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.
RE: Kittehs
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!”
Fear not. I’ve already withstood three splits in the past three years without expiring. As long as I don’t get a repeat of the Bad Years again, I figure my system is stuck with me.
RE: opium4themasses
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.
The closest I ever got to wanting to join a religion was Judaism, during a writing project where I was doing lots of research on the subject. I had known virtually nothing about the faith, and was pretty impressed by it. Uuuuuunfortunately it requires circumcision and is completely against all forms of euthanasia, and those are hard limits for me. SO NOPE. No religion for me!
RE: Falconer
Hugs, if you want them! Small cute fuzzy animals!
Aw, it’s okay. These things happen. (Now, if they happened less often, I would NOT be sad.)
RE: leftwingfox
They do still give psychiatry the side-eye though.
I shouldn’t find this funny, but I totally do. Naturopaths and ley-lines = totally okay, but PYSCHIATRY???
For an atheist, the predominant reason they are an atheist is because they rejected religion as false, not just for themselves, but universally.
Not me! I know two systems with a Loki in them, and I’ve spoken with them, so it’s quite apparent they exist. I just have absolutely no interest in worshipping them or treating them any differently than I would other people. (Fortunately, that works for them; they’re way more into talking about 90s musicals with my husband.)
So yeah, I’m pretty much a Pratchett atheist. I have absolutely no problem believing that gods exist and add things to other people’s lives. I just don’t want them to be involved in my personal life. I am choosing to be spiritually uninsured, as it were. (Or spiritually indebted, as I see it.)
RE: Binjabreel
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 KNOW. And it’s kinda weird, considering what an ass God is in that book, but I LOVE the book of Job, because you can just tell the writer/s were so fucking sick of the idea that all misfortune was due to wrongdoing, and they wanted to just smash it down once and for. (Except people are still going on about it two thousand years later. Dammit.)
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.
I KNOW OMG. I swear, Judaism beats out every other group of nerds for sheer depth of scope. They’ve been arguing about exactly what everything means for a couple thousand years, and then they argue about other people’s arguments, and people build more arguments off of that and it’s just beautiful. (I mean that earnestly; any people who can argue so vociferously and at such length without trying to murder each other has my respect.)
Dammit, I meant NOT being spiritually in debt, not the reverse. Where my head at?
I… can try. But unless you tell me with what you have a problem, or what you might have potentially misinterpreted I fear I might just be rearranging words instead of explaining what I mean…
As I understand it, leftwingfox’ point, which also has come up earlier in the debate, is that the insistence of movement atheists about the importance of the truth value of a statement misses the mark, because the truth value of religious statements is often not actually why religious people keep believing. Instead, many religious people stay religious because of the social and psychological functionality of religions – what leftwingfox called emotional and social value.
My point was that while there is a disconnect, it isn’t a matter of missing the mark., as was sorta implied, solely the fault of movement atheists. Rather, the disconnect stems from theists/deists and movement atheists stressing different things – and movement atheists stressing the truth value is not in fact missing the mark, it is in fact just as valid as theists stressing the emotional and social functionality of religion. It’s just a matter of having different focuses.
And for movement atheists (or, I’d say, for many of them, at least, probably not all), the focus just is the truth value, that is, whether a religious statement is in fact true or not. For those people, this is way more so than any social or emotional impact the statement may have. And this is my opinion as well: In my opinion, what should matter is if a statement is true or not, regardless of how much emotional comfort or social stability or whatever it may bring. That’s what I meant.
Octo:
Ah, yes. Thank you. Now I understand.
I think what I was getting caught up on was the idea of “social stability” and on what kind of level you talking about. It seems you are speaking more to the philosophical underpinnings (for lack of better terms) of atheism, and movement atheism in particular. I was thinking more along the lines of “social stability” as people being able to co-exist peacefully in a functioning society.
Thank you for clarifying! 🙂
I’ve heard that Asimov’s robots argue the robotic laws in the same way that rabbis argue Talmud, and intentionally so.
