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.
For that matter, there’s the old wheeze “god never gives you more than you can handle” or some glurgy variation thereof.
Heh. Aha. AHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I’m sorry. Just as someone who owes his current psychological existence to the deaths of at least two other system members (and possibly as high as five), I just find that the sickest thing you could ever say to someone.
leftwingfox – not a teal dear, not to me, anyway. I can’t abide the new-age, just world, law of attraction, ants-get-bad-karma-from-biting-humans bullshit either.
The thing that catches my attention is that our experiences of loss are opposites: I did get the comfort at a time of loss that lessened the grief enormously. Which is not me saying that negates your experience! Anything but; it’s more like what people have observed already, that it’s one’s experiences, emotions and responses that shape beliefs in so many ways. The straw Vulcans never can get that through their dudely skulls.
Urgh yes, that’s a vile thing to say, and it just backs up the “God is a shit” theory. I don’t think you were ranty at all.
LBT – FIVE members? Holy shit, I knew there was one, but that’s dreadful.
Yeah, the whole ‘doesn’t give you more than you can handle’ shit … I think of the dreadful things my husband went through in his earthly life, the huge toll they took, and the far worse things that happened to so many people in Europe just in that time (the Thirty Years’ War) … that saying is real ‘needs a whack with a clue-by-four’ stuff.
RE: Kittehs
LBT – FIVE members? Holy shit, I knew there was one, but that’s dreadful.
Yeeeeaaaah. Our system has a pretty appalling death rate. (It depends on how you crunch the numbers, but the most forgiving version is 4/9. The harshest has it 7/12.) We might be, by relative terms, very stable and healthy… but it comes at a pretty steep price.
My main claim to fame in my system is that I haven’t died yet! *snort*
Now I’m getting a cross between “I’m not dead yet!” from the Holy Grail and Spike Milligan’s choice of headstone – “I told you I was ill!”
:/
emilygoddess, sorry about your run-in with rabies!
They seemed to equate lack of belief in a godhead alone for having a superior intellect, though it was largely a case of compartmentalization. Of course you can say Hitchens makes a good point about religion and how ridiculous it is…but it doesn’t make up for the fact he was otherwise incredibly ignorant. He supported the Iraq War, a multi-billion quagmire, simply ’cause Saddam was a bad man and he needed outing – nevermind the justification for invasion or how occupying another country would be handled! It’s as bad as Harris condemning all of Islam due to the brutality exhibited in Middle Eastern nations…only to then claim that torture is totally A-okay.
I agree. When I was younger I was tempted to think that atheists tended to be smarter in general, but I saw too much evidence to the contrary to persist. How do people get out of college still clinging to that? (Don’t they know it’s irrational?)
If they do happen gradually, it’s probably equal parts “I was convinced by facts” and “I gradually began to get less emotion from my previous position”. For instance, you could have the most convincing anti-religion arguments thrown at you, but if God is talking to you every night when you say your prayers, you’re not going to renounce theism no matter how “illogical” your experience is. Or you could be told the most wonderful things about the benefits of a religion and want very badly to believe, but if you never feel the touch of the divine, you’re not going to convert.
Anyway I’m an atheist not because I’m smarter, but because I never really felt any religious feelings at all.
I don’t know if it was all that gradual, but I went from being a theist to being an atheist when I was around 10, without any life-changing event other than age-related brain changes. I’d picked up Christian-in-a-vague-way theism from a combination of my babysitters and the general culture, despite my dad being an atheist and my mom being an agnostic. I think the change had something to do with a change in my thinking abilities, and also being seen as a “good girl” was no longer quite so important to me, but I never had as strong an emotional connection to religion as some people did and it is hard to separate logic from emotions when thinking about something like, “If God exists, and he’s all-powerful and completely good, why does he allow people to rape children?”
Because one of these is a personal experience and the other carries an implicit judgment on everyone.
If you’re just saying “atheism appeals to me because I think it’s very logical,” then fine, that’s your experience. But once you get into “atheism is the rational thing to believe,” well, then you just called everyone else in the world irrational, and that is not very nice of you.
It’s not very nice to say that everyone who doesn’t belong to your religion is going to hell, either. So in terms of the double standard that Octo was calling out, I think it still holds.
Also, you didn’t just call everyone else in the world irrational–you called a particular belief of theirs irrational. Everyone has irrational beliefs. Most of them we probably don’t even notice because all humans believe them. Atheists who *do* think that means that everyone else is irrational [compared to atheists] are being jerks about it–and not being very smart, either.
It’s more polite to phrase it as “in my opinion atheism is more rational”, but either way it is obviously that person’s opinion.
I also think that choosing to not vaccinate your child against measles is foolish and dangerous (not exactly irrational, because it can be internally consistent), and maybe that’s not very nice of me. I’m less nice about anti-vax beliefs than about most religious beliefs, because most religious beliefs cause little or no overall harm. (At least, the types of religious beliefs held by people I’m likely to encounter. It’s not like I’m living in the midst of the Inquisition or chatting with the Taliban.) But I think a lot worse things than “holds one irrational belief” about a lot of people in the world, and I guess the part where I do agree with movement atheism is that I don’t think religion should be treated (much) differently than other beliefs that I disagree with.
