communist attacks and as a way to further demonize communists. By emphasizing an association between two stigmatized groups, he further demonized both.”

That doesn’t look like it is excusing Hitler’s actions, though it is explaining what he did.

Would you say something like “Now, the Jewish people and communists didn’t deserve to be holocausted, but one can understand why Hitler would have committed such a heinous crime.”

No, you probably wouldn’t (Bradon wouldn’t, Meller and NWO…okay, they probably would). That looks like excusing or sympathizing with the brutal violence, and would not be okay.

The language and arguments you are using are apologistic ones, and applying them to other contexts makes that damned clear.

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. Unless they post something you don’t like on the Internet, then, well, you know what to do.

-MellerJesus

Bostonian: Brandon would totally post something about how the Jews deserved the Holocaust, if he thought it would prove a poorly thought out point.

And then after being smacked verbally around, he would retreat slowly grudgngly rhetorical step by step and explain it was only HIS opinion, and he didn’t MEAN all Jews, only some, and really, why do we keep misunderstanding him, but wow, he has go to now, Ashley is telling him not to talk to those manboobz manhaters!

Then two days later, comes back and forgets he ever said it.

no more mr nice guy wrote:

“I have read a lot of blogs and forums of angry former customers of PUAs and
most of them are socially awkward and many admit that they have Asperger’s and
all of them said that learning PUA techniques was a disaster for them and made
them worst.”

Having Asperger’s is not something shameful to “admit”. Many autistic people already spend considerable time and energy trying to appear non-autistic (in fact, “high-functioning autism” is defined as “being an autistic person who is good at pretending to be a non-autistic person”), having internalized the sentiment that it is a shameful condition. I resent your dehumanization of autistic people. Perhaps PUA sites are not good for autistic people, but adult autists have a right to freely choose where they get information. That is not for you to decide.

As for autistic people and PUA techniques: I myself spent a long part of my adult life being very frustrated about being unable to understand the things that are expected of people in dating contexts. Some years ago, I too came across some PUA sites, and read what I could find. It was not a very good idea. The “greek system” of alpha, beta and omega males seemed to me at the time to make a lot of sense – it matched well with my own experiences in the social dynamics of male groups (I have struggled with understanding such things my entire life, and many of my social faux pas situations have derived from not being able to correctly act in accordance to my position in informal pecking orders). So I spent a lot of time being very depressed over being an omega, and how this system proved that my natural station is life was as a lonely freaky outcast. Repetitive, “circular” thought patterns are a common characteristic of autistic thinking, and reading that your natural role in the social dynamic is to be rejected and picked on can trigger intense self-esteem-related issues. I have since concluded that the PUA “greek system”, and their “algorithmic” approach to dating, appears to be an oversimplification. Systems that include humans tend to be too complicated for simple algorithms. I have since decided to abandon my attempts at dating, and am much happier than I was when I was obsessing about being an “omega male”. Thinking those thoughts were one of the low points of my recent life.

I am not sure if “Mike the banker” is autistic. He gives descriptions of several non-verbal cues he noticed. Many autistic people do not notice such things at all, unless they make an active effort of watching for and trying to keep track of them. It is also common that autistic people perceive the actual, physical actions of people, but are clueless about the intent. For example, a non-autistic person can literally look at another person and see “that person is happy” – their brains are able to sub- or unconsciously gauge the emotional or mental states of other people from body language, facial expressions and such. Autistic people generally just see “the edges of that person’s mouth is pointing upwards”, and must consciously try to figure out whether that means a happy smile, a sign of imminent laughter, or a sarcastic grin. It is possible to practice these “checklists” reasonably well, but at least for me, it involves the same kind of deliberate thinking as working on a mathematical problem, not like the much more fluent and automatic process of reading.
“Mike the banker” writes down very specific physical signals, and “textbook” definitions of what they conventionally mean, which is one indicator that he might be on the autistic spectrum. His letter also seems to indicate trouble putting himself in the position of “Lauren”, which is also a common characteristic of autistic people. However, it is not a good idea for laypeople to throw around “armchair diagnoses”; it contributes to the “shame-oriented” view of mental disabilities, and are not generally likely to be correct.

For what it is worth, when I was younger and had been rejected, shamed or otherwise had an experience of social failure, I would often write long letters, actually very similar to the one “Mike the banker” wrote. Then I would read them to myself the next day and throw them away. It helped me process these things. Even if “Mike” is autistic, then he is still acting very entitled, and that is still not all right. Some autists are good people, others are complete bastards, and being on the autism spectrum is not a “get-out-of-trying-to-act-decently-free” card – it just means that the person has to work harder for it, and that there will be more or less frequent miscommunication issues in that person’s interactions with others.

Cassandra:

If “Mike” is on the autism spectrum, he may or may not be aware that sending such a letter will in itself be perceived as making demands. He does make a number of requests, such as mentioning that he would like “Lauren” to call him. Having trouble understanding how one’s words and actions are perceived by others is a common problem for autistic people. But since it is a spectrum, some have more trouble with this than others. Personally, I am very poor at it – but on the other hand, I have no problems dealing with abstract thinking, which is otherwise a well-known problem for autists.

Honestly, the kind of things he writes mostly appear entirely reasonable to me. He is just stating a set of facts, and telling her how he feels about a number of things. The way he writes about these things reminds me a lot of my own thoughts about similar situations – which is why I also think it is likely that he is somewhere on the spectrum. It is only through David’s commentary that I can see how those words are actually received by another person (also, I have been told by others that trying to make arguments about such things when one has already been turned down or are currently being ignored will be perceived as being entitled, because many people will tend to interpret it as a kind of passive aggression, as applying pressure). For many people on the autism spectrum, it can be incredibly puzzling and frustrating that stating facts (including one’s feelings) are often assumed by others to have a hidden agenda, where there actually is none (this also works in reverse – autistic people often miss out on “hidden intentions” in things people say that are semantically just statements of fact, but pragmatically are supposed to carry additional information). It is *difficult* to avoid hurting others, or “creeping people out”, for a person who has trouble imagining how other people perceive his/her words and actions.

But that does not mean such a person shouldn’t *try*. I do not know if “Mike” is autistic, or if he is, to which degree he is aware of how his words are likely to be received. The reason I think he seems to feel entitled is that he apparently will not accept that “Lauren” has rejected him, and not being able to accept rejection is a thoroughly unpleasant character trait for any person, autistic or not.