“A short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him,” and other tales of MGTOW woe

This sounds like a speech that Supergirl would give.

You know, I’ve never seen Supergirl and Scildfreja in the same room at the same time…

It’s impossible to tell exactly how many children have been sexually abused by women and to what extent. This is partly because the nature of the assault is often different if the perpetrator is a woman. A lot of them want plausible deniability, so they claim they were simply ‘washing’ the child for example. Michele Elliot and Jackie Saradjian have produced some interesting research on the subject.

Chiming in: I know at least one man who had been sexually abused in this way. He’d just turned 5, but he still remembers it (he has an uncanny memory in general).

I’d be interested to know if there had been any studies re: if children who are considered especially vulnerable are more often targeted. The person I know, as I said, was just over 5 and came from a very poor family (it happened in charity care offered by a church in conjunction with a subsidized apartment).

And the abuser did act while bathing him. She’d apparently set up the sprinkler or some other especially messy activity and then give him – and only him (there were other kids in care) a bath.

To my knowledge, she was never punished, but the situation came to a head when he refused the bath one day. When his mother came to pick him, she asked why he was so dirty. The abuser said that he refused to “clean up”. As his mom fussed at him for all the mud getting in her car, he said (paraphrasing from my memory of his relayed memory), “She gives me bad baths.”
“What do you mean? Is she too rough?”
“She gives me bad baths. She puts bubbles in the water and then gives me bad baths.”*

There was some sort of confrontation that ended with his mom pulling him and his sister out of the daycare, having to quit the minimum wage job that the affiliated church had set her up with, and his family no longer pretending to be “just about ready” to join the church in question. They were able to keep the apartment that the church had put them in, probably because his dad had also been given a job as the maintenance man for the complex, but I doubt that any subsidy continued.

That is to say, the church seems to have pushed back or refused to accept the allegations and it wasn’t pursued any further – aside from his parents’ precarious economic situation, they were also “charity cases” with a history of homelessness, drug abuse, and (on the part of his father, at least) criminal activity, including a felony conviction. They probably weren’t keen to interact with the police and chances are middling to high that they would have been dismissed, anyway, given “the kind of people” that they were.

That abuser really seems to have though through her choice of target.

*That’s as detailed as he got – he had been nonverbal until a little after his 4th birthday. He went from nonverbal to speaking in complete sentences in one day, but he was, after all, 5 and had experienced remarkable deprivation for a “developed” country. I’m noting that because I’m honestly not sure if his description would be typical for his age otherwise – my kids would have been more specific, but we also had conversations centered around It’s Not the Stork and kept / keep it around the house freely available to peruse / spark questions.

Of course, the typical SJW tends to exaggerate their suffering a good deal; I’d honestly question whether or not you have a “disability” that prevents you from having sex, or if you’re just too lazy to get up and do something. Hell, I know an old man with Parkinson’s who works on a regular basis, shaking and rattling all throughout the day, and then there are people who just want to lay around and collect disability. If he can work and he has Parkinson’s, what’s stopping you? The question on your mind should not be “who’s going to let me?” but rather “who’s going to stop me?”

Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 9.58 seconds. Why can’t you?

Serious question. Why aren’t you the fastest person in the world, since you think people are interchangeable, and physical achievement is just a matter of willpower?

It’s because you’re a lazy whiner. You made a choice to be slow.

What’s happening? My comment was on the previous page and so were a few before and after it.

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. You can never tell what they’re up to, you have no idea what they’re thinking, what the world is like to them and what they think of you and your own. It doesn’t matter what they say, you can never tell when those people are telling the truth.

This is what happens when you treat an entire demographic as something other than human and never bother to get to know any of the individuals in that group. They become the scary, mysterious other.

Those of us who have gotten to know Muslim people as individuals are telling you that they’re just people. Like any other group of people, there’s going to be a mix of nice people and assholes.

People are just people. Calm down.

WWTH – I just can’t keep my fingers away from the cuck insecurity buttons of racists. They’re so tempting and clearly marked.

Thank you for your replies. I’ll try to be brief and on-point, but you’ve asked some big questions here!

Why do you keep calling me Snek?

Okay, that one’s not big.

Personal ideosyncracy! Snakes are poisonous, you see, whereas snacks generally aren’t. “Snek” is a relatively common (to the internet) shorthand for “snake”, and is also similar to “snack”. So I blended it! I apologize. I’ll call you Snack.

I’ve snipped out the following from your two posts; the rest of the posts are related. This one stands out.

Societies that don’t preserve their cultures and national identity are doomed to fail.

Citation please?

No, seriously. Societies change over time. Periods of immigration and transition are often periods of wealth, prosperity and growth. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire brought in an influx of refugees – which brought with them the great libraries of Constantinople and ignited the Renaissance. Our modern concepts of music come from a fusion of the rhythmic medieval and courtly european styles and the more meditative, patient eastern styles. Good old manly medium-rare steak is actually french quisine imported in the 50’s. Cultures thrive when they interact. The failure of a state has little to do with whether its culture stays the same or not.

(There are things to be said about how much a culture can adsorb over a time period without losing some coherence; I guarantee you that 25 thousand refugees a year is well under that for even a little nation like Canada. America, where has your spine gone?)

(Also, willing to be corrected on this by actual historians! Plenty of people know better than me on this one, I’m sure.)

Now, the big one,

What makes you think I’m afraid? Unlike you, I have survival instincts; I have the desire to preserve myself. I’m not going to walk willingly into the mine field that refugees and Islam pose to our civilization.

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. You can never tell what they’re up to, you have no idea what they’re thinking, what the world is like to them and what they think of you and your own. It doesn’t matter what they say, you can never tell when those people are telling the truth. So often it happens to be the case that one of them acts all nice in public, but then he turns around and blows something up. You just can’t trust them. When it comes to my own, I know what they’re thinking, because I’m one of them; I know what it’s like. When one of mine acts up, I know it’s just because he’s a bad person – but with those other people, you can never tell. Why are they so violent?

http://orig05.deviantart.net/e438/f/2014/152/d/3/concerned_by_corpulentbrony-d7kp0bh.gif

Aheh. Whooo. Right, let’s start at the top!

What makes me think you’re afraid? My knowledge of how brains work, mostly. I study this sort of thing for a living.

See, individuals have their individual quirks, but in the end we are all generally running the same system.

Normally, people have several systems going at the same time – risk assessment and opportunity identification work together to create our perspective of the world. Under normal circumstances, you can have a conversation with someone about the risks and benefits of a topic without a problem.

But we can’t talk about benefits on this topic – you seem to think that there are no possible benefits to bringing these people into the country. Why? I imagine you’d say that there aren’t any; I’m relatively sure that any argument I give to that fact will be brushed aside.

This isn’t indicative to me that you’re right – it’s indicative that something is blocking your ability to assess opportunities in this scenario. You seem, however, to be more than capable of assessing risks.

Risk assessment is a component of what’s generally called the “fight-or-flight” system of the brain, responsible for fear and aggression. It suppresses opportunity assessment, making it difficult if not impossible to see opportunities. When engaged over the long term, we call this anxiety – it’s very unhealthy.

Assuming that your opinions on this are relatively stable, it seems very likely that this is what’s going on, because there are very few things that can inhibit opportunity assessment. Therefore: your “fight or flight” reaction system is dominant. Therefore: you’re afraid.

Alt-right media, or anything swimming in confrontation, hate and anger, does this to people. It’s not healthy – long term exposure to this shortens lifespans, increases the wear and tear of aging, increases the risk of heart attack, chest pains, little stabbing pains throughout the body, shortness of breath, light-headedness, numbness, fatigue – these are all related symptoms. Please get out of there!

Now, with that said, I can go back to:

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. […] Why are they so violent?

They aren’t. Your assessment is wrong, for reasons indicated above. They aren’t a minefield or an existential risk to your civilization – you yourself said taht the Christian Dominionists already exist in greater numbers where you are, and are more likely to be the cause of terrorism. But you still fixate on this smaller population of people, the vast number of which are in desperate need and want nothing more than a chance to live a normal life.

No doubt you feel that your conclusions are rational, but – well. Everyone thinks their conclusions are rational. That’s another thing brains do. Brains always think their conclusions are right, because otherwise they wouldn’t come to that conclusion.

That’s a really important thing to keep in mind – there’s no difference in feeling between being wrong and being right. We always feel right. We need something outside of opinion to verify our conclusions.

Muslims are exactly as human as you or I, Snack. They use the same mental hardware, go through the same risk and opportunity assessment, their feelings are the same as ours; they bear the mantle of humanity as much as we do. Believing otherwise is believing in magic, is believing that zombies are real and that an army of orcs is marching from Mordor to Washington. It’s fantasy.

Or, more precisely – it’s a lie, a fabrication, or a confusion that we tell ourselves to allow us to excuse inhuman treatment. “They’re not human,” said the German doctors, experimenting in the concentration camps. “They don’t actually feel feelings,” said the guard, carrying the can of Zyklon-B. These are things that people tell themselves to excuse themselves from accepting the horrible things that their fear makes them do. They are rationalizations.

The violent ones you are talking about are trapped in a similar trap to the one I described above, in fact – unable to assess risks and opportunities properly, egged on to horrible violence by lies and the worst interpretations of their faith. But they are not indicative of everyone living in the middle east or south asia! They are a terrible outlier to the common face of humanity, made a little larger by decades of war (brought on by America and colonialism, largely, but that’s a story for another time) but still an outlier, and still human.

There are no monsters in the world, sir. Only people. People can be monstrous – that’s an important thing to learn – but we must realize that this monstrous nature lives in everyone, and is not the domain of a single race, religion or ideology.

Search for opportunity when you see nothing but threats. Search for risks when you see nothing but opportunity. This is how to keep your mind in balance, and how you can preserve clear thought.

Walk the middle road, sir.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IX8poG1JX9c/TRB7fieqYrI/AAAAAAAAERs/0399I29IFtI/s1600/beautiful_roads_21.jpg

@ Scildfreja

All the hoofclaps I can give are yours.

Just as an aside, since 11/9, bathtubs have killed more Americans than terrorists. I’m not suggesting a drone strike on Wickes though.

As for ‘Fear of Flying (with certain people)’, of course fear isn’t necessarily something one can make a conscious effort to overcome. However you can update your information so that your brain learns what it should and shouldn’t fear.

Assuming all Muslims are potential terrorists is ‘profiling’. That’s a bad thing. Not just for ethical reasons, but also pragmatically. Counter-terrorism and Anti-terrorism experts are moving away from profiling because it’s inefficient (it also makes no commercial sense if you’re in the aviation industry to unnecessarily piss off a huge section of your consumer base).

Now if you’re a relatively uneducated person with a criminal record and no real employment history who converted to Islam whilst in prison, flying on a