@leftwingfox: I like hearing about “conversion” stories from other people. So no tldr here either. I espe ially like hearing about them from nom-christian POV. Too many think it’s Christianity or atheism. Other religions exist only to score points against Pascal’s Wager.
Pascal’s Wager would make a great episode of Dead Philosophers in Heaven. I suspect he’d get the same shit* from God that poor old Nietzsche does.
*literally
@ saintnick
Everyone’s experience is different and so on (insert disclaimer here), but FWIW, my experience with Islam has been similar to yours. Even when I was living in Saudi Arabia, which is about as far from a secular nation as you can get, I never felt like anyone was trying to personally convert me. It was expected that everyone would be publicly respectful towards the social customs that go along with the religion, eg stores shut during prayer times, if you don’t like that too bad, don’t eat or drink in public during Ramadan even if you’re not observing it yourself, and so on, but as far as attempt to actually change what I believed? None. Zero. Whereas when my family lived in Texas we could hardly go to any sort of social event without someone attempting to “save” us.
Argh, “God never gives you more than you can handle” is blatantly untrue. The one inevitability is that God/Nature/whatever will end up giving every living entity more than it can physically handle. That’s the very nature of life!
leftwingfox, nthing that I found your story interesting.
I hate just world theory.
In rural New England, people aren’t usually as aggressive about trying to convert you as in the Bible Belt, but a year or two ago a guy who said he was a retired church leader struck up a conversation while I was out walking my dog and ignored me changing the subject (after tersely answering his question) twice when he was asking me about religion; the third time he did it I told him, “I’ve got to get going…” and walked away.
@LBT:
Hugs, if you want them! Small cute fuzzy animals!
Thanks everybody.
LBT: Nice to know it wasn’t all that unusual. Mom’s a lapsed Catholic, Dad is a Freemason. The New Age stuff was largely window dressing, and didn’t stop them from taking us to real doctors or getting vaccinated. They were big proponents of “complementary medicine” though, so Dad saw a chiropractor for his back, and when my brother got sick, they tried a
fucking quacknaturopath when the doctors were still trying to figure out what was wrong. Fortunately, real medicine won out in the end.They do still give psychiatry the side-eye though.
@closetpuritan:
Yes! I mean, sure, I believe that atheism is the most logical position; if I didn’t I wouldn’t be one would I? If challenged on that position, I’ll certainly defend my thinking.* But I try to recognize that I can be wrong; I have in the past, and I’ve seen all too often people dead certain they’re correct despite standing on a pile of lies, sloppy logic and personal bias. I figure the least I can do is not be a complete cockbag about my beliefs.
*As an aside, one dynamic I’ve noticed is that the vast majority of atheist defences of belief are also implicit attacks on other religions. Lots of liberal, spiritual or interfaith-minded folks can come up with reasons they chose their particular faith which don’t necessarily exclude other beliefs as wrong. They joined because of community, family, personal miracle or revelation, assistance in time of need, and the like. Their faith doesn’t dictate every part of their life, so they can say “You have your beliefs, I have mine”.
For an atheist, the predominant reason they are an atheist is because they rejected religion as false, not just for themselves, but universally. The logic by which we reached that position is a refutation of theism, not a co-existant alternative. Because of the framework of science replacing myth, there really can only be one “correct” answer.
There are positive arguments for atheism, of course. Freedom from magical thinking shackling our thoughts, free from arbitrary punishment in the afterlife for actions that hurt no-one in this life, responsibility to this life, this world, and our fellow human beings emotionally and physically, rather than spiritually.
But I think that even for atheists who aren’t anti-thest activists, the justification of our beliefs can still be interpreted as an attack on the beliefs of others.
@Kittehserf
You’ve seen Pratchett’s bit on Pascal’s Wager, yes?
“For an atheist, the predominant reason they are an atheist is because they rejected religion as false, not just for themselves, but universally. The logic by which we reached that position is a refutation of theism, not a co-existant alternative. Because of the framework of science replacing myth, there really can only be one “correct” answer. ”
Hear, hear! The thing is, religion is not just emotional experience. Religions do make statements about reality. Even something as undetailed as “There is a creator god” is already a statement about reality. And if statements about reality are made, then this falls squarely into the same category as scientific statements. That’s why concepts like ‘None-Overlapping Magisteria” are nonsense. I’d even say that this isn’t even about the approach religion and science take, dogma vs scientific method: It’s about that the statements that religions do make can and hence should be scientifically tested when possible. And unless science ends up proving those statements, which so far hasn’t really happened, the two sides are in fact excluding each other.
