So our dear friend Heartiste, the white-supremacist woman-botherer, has assembled a little “Chateau Heartiste Crib Sheet of Game,” a compilation of some of his best pickup advice, boiled down to a few handy tips and clever one-liners that wannabe alpha males can use on the ladies during conversation in order to get their ginas tingling. (Sorry, that’s the way these guys talk.)
Looking at Heartiste’s list of “lines” I was struck by how generic and, well, frankly unoriginal most of them were, from standard issue negs like “nice shoes. Those are really popular now” and “is she always like this?” to old-school PUA cliches like “I don’t buy girls drinks but you can buy me one” and “what else do you have going for you besides your looks?” both of which come straight from peacocking PUA pioneer Mystery, the guy with the fuzzy hat and the long-ago-cancelled VH1 show.
Indeed, a lot of Heartiste’s “lines” are as old and stale as he is:
Don’t get clingy
Miss me already?
Hey, hands off the merchandise
If i didn’t know any better i’d say you were trying to pick me up
So I thought I’d do Heartiste a little favor and write up some new lines for him and his fans that are both more original and a bit more honest. Next time you’re in “da club,” Heartiste, why don’t you try some of these out? Some of these I made up myself; some are taken, or adapted, from things you yourself wrote.
Hi, I spend most of my life on the internet trying to figure out how to manipulate drunk women half my age into bed.
People on the internet know me as Heartiste. No, not Fartiste. With an H. No, it’s not a joke. I thought it up myself.
I like to call black people “darkies.” No, not to their face. Anonymously, on the internet.
I’m an alluringly savvy man self-assuredly parrying the clit-hardened jousts of intrigued women.
Too much outbreeding decreases charitable kin-feeling and incentivizes a decadent ennui that severs the citizen’s sense of obligation to his nation and co-ethnics.
A gentlemanly selectiveness honed by years of experience and psychological nimbleness has proved adequate at filtering out women likely to lay like dead fish in my roiling sea of sperm.
If anyone can usurp the lawyercunt in cuntishness, it’s the Twittercunt.
The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots.
Whether our ruling class knows it or they bumble along like drug addicts seeking the next pleasurable injection of power at any cost, their sex-swapping project will turn the West into matricentric, female forager Africa.
Every time we had sex over the following weeks, it ended with her tucking her knees under her chin naked on the bed to quietly cry into the wrapped bubble of her body.
The only bond that matters in a woman’s heart is the one you caulk in her cock vault.
The ruling elites despise whites, despise the concept of whiteness, and despise especially the idea that the territory and nation and culture from which they parasitically suck the lifeblood was created and sustained primarily by white men.
The id of the Like Me Generation is a furry suit wrapping a toddler.
Women should avoid trying to be funny altogether and stick to maximizing the return on their authentically valuable assets. That would be your tits, ass, face and pussy, in case you were wondering.
That last bit was pure Heartiste. (As were the previous ten.) Like the women of the world, I can’t hope to attain such pinnacles of wit.
Yes, please, let’s drop this.
People will find all kinds of excuses and justifications for their behavior. Religion can be used to justify rotten behavior. But so can any number of other things.
I guess it’d be more accurate to say not that objective reality doesn’t exist so much as objective reality isn’t what you think it is, by definition, because anything you think isn’t it. As for quantum physics being explained through mathematics and not language, I would argue that mathematics still properly lies under the aegis of language, albeit a weird one.
There are actually theories of cognitive development that suggest that babies don’t think prior to language acquisition; that the reason we can’t remember extremely early childhood and infancy because we lacked language at the time. That said, I don’t deny that we can have flashes of inspiration/intuition that we can’t put in words, the whole point of Buddhist practice is, for me, reaching for those flashes as they relate to… and that’s where words stop.
That’s actually one of the things that seperates Therevada and Mahayana Buddhism. Therevada’s Nirvana is basically identical* with secular death, but Mahayana’s is not. Nirvana is a fundamentally undescribable state of being, and questions of whether existence continues or not after parinirvana (the death of an enlightened one) tend to be answered either a) who cares? or b) absolutely.