Unfortunately, apparently the tradition of Christian thought in the West has been shaped by the idea that Jewish folk are too hung up on laws and materialism, beginning with the early church in Egypt, and that Europeans have used the (false) idea that Jewishness is constrained, judgmental, acquisitive, power-hungry and fixated on this world to help them understand the world for the last two millennia. To the point that the French Revolution was condemned by some in England as the work of Jewish folk, even though those same people knew perfectly well there wasn’t a Jewish person anywhere near the top of the whole thing.
I mean, there’s supercessionism, and then there’s using a group as boogeymen.
And this is absolutely not the fault of the Jewish folk, no matter how argumentative they may actually be.
Somehow that framework doesn’t seem to have caught on in the United States.
RE: Falconer
Yeah, and that’s really horrifying. The sheer amount of debate and arguing and curiosity is what drew me to Judaism, and then you’ve got asshats who treat them badly because of it. Urgh. I swear, the unluckiest religion on the planet…
Yep. It actually does make a certain sense. If you don’t study them too closely, the placebo effect and self-delusion can make both of those feel just as effective and tangible as doctors and stud-finders (the kind used to find wood in the walls, not hot dudes).
Psychiatry on the other hands intrudes into beliefs about the nature of the soul. Is the mind an artifact of the body, the soul, or a combination of the two? To that end, they tend to see drugs and diagnosis as potentially restricting the spiritual needs that the psychological issues represent. Like all the other beliefs, this isn’t absolute. I’m sure they accept some level of psychological intervention, but they do tend to grumble about the medicalization of human experience.
I probably would have benefitted tremendously from a therapist in Jr. High school.
Whoops! My bad. That was way more universal than I meant it to be. I should have said “For many atheists”.
@lbt, re Job-
Hahaha, oh, and my favorite part is when you compare the revisions and in the newer versions, they add the fourth friend who comes along and spells out the moral in total clarity.
Like, I can just imagine someone sitting down to revise the story and being like, “okay, you thickheaded chucklefucks, obviously I was being too subtle before.”
RE: leftwingfox
stud-finders (the kind used to find wood in the walls, not hot dudes)
Man, I need a stud-finder! Oh wait, there’s my husband. Never mind, I found him.
Psychiatry on the other hands intrudes into beliefs about the nature of the soul. Is the mind an artifact of the body, the soul, or a combination of the two? To that end, they tend to see drugs and diagnosis as potentially restricting the spiritual needs that the psychological issues represent.
I can sooooorta see where they’re coming from? But yeah, I know a loooooot of people whose meds saved their life. Like I get it, I know folks who have been overmedicated too, but sometimes, you fuckin’ need your pills. (Mine kept me from committing suicide, and even if suicidal depression was an effect, not a cause of my suffering, hey, they kept me shambling on until I was able to solve the situation.)
Whoops! My bad.
Don’t worry about it, I was pretty sure you didn’t mean it to be universal. 😉
RE: Binjabreel
Like, I can just imagine someone sitting down to revise the story and being like, “okay, you thickheaded chucklefucks, obviously I was being too subtle before.”
Honestly, the whole book of Leviticus feels like this to me. It’s so overwrought and repetitive that I can only imagine the conversation going like this:
God: “Okay, you can’t oppress your neighbor.”
Chucklefuck: “Can I rob him?”
God: “No! No, you can’t rob him! And stop cursing at that deaf person!”
Chucklefuck: “Come on, it’s not like he can hear it…”
God: “What part of ‘don’t oppress your neighbor’ don’t you understand?”
Chucklefuck: “He doesn’t even know it, but fine. Can I fuck with blind people, then?”
God: “OH MY ME WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM NO YOU CAN NOT FUCK WITH BLIND PEOPLE. THAT KIND OF COMES UNDER OPPRESSING YOUR NEIGHBOR. ”
Chucklefuck: “But WHY can’t I oppress my neighbor?”
God: “OH FOR THE LOVE OF — I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.”
The Church of Liberace! :O
Now THERE’S a church I’d be wiling to join.
You’d get trampled in the rush – Mac would be there ahead of you. 😛
I used to ID as an atheist, but I’ve stopped, although I still technically meet the requirements (i.e. I don’t believe in supernatural beings). There’s a few reasons for that, and they’re related. One is that I started practicing Buddhism, and even though I don’t believe its supernatural claims, I… “want” is to strong of a word; I’d like to, maybe?
I also don’t share movement atheists’ belief that religion is an inherently bad thing. I quite like religion; I’m going to grad school in religious studies. I find it endlessly fascinating and an important aspect of culture. One of the quickest ways to make me upset/angry is to talk about how awful it is that religious parents raise their kids in their religion (e.g. Dawkins’ “child abuse” claim, although that’s an extreme example).
Finally, I reached a point in my understanding of the world where the most basic claim of movement atheists, that there is an objective reality prior to human observation and that we can learn objective truths about it via the scientific method, doesn’t work for me. I’ve reached a point where I don’t think that language, the most basic unit of human thought, can adequately express anything truly important or real, and it left me very skeptical of the whole enterprise of objective reality.
RE: Leum
I used to ID as an atheist, but I’ve stopped, although I still technically meet the requirements (i.e. I don’t believe in supernatural beings). There’s a few reasons for that, and they’re related. One is that I started practicing Buddhism, and even though I don’t believe its supernatural claims, I… “want” is to strong of a word; I’d like to, maybe?
I find this really interesting, Leum, because I’m like the complete reverse of you! I’ve pretty much been an atheist since I was vomited out of the collective unconscious, but it’s GODS I have a resistance to, not religion, and only applied to me.
As for supernatural entities… well, I don’t BELIEVE in them. I just have this nagging worry that they believe in me. But that’s mental illness for you, I suppose. You get all sorts of crazy shit and just have to accept its your neurons having quite the lively atittude.
They do.
*SNRK* Yeah, one of our roommates required an intro to all the system members, which led to the following discussion of Falcon:
Me: Yeah, he’s this old geezer, been coming here for twelve years, claims he was a Protector of Children until he got fired for misuse of office equipment…
Roommate: …So he’s a guardian angel.
Me: What? No!
Roommate: Dude. This old guy, won’t tell you anything, comes from… somewhere… as a Protector of Children…
Me: NOT THE SAME.
Roommate: Guardian. Angel.
Me: SHUT UP HE’S JUST THIS OBNOXIOUS OLD GIT WHO NEVER TELLS ME ANYTHING AND SHACKS UP ON MY COUCH. THERE IS NOTHING WEIRD ABOUT THAT.
Roommate: …sure, buddy.
::snicker::
Now I’m seeing Falcon-as-played-by-Alan-Rickman.
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.
“Should” is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but to an unconscious, amoral universe, there is no “should”. And particularly with atheists from a certain time period (I think I’ve mostly seen it in 19th-century writers) there are atheists as well as religious people who feel that, for the general population, we should encourage religion in order to encourage morality, even though they personally didn’t believe in God or an afterlife.
language, the most basic unit of human thought,
I occasionally come across this claim. Yet I have thoughts that I have trouble putting into words sometimes. And why would animals and babies be able to have thoughts without words, but not human children and adults?
I think in Leum’s case, ID’ing as a Buddhist probably is a more accurate snapshot of beliefs than ID’ing as an atheist. But I’ve never been tempted for long to not ID as an atheist due to particular atheists being jerks. One reason is “Why should they get to keep the label?” But more importantly, I think of my experience with people saying “X group aren’t really Christians…” In this case, it’s a matter of “leaving” the group rather than being “kicked out”, but it seems dishonest. [Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.] and I are still both atheists, because we still both don’t believe in god(s) or belong to a religion. Just as Unitarian Universalism and Christian fundamentalism and strict Catholicism and “cafeteria” Catholicism are all places that Christian beliefs can lead, my beliefs and Richard Dawkins’ beliefs and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s beliefs are all possible places that atheist beliefs can lead.
