Apparently the Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy has discovered our little blog:
Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.
Uh oh! I guess he’s not a fan.
The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel.
U mad, bro?
Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit.
Dude, I don’t know if you know this, but most Americans are, you know, fat. WE ARE LEGION!
Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit.
This has got to be the most ridiculously verbose version of “yeah, well, you’re a fatty” I’ve ever seen.
Oh, but it seems like we’re all about to get our big comeuppance:
The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.
Yeah, except that I’m pretty sure that “I hate you, you fat fatty” isn’t a Truth that matters a lot to anyone but you and your maladjusted fanboys.
Also, dude, you call yourself “Heartiste.” There is literally nothing more dopey than that.
Molly, Holly, we need shirts that say “I’m fat and I fuck.” Tiny minds would be blown.
In Heartiste’s universe, “getting laid” seems to equal “having awkward, fumbling, anonymous sex with someone you don’t know and don’t particularly like”.
I grew out of that in my late teens. Early twenties, absolute tops.
The way Fatiste is obsessed with the evil fat fatties, I bet he has a major frustrated fat fetish, like that Jane Pell troll who kept trying to proves fat women were disgusting by linking to erotica of them. After fat joke 9000, there’s a point were the d00dbro doth complain too much.
Awww, DYOR liked being pwned so much that he came back.
[hugs pillowinhell]
Others have pointed this out, but it is seriously sad (and downright bizarre to me) to think that “loser” and “person who has sex” are mutually exclusive. Having sex isn’t some magical ticket to the Winner’s Circle of Life – it’s just sex. Not having sex isn’t a terrible failure or hardship; again, it’s just sex. I have sex because it’s fun and it makes my partner and me happy, not because it somehow affects my value as a human being – and I can think of very little more truly, deeply pathetic than someone who can’t think of any accomplishment of theirs more notable than “has sex.”
Even if Fartiste does get laid a lot (which I seriously fucking doubt, but that’s beside the point), the “I insulted her, so she reluctantly had sex with me out of spite and I never saw her again.” relationship model utterly fails to invoke envy on my part.
But then, I know what it’s like to sex with someone who actually likes me, so make of that what you will.
And all that aside, he’s clearly a miserable asshole who can’t feel good about himself without tearing other people down, so who even cares?
Being what I suppose “Heartiste” would consider physically monstrous as well as “naturally” unattractive–being a manjawed bulldyke who weighs just over 800 pounds with my armor and axe–I have nonetheless experienced no frustration when it comes to establishing relationships with beautiful and engaging women. Though I guess women are not supposed to be “engaging” or to have personalities, and my idea of beauty, which encompasses bodies of many shapes and configurations, is “wrong” since beauty can apparently be “empirically measured”:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/not-all-bodies-are-good-bodies/
I did not learn about evolutionary psychology at Lesbian Amazon Feminist School. We only learned things like how to aggressively hate men, make delicious venison burgers with the twelve-point bucks we brought down with our bare hands, and dashingly remove the garments of our sweetheart with a single flourish of a double-headed axe. (Under intimate circumstances that are wholly consensual, mutually respectful, and which entail clear, continuous communication. Which should always go without saying, right?)
It is a revelation to me that not only does Nature dictate what human beings should and should not find attractive, but that its prescription is narrowly limited to slender, heterosexual, able-bodied, cis women who conform to contemporary mainstream white Western gender norms. I have always been under the impression that people, even men, have diverse physical and emotional tastes. I wonder what is to made of all the different people, in different cultures and spaces, with all their different individual preferences and inclinations, given that the white, Western, patriarchal definition of beauty is “hard-wired” into the human brain?
I also wonder why one would not only cling to such a narrow and limiting definition of attractiveness, but also decide that romance and sexuality function as a “market” wherein people “compete” for sexual satisfaction and status. I mean, these men are already overwhelmingly frustrated by their lack of romantic and personal success; why make up arbitrary rules that turn the world into a “game” that they’re already set up to lose? I’m beginning to think that they LIKE being enraged to the point of advocating violence because it gives them a sense of energy and purpose, and that they’re willing to make up and believe anything as long as they don’t have to blame themselves for their own lack of fulfillment. I wish I could help them out, but I certainly would never trust them with the axe trick and no man can wield an Amazonian axe anyway.
I <3 the above commenter so hard.
Getting laid does not make you a good or correct person? Does this sound familiar? In fact, it’s kinda irrelevant to what a douche and misogynist he is? Yeah?
Well kirbywarp, the “ur just mad cuz u cant get laid” ad hominem is constantly used around here and other internet sites where feminists congregate) against guys who question or challenge feminists precepts and try to dig deeper into their motivations. Misogynist douchebags clearly can get laid. Doesn’t make them a good person but if someones bad behavior ultimately gets rewarded(by the women who sleep with such men), then they have little to no incentive to change. Obviously they have little to no concern for the approval of you and your fellow posters here on manboobz. 😉
I can believe that Heartiste gets laid a lot. I’m of the opinion that it’s not really assholery that attracts women, but aggressiveness and confidence. And since to be a Roissy-style asshole you necessarily have to be aggressive too, you ARE going to get laid more than someone who just stands in the corner… which, honestly, is most guys.
Oh God, it’s the Telephone Feminists again.