*For a given value of that. Dead Arahats are nowhere to be found in the cosmos, but the question of what happens to a Buddha after death is unanswerable
Also, it’s important to be wary of describing the devas, realms of being, etc as decorum as they are absolutely not treated that way by traditional Buddhists; Western Buddhists tend to like doing it and presenting Buddhism as a philosophy and not a religion, but the supernatural elements beyond karma show up in the very earliest texts. I think it’s possible to do Buddhism without those things (since, y’know, I do), but for those of us who do we need to remember that what we’re doing isn’t distilliing Buddhism to its pure form but something more akin to what Bishop Spong does with Christianity.
Yeah, I have to disagree that *only* religion can make good people do bad things. People do bad things because they think it will achieve a moral good, but there are nonreligious ideologies that get them to do that. E.g. right now there’s a lot of discussion about the tactics of Social Justice Warriors and whether/how often they cross the line into this phenomenon.
Part of what makes this conversation even muddier is the way some people use atheism to mean both “not believing in god(s)” and “not practicing a religion”, when – although there is significant overlap – the two are not interchangeable.
Do you really believe that (1) people are either inherently good or inherently bad, and (2) religion is the only thing that can make an inherently “good” person go against their nature?
Because I can’t accept either of those premises, especially the first one. Reducing complex, fallible human beings to “good” or “bad” just makes me really uncomfortable, especially given how easily some people move from identifying “bad” people to dehumanizing and abusing them.
And I think whether people are being kind to each other is more important than why. I’m more worried about whether everyone has what they need than what they’re doing on Sunday morning/Friday night/the full moon/etc.
I dunno about Buddhism for myself. The concept of karma can be used as the worst iteration of Just World fallacies. That baby with cancer isn’t suffering because the world is amoral. No, that baby must have been mean in a past life.
I do understand this interpretation is not universal, but this is my problem with the concept.
I tend to be much more pragmatic about religious practice. I might find a lot of it silly, but then the arcane knowledge I have about my interests are silly to others. If people use their religion to inspire themselves to make the world a better place, then I commend them.
I like the focus Pope Francis is taking even if I disagree with him on many, many points.
Yay for being OT even within my own rant.
I’m inclined to think that religion is less the cause of shitty behavior than it is the excuse that people give for doing the shitty things that they already wanted to do.
@cassandrakitty: one of the saddest things about anti-abolitionists prior to the civil war, and a handful of homophobic Christians today, is that there were then people who said, “I wish I could oppose slavery, it seems utterly vile, but the Bible commands it so I have to concede it’s moral.” And I have seen Christians say that they’d like to support same-sex marriage but can’t because the Bible forbids it.
And you believed them?
Well, since some of them are themselves gay and really torn up about it and hate themselves for it, yes.
And some of them are full of shit and using the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry.
Seconding everything emilygoddess said here.
Some are, but quite honestly, homophobia in the US is a Christian phenomenon. It isn’t just backed by Christian doctrine, it’s rooted in Christian doctrine. There’s a reason the atheist community is one of the biggest non-LGBT groups that supports LGBT rights en masse. And there really are Christians who would be perfectly happy to fully support LGBT people if they could get around the scriptural and doctrinal rules prohibiting it.
My undergrad advisor, for example, is a devout progressive Catholic who fully supports LGBT legal rights, but not same-sex marriage within the Catholic Church and it’s very clear from an extremely awkwad conversation I overheard her have that this makes her uncomfortable but that she sees no way around it; it’s the reason I haven’t come out to her, tbh.
In all honesty, even the good Christians often can’t fully escape this. John Shore started a project called “Not All Like That” where he asked Christians to affirm that it’s okay to be LGBT. But when I pointed out that nowhere on his site did he explicitly say same-sex sexual relationships were okay, he was confused at the idea that this needed to be explicitly said and refused to change it. Ultimately, I’ve found only a handful of cishet Christians who seem to fully get it. For the most part, the rule seems to be “Christian, cishet, not a homophobe or transphobe: pick two.”
Religions are created by people, and pretty much everyone picks and chooses which bits of their holy book to prioritize and which bits to quietly ignore. If lots of Christians are homophobic, I don’t think it’s because the religion is making them be that way. If those people wanted a less homophobic version of their faith then it’s not as if they couldn’t find one.
I’m not saying that lots of churches don’t try to push their members in that direction, because they do, I’m saying that it’s ultimately up to the individual whether or not they’re going to accept that or go find a less toxic denomination/congregation to belong to.
Example! Part of my family is Catholic. They all know that one of my cousins is gay. None of them care. They’ve chosen to give the church’s teaching on homosexuality about as much weight as they give to the rules about what kind of fiber their clothes can be made out of (or the policy on contraception, which they also ignore). People need to take responsibility for the ways they choose to interpret their religion, they can’t just say “well this makes me uncomfortable but God/my priest says I have to believe it so (shrugs)”.
RE: Kittehs
Now I’m seeing Falcon-as-played-by-Alan-Rickman.
You are a cruel, cruel woman, you know that? Thanks for making the geezer even worse.
RE: Octo
I’m an atheist, but to me an atheist universe is actually kinda depressing, especially the thought of death.
Really? I’ve always found my insignificance deeply reassuring. There’s no fiery hell awaiting me, no gross heaven where I can only enjoy myself if I accept that other people are suffering. No judgement, just a completely disinterested universe. Sure, it may not actively be trying to help me… but it’s not actively trying to harm me either, and at this point in my life, that sounds fuckin’ fantastic. The past couple years, I don’t know if I could’ve survived them had I not been able to rest assured that it was nothing personal, just entropy in effect. I find my cosmic tininess a source of deep comfort.
RE: Leum
There are actually theories of cognitive development that suggest that babies don’t think prior to language acquisition;
The fuck? There are plenty of nonverbal people in the world, and I am quite certain that they can think! If people couldn’t think until they acquire language, how would we have developed language at all?
RE: emilygoddess
some people use atheism to mean both “not believing in god(s)” and “not practicing a religion”, when – although there is significant overlap – the two are not interchangeable.
YES. That’s what irritates me. Two completely different things! Ask the poor bastards who practice Falun Gong. Or the UUs. Hell, even I might be able to tolerate the UU church…
RE: Cassandrakitty
My personal favorite story regarding religion was when I met my mother-in-law, who is a devout Southern Baptist. She was totally fine with me being gay. It was me being atheist that slightly threw her! (At which point hubby immediately gave her a stiff talking to and she hastily recanted and apologized quite nicely.)
@ LBT
My granny, who’s OK with me being a feminist, and was OK with the purple hair period and the hanging out with boys with long hair and tattoos and the atheism and all of that stuff, finally had her “this is a bridge to far!” moment over my decision not to change my name when I got married, of all things. You can never quite predict what issues people are going to freak out about.
I call bullshit on that. Religion is a convenient excuse for bigotry, but there’s plenty of atheists who keep their bigotry AND the religious excuses for it, just crossing God out. If you try to point out that doing away with religion necessarily means doing away with religion-backed morality, they go ballistic.
@ vaiyt
Who are you talking to?
RE: Cassandrakitty
My granny… had her “this is a bridge to far!” moment over my decision not to change my name when I got married, of all things. You can never quite predict what issues people are going to freak out about.
I know, right? Thankfully, my mother-in-law is a very polite, kind woman, so she didn’t act like a dick to me, she was just taken aback. (And that was still plenty enough for my husband to give her that talking-to.) So I’m able to laugh about it, rather than be offended.
And then you have my granny, who is a racist old Southern belle… but is pretty much fine with me being trans and queer. A little confused on the matter, but she probably took the news best of all my extended family. (She replied, “I knew already,” in this affronted tone, as though I’d insulted her intelligence. Then she told me, “I watch Oprah, dear. You should watch more TV; you’ll learn a lot.”)
So I’m able to laugh about it, rather than be offended.
Er, I meant that as in, I’m able to laugh about it because she didn’t have the power to hurt me, and she didn’t try. I didn’t mean to phrase this as though to say being offended isn’t justified in the case of people being a dick to you about your religion or lack of such. <.<
I agree that religion is more often an asshat’s alibi than a proximate cause.
About the atheists being more accepting of LGBTQ, I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of atheists defend homophobia with secular and/or naturalistic bullshit. A lot of these same guys are MRAs as well.
So perhaps as a percentage, but only slightly. Toxic masculinity and gender roles inform interpretations of facts and holy books.
Can’t we let this conversation die? There are asshats of all religions and of none. And asshats will use whatever excuses they can find to justify their asshat-ishness, whether those excuses are the will/word of God/gods or their supposedly vulcan logic.
Fuck’em all and their cruel & heartless arrogance, say I.
Not to mention that it’s freaking obvious non-human animals think, and recognise elements of human language. Nice bit of toxic anthropocentrism in all this language = thinking stuff.
Too broad a generalisation. Some people do. Some people (like me) have very patchy memories of our lives long after language acquisition.
Yep. That irritates me enormously, too. I don’t fit in any of the reductionist boxes, kthnx.
Octo and/or Leum, at a guess, with the “good people do bad things cos religion” and the whole “religion makes people homophobic when they wouldn’t be otherwise” stuff.
LOL!
Exactly. Plus the whole stew of misogyny that plays out every fucking week in movement atheism, at least in the US (which is what I mostly read about). Oh yeah, it’s only religion that makes people into bigoted turds.
Damn, anyone seen my eyes? They’ve rolled out again.
“I guess it’d be more accurate to say not that objective reality doesn’t exist so much as objective reality isn’t what you think it is, by definition, because anything you think isn’t it. As for quantum physics being explained through mathematics and not language, I would argue that mathematics still properly lies under the aegis of language, albeit a weird one.”
But the point is that we adapted. There was an insufficiency in our language, so we extended our language – and, that’s important, to the point where we could even overcome our wrong intuition about what is “logical” and what isn’t. I think that speaks well of our ability to adapt our language/communication. Not perfectly, of course, but the point is not perfection anyway: We will never be able to comprehend 100% of objective reality. But we can come ever closer. And I mean, we make de facto statements about reality all the time: It’s currently dark outside here. Tomorrow will be friday. I’m sitting at a desk. And so on. Now, it is of course possible all those statements are actually wrong, but it would not be very practical to assume that. I think it is most pragmatical to assume we can make and test statements about reality… and that would include religious statements then.
“Do you really believe that (1) people are either inherently good or inherently bad, and (2) religion is the only thing that can make an inherently “good” person go against their nature?”
Hm, yes, that “it takes religion” part, as if religion were *required* for that, was a bit unfortunate. Of course, other factors can have the same effect: Ideologies, concepts of “honour” and so on. But the point is, so can religion. And while I don’t think there are *inherently* good or bad people, I do think there are people… well, some people who are more ruthless, more ambitious, more self-centred and so on and on the other hand people who are more caring, more mindful of others and so on. There are different personalities, and according to those personalities some people will rather tend to do “bad” stuff than others. I mean, surely, you must have thought about some people “What asshole!” or “I’m not surprised somebody like him/her would do that”, or something to that effect.
“If those people wanted a less homophobic version of their faith then it’s not as if they couldn’t find one. ”
That seems a bit simplistic to me. After all, people aren’t just raised in a religion, broadly speaking. They are in fact raised in a specific version of their faith. Of course, some people, as I’ve argued above, will always be assholes, religion or not. But I do think others will take on negative and hurtful opinions, despite being nice people at the core, specifically because that is what their religion tells them – or their version of their religion.
“Really? I’ve always found my insignificance deeply reassuring. There’s no fiery hell awaiting me, no gross heaven where I can only enjoy myself if I accept that other people are suffering. No judgement, just a completely disinterested universe.”
It isn’t about insignificance or a caring universe. I freely admit for me it’s much simpler and less sophisticated: I don’t want to end to exist. That’s all there is to it. I mean, think about it… or rather not, since it’s IMO depressing: You can only observe the universe from one subjective point of view, your own. So, if that point of view ceases… and with all memories, and really everything about you… it is as if you’ve never lived in the first place. From your own point of view, that is, but hence my stress why that PoV is the only important one. Death is eradication of existence, and that is what I find depressing.