***
I’m on the third book of a (pretty good) trilogy right now (The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms) that includes people who know gods exist, but don’t “believe” in them. They call themselves “primortalists” (though that doesn’t show up until the third book). The main character of the first book is a female warrior from a society where the women are warriors (and men are the last line of defense, as well as children’s primary caregivers). I’m sure the MRAs would love that, particularly V.D.
Ooh, that’s a lovely book series. I recommend it heartily.
I also recommend The Thousand Names, which I just finished, but I don’t recommend The Left Hand of God or anything but Scott Westerfield. I did find the Black Company to be enjoyable though.
And that’s an update from Fibinachi’s Booklist This Week.
“One is that I started practicing Buddhism, and even though I don’t believe its supernatural claims, I… “want” is to strong of a word; I’d like to, maybe?”
I can certainly see the temptation. I’m an atheist, but to me an atheist universe is actually kinda depressing, especially the thought of death. The atheist debaters and writers all go on about how that doesn’t bother them, how they’re content with how things are… I smell propagandistic BS. Not *all* of them can feel that way. Personally, I’d rather have some supernatural elements, especially those who would save me from death. I just don’t think there are any.
That being said, Buddhism seems like a strange choice of religion for wanting supernatural elements. It seems to me that most supernatural elements of it (like gods, spirits, mythical past buddhas etc.) are rather like decorum only, with the religion reducable to just, ah, the karmatic mechanism it explains. Plus, while it stipulates rebirth, its goal is to break the cycle of it, and Nirvana rather sounds like a description of secular death to me. Well, I suppose, it would not be something for me, heh.
“I’ve reached a point where I don’t think that language, the most basic unit of human thought, can adequately express anything truly important or real, and it left me very skeptical of the whole enterprise of objective reality.”
That to me is a bit strange line of reasoning, because even if you’re right it wouldn’t mean there’s no objective reality. I could probably mean that objective reality is inaccessible to us humans, but that’s not quite the same. Besides, there are ways and means to overcome the restrictions of human language, even of human intuition. Look at how much of quantum physics is counterintuitive, for example, and yet we have found ways to open up that field – at times by creating entire new forms of communication, like mathematical formulas and equations. So I think, while we will never get things about reality *completely* right, we have way and means to come ever closer to the truth. And even if we hadn’t that wouldn’t mean that objective reality doesn’t exist.
““Should” is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but to an unconscious, amoral universe, there is no “should”. And particularly with atheists from a certain time period (I think I’ve mostly seen it in 19th-century writers) there are atheists as well as religious people who feel that, for the general population, we should encourage religion in order to encourage morality, even though they personally didn’t believe in God or an afterlife.”
Well of course it’s a matter of opinion! That kind of 19th century atheists had their opinion of religion, I have mine. The universe surely doesn’t care about “shoulds”, no, but that’s exactly why we differentiate between descriptive and normative statements, between “is” and “ought”. And as Hume said, you cannot derive one from the other. So, just because something *is* a certain way doesn’t mean it *should*. In my opinion, a broader focus on truth above other concerns would be good for society. Not because the universe cares (that’s an is statement and hence irrelevant in considering an ought), but because that would be good for society, IMO.
Well, some interpretations of religion are really abusive, and I wish those parents would knock it off.
Like, when they tell their kids that they’re damned to Hell just for existing because of “sin nature,” stuff like that.
And the people who beat their children because Michael & Debbie Pearl tell them God ordered them to, they need to knock it off.
And folks who don’t take their seriously ill child to the doctor because they have faith that God will heal them.
That’s not the religion’s fault. There are many loving religious families.
Well, of course there are. Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But, as they say, it takes religion to make good people do bad things. Those people who don’t “spare the rod”? They honestly believe that daily beating their children into submission is doing good work, and in the end good for the children, too – because that is what their religion tells them.
Are we really having this conversation again? This is, what, at least the 3rd round?