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.
Octo, do you know how to do blockquotes? It’d make it much easier to read your comments if you’d use them.
I thought I did, but then messed up. It seems I have forgotten… can you please tell me again? 😉 I thought it was the < brackets with blockquote and /blockquote inside…
Yes, it is!
D’you use Firefox? They have a text formatting toolbar add-on. Makes it much easier.
I has it. But let’s see if it works…
Yay, success! 🙂
Hmm, speaking of experiments … I wonder if we can get more smileys now they’ve changed?
:cat:
Bah, humbug! The Furrinati will not be pleased.
While I don’t disagree that some religious people use their religion to justify their bigotry (and I’ll reference homophobia b/c it’s the one I have the most exposure to as a white cis gay guy), I think the argument that their religion has no impact on their bigotry frankly nonsensical. Religion is, among other things, an ideology, and in the case of Christianity, many denominations’ ideology includes homophobia.
Homophobia is taught in churches and justified by God and the Bible, and if someone is a Christian and hears that teaching, they’re naturally going to be more inclined to accept it as true because it comes from a source they regard as trustworthy and, in some cases, infallible/inerrant. Of course that’s going to affect their beliefs, and they may not feel they have an escape from it even if it doesn’t make sense to them personally. After all, God is omniscient and they aren’t, so who are they to question his will?
Yes, there is non-religious homophobia but in my experience it’s fairly minimal. Actually, check that, I have never heard a non-religious person espouse homophobia beyond slurs, and I’ve only seen non-religious people use slurs online; I’ve never encountered one who wanted to limit my legal rights (transphobia is, of course, a different story).
What I have seen is religious people come out by the hundreds to testify against LGBT rights in my hometown and the supposedly friendly churches be (wiht maybe the exception of one UU) mysteriously silent on the subject. Ultimately, I know which religious groups I can count on to support me in a pinch, and Christians, even the allegedly LGBT-positive ones, aren’t it.
I’ve seen tons of homophobia from non-religious people. Also, can we stop pretending that America is the universe? None of the churches that any of my family members grew up in (Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Catholic) preached homophobia. In fact, the whole way that you’re describing people interacting with their religions sounds completely alien to me (the whole who am I to question part).
And with that, I’m done with this conversation. Sorry for helping to let it re-enter this space, @ everyone except the two people who seem to think that we really really need to have this debate yet again. It’s pointless and frustrating and I should know better than to get into it.
What makes me laugh a bit is the “Christians won’t support me in a pinch” bit – I’m not questioning Leum’s experience, but I wouldn’t expect many USian movement atheists to support LGBT people either. Or women. Or PoC. There are so many big-name dudes who’re just cis-het-white privileged douchecanoes. If I were atheist, I’d still keep right away from the conferences, because the odds of being harassed would be pretty damn high, and there’s been a lot of resistance to even having regulations about it.
Seconding about the US not being the world, too. The “this conversation” part doesn’t bother me but the endless universalising of rightwingUSChristianity to represent the whole freaking religion, or all religions, or all belief, is what really pisses me off.
That’s the thing, though. Movement atheism can be racist and sexist as fuck, but it’s almost invariably pro-LGB (transphobia’s another matter). Again, maybe outside the US it’s different, I wouldn’t know, but USian homophobia is more or less an exclusively Christian phenomenon. I honestly can’t even imagine how a non-religious argument against LGBT rights would go.
Even in the US it’s kind of bullshit, honestly. Mr C has lots of Catholic relatives, and guess who’s everyone’s favorite auntie? The one who’s a lesbian. None of them seemed to feel that her coming out was grounds for some sort of religiously motivated existential crisis.
Same as a non-religious anti-choice argument: based on bullshit. I don’t know any religious people but I sure know homophobes.
So, let’s say Rebecca Watson was a lesbian. How do we think the conversation post-Elevatorgate would have gone if that had been the case? Beautifully homophobia free, or…nope, sorry, I can’t even finish that sentence without literally scoffing.
(Know offline, I mean.)
Oh wow, now there’s an image!
I do disagree with Leum: There’s plenty of homophobia and sexism beyond religion. Also among atheists, and also within movement atheism. It just plain doesn’t *require* religion to be sexist or homophobic. Enough people are entirely without being religious. As was said, above, concepts like toxic masculinity “take care” of that.
But that being said, I do think religion certainly is a factor, and that’s the important part. Religion is not solely responsible for those problems; but it *is* contributing to them. If we somehow were to magically get rid of religion (for the sake of argument; I’m not advocating campaigns to do that), we wouldn’t see those problems go away. But I’m somewhat sure we would see lesser amounts of both.
Then again, since humans create religions, the homophobia, misogyny and so on had to exist to show in religion anyway.
It’s kind of extra ironic when atheists seem to miss that part.
Don’t have to, I am one. 😉 Also a Pagan. And also pretty sure there are no gods. All of which is one of the reasons why that conflation of concepts so irritates me.
Then again, since humans create religions, the homophobia, misogyny and so on had to exist to show in religion anyway.
Well, yeah – of course religions, being man-made, reflect attitudes that exist within humans. The problem is that religions make those attitudes eternally valid rules. That way, religions *reinforce* those attitudes, and in case of homophobia, sexism etc. that of course is in fact a problem.
Some of them do. A lot of them don’t. I know a bunch of racists and homophobes who aren’t religious at all.
It kind of sounds as though you’re saying that your goal is to decrease homophobia and racism in the world, and the method you want to use to achieve that goal is to eradicate religion. I really, really don’t think that all religion everywhere is the main cause of homophobia and racism. A great many religious groups actively work against -isms. A great many non-religious groups actively promote -isms.
If your goal is to eradicate religion, and you think that reducing homophobia and racism is a happy by-product, then fine. But don’t be, I don’t know, prevaricating about your goal, then.
Not all religions are US-based evangelical born-again christian.
Yeah, again, American fundagelicals are kind of their own thing. I don’t like them either, but it’s pretty silly to pretend that they represent all religious groups, or even all Christians, or all Protestants.
A goal to eradicate religions would be pretty presumptuous, I think. Though ideally I would like to see the influence of religion on the public discourse reduced, yes. Mostly because I think that influence is disproportionate. As for my end goal, I don’t think you can split it up like that. As an atheist, I would like to see the social importance of religion reduced. As, well, a human being (or I suppose feminist? Leftist?), I’d generally like to see sexism and homophobia eradicated. I don’t think I need to decide for one of the two as main goals. That would be a bit of a false dichotomy, I think.
Also, while US evangelical fundamentalists can be pretty bad, don’t think they’re so unique. Well, okay, there’s that prosperity gospel thing, that is pretty bad and unique, and a complete 180° reverse of what Jesus actually said. But apart from that – well, in western Europe you got traditionalist Catholics instead, in Eastern Europe conservative Orthodoxes, and so on. The denominations, and with it some details, vary, but you do get conservative Christians with harmful messages everywhere, not just the USA.
Just out of curiosity, are you planning to extend this session of “yes, but!” indefinitely?
(@ Everyone else, again, I’m really sorry for having encouraged attempts to get back on this train to nowhere.)