This is the variant of straw feminist where one MRA makes up a thing that sounds like feminists might do it, then tells another MRA, then tells another, and eventually it becomes common knowledge that feminists do these things, because you always hear it.
Never mind that nobody has actually ever seen a specific feminist do it. I mean, it’s common knowledge that they do!
No, really, pretty much just MRAs who talk about wanting to reduce women to sex slaves. Well, I don’t believe it of folks like Roissy either, but I don’t really care.
If you actually believe Roissy that’s… almost cute really. I almost don’t want to shatter that kind of naivete.
Oh wait, yes I do: He is performing for the benefit of status amongst men, you twit. You don’t have to have sex to lie that you have had sex. That a lackwit like you believes it and elevate him for it is why he does it.
Gosh, you must be right Nomless. After all, the good Fartiste does seems so very unperturbed in the OP, doesn’t he? Idiot.
Also, it isn’t ad hominem to list someone’s motivations while you shred them. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it requires that the bad trait be appealed to as the reason why they are wrong. But you can insult someone while you shred their arguments, and then it’s not ad hominem. It’s trivially easy. The only reason I’m not really doing it to you is that you haven’t made an argument, just tried to insult feminists.
Nomless: Well kirbywarp, the “ur just mad cuz u cant get laid” ad hominem is constantly used around here and other internet sites where feminists congregate) against guys who question or challenge feminists precepts and try to dig deeper into their motivations.
Citations needed.
Since you make specific, affirmative, claims, i.e. the charge that critics are “mad because they can’t get laid*, as a diversion from actual discussions of the motivations of feminists, or the precepts of feminism, you need to back them with evidence. Find examples where the allegation of, “he can’t get laid” was a complete dismissal of the entirety of an argument, not just an additional comment on perceived character/motivations.
*With marks off for stooping to the attempt to paint a strawman of lol-speak in the argument; feel free to find direct quotations using it as an out of normal usage from a regular here. If you want to do it from other sites, be prepared to have significant examples of other usage to show that it’s being done in, out of context, mockery.
DYOR: Assuming, arguendo, that Roissy is having all the sex he wants, and that he is getting all the satisfaction from it one could desire… he’s still a loser.
It’s not how much fucking one does that makes one a decent and worthwhile person. It’s how one treats one’s fellow human beings. It’s whether the world is no worse off for your having been here than it would be if you hadn’t been.
Roissy has made the parts of the world he travels in worse, because he has told men to treat women as objects not people.
He’s a loser.
I do suspect Roissy hardly ever has sex, but I don’t think he’s bad because of that.
I think he’s bad because he lies about having sex, and does so in service of telling extremely malicious and dangerous lies about what women are like and how men should treat women.
And who knows? Maybe it’s all true and he really does constantly abuse women into fucking him. That’s worse.
Saying “Roissy doesn’t really get laid” isn’t an insult, it’s a best case scenario.
In short, Nomless, as Rutee said, show that it’s actually an ad hominem argument, not just an insult.
@Monsieur sans Nom:
I’m reasonably sure that the only reason its brought up at all is because misogynists bring it up like some badge of honor. You know, like DYOR did.
Cliff – A-fucking-men.
Wow, that is one obsession with people weighing more than they should and/or being ugly. As well as apparently believing that a person’s appearance being within the expected parameters determines, over all else, their worth.
I don’t know if simply declaring it all projection would be accurate — but he definitely devotes a lot of time and energy to thoughts about appearance and worries about getting fat.
Do forgive me and my fellow man-hating dykes for making assumptions about the motivations of MRA’s and their ilk. I am sure that they have various individual reasons for their involvement in “men’s rights” spaces and discussion, but based upon their rhetoric I believe it is safe to surmise that they are united by a sense of deep frustration and resentment. That kind of rage tends to arise from perceived injustice (indeed, MRAs often appropriate the language of social justice). So what is the “injustice” to which they have been subjected? By all appearances, they feel they have been denied (primarily by women and secondarily by “alpha” males) something to which they have a “right.” Something to which being male ought to entitle them, be that sex, emotional intimacy, financial stability, “respect” in the form of accolades or romantic attention, or even just the sense of stability that comes from believing that the world has fixed, objective rules that govern human behavior and appearance.
<blockquoteOthers have pointed this out, but it is seriously sad (and downright bizarre to me) to think that “loser” and “person who has sex” are mutually exclusive
On the other hand, someone who thinks that having sex = “I WIN” very probably is a big fucking loser. And bad at sex.
I think part of his obsession with looks is that he argues for an “objective” standard of beauty. That puts him in the difficult spot of needing to have a means test to make all the women he is interested in, objectively, beautiful.
This piece is a bit of philosophical jiu-jitsu. By making people who disagree with him, categorically ugly he elevates those whom he does choose to interact with more, functionally, attractive. It also lets him pull a pre-emptive sour grapes with the rhetorical, qualifiers like, “90 percent are”, which both makes him see to be fair, and is designed to make people defensive.
Anyone who is both attractive; in a socially conventional sense, and defends themselves against the charge of being ugly/fat/effeminate, will reinforce the basic idea. By being forward with the theory he invites response, which he can then use to defend the theory no matter what the response is.
Silence works just as well for this, because that would only serve to “prove” that feminists are all ugly faties and mangina wimps.
It’s not smart, but it is clever; in part because truth is an irrelevant aspect of the technique.