“There are positive arguments for atheism, of course. Freedom from magical thinking shackling our thoughts, free from arbitrary punishment in the afterlife for actions that hurt no-one in this life, responsibility to this life, this world, and our fellow human beings emotionally and physically, rather than spiritually. ”
Eh, I wouldn’t call those arguments for atheism. None of those are about the truth value of atheism. Guess it shows the appeal to consequences fallacy can be used as much in the defence of atheism as in the defence of religion. Positive arguments for atheism would be that a) the “God hypothesis” becomes simply ever more irrelevant and unnecessary in explaining the world and b) an infinitely complex entity at the beginning of everything is in fact less likely than a gradual development from simple to complex. Or in other words: If God created the universe, where did God come from? And if you say God is eternal, might as well simply say the same about the universe and cut out the middle man…
(It was that latter argument, in Carl Sagan’s Cosmos in book form, which led me from being a vague, unenthusiastic theist/deist to being an atheist).
THAT’s the disconnect. Right there.
Those were arguments for atheism as a belief system that do not rely on a truth value. They are personal choices, reasons for which you might choose atheism regardless of whether it is true or not. Most religions have that, because in all honesty, the truth value matters less than the emotional value, the social value, the psychological value which they receive from it, regardless of whether or not it is true.
Truth absolutely has value, but it is not the most important motivating factor in human behaviour. When dealing with politics and morality, understanding reality is only part of the puzzle: emotion, cognition and our psychological needs all need to be taken into account, even when we’re illogical and irrational.
That’s the bit where an Epheban (iirc) philosopher tries it and the gods are waiting for him with big clubs or something, ‘cos he’s been a smartarse and they don’t like that, yes?
Can’t one have beliefs if they’re not something that can be scientifically tested? Or are you talking strictly about a religion stating that, and not about a person saying “I believe there is a creator god”?
I was raised Catholic. I’m a Catholic in recovery; I don’t think you ever recover completely. My little joke – how can you tell that an atheist grew up Catholic? “There is no god, and Mary is his mother.” I went through a prolonged fascination with Forteana, ghosts, UFOs, ancient mysteries, and all that sort of thing. Eventually got over it. Now I’m a Mason, which makes my separation from Holy Mother Church legally binding.
We’re not raising our sons with any religious tradition in particular. Younger son seems more curious about such things than his older brother.
@leftwingfox: I agree with your statement as a descriptive statement, but not as a normative one. That is, I agree that this is the way things are. But I don’t think this is how things should be. Since both atheism and theism are in fact statements about reality, what *should* matter is which of those are true. I absolutely don’t think the truth should be sacrificed for the sake of functionality, be that social or psychological functions. And I think this is a pretty common attitude among atheists, especially movement atheists. So, yes, a disconnect is there, because movement atheism goes on about the truth, while many theists point to other things. But I don’t think the fault for that disconnect is necessarily with movement atheists.
@kitteh: Of course one can have beliefs which are not scientifically tested. In fact, given the extent of religion, one could even say that’s kinda the norm, and as was pointed out earlier, even outside religion many people have some eccentric views on certain things. As long as those views, be they religious or not, don’t hurt anybody, that’s of course okay. What I meant is that we shouldn’t treat religious statements, i.e. religious claims about reality, as somehow being above scientific scrutiny. All statements about reality are scientifically testable (at least theoretically; practical execution of course always comes with problems of its own).
So, yes, it’s fine if a person has scientifically untested views. But it’s a bit less fine to demand that those views should be kept exempt from scientific scrutiny.
Yessssss.
Former Roman Catholic here. And we’re portuguese catholic, so it’s like we were so catholic as to be pagans. Seriously, every year we dress up the community’s virgin in this cape covered in fertility symbols and she leads a huge parade from the church to one of the community halls, where everyone eats this peasant soup made of bread. Our church had the bloodiest iconography I’ve ever seen.
I think part of what made me an atheist was realizing that fully half of my relatives didn’t buy any of the dogma, yet they still kept dragging their asses to this huge edifice and giving money to a guy wearing gold lamé.
As for being vocal about calling myself an atheist, I’d point to George carlin for one. Sounds stupid, but his “worship the sun but pray to joe Pesci” bit at the end of his 1999 or 2000 special changed my life.
Dawkins also had a part. I liked his writing on evolution a hell of a lot, but when he made a huge ass of himself and I was like, “if I call myself an atheist, does that make me an asshole like him?” Then I realized that letting vocal assholes keep me from embracing and being upfront about my beliefs would just perpetuate the problem. Then I stumbled on pharyngula and Greta Cristina and so forth, and suddenly I had company.
@lbt, re: the book of job
Right?! I mean, the whole point of the damn book is “who the hell are you to presume to know why god does anything?”
I used to work behind a bar, and would get sucked into theological arguments all the time. I always loved it, because I find theology utterly fascinating. It’s such involved, in-depth wankery, it’s like watching nerds argue about whether adamantium is actually ferro-magnetic.
Reminds me of the Catholic Star Wars Fan identification. “May the Force be with you.” “And also with you.”
Octo:
There’s something rubbing me the wrong way about this. Maybe I’m just misinterpreting something.
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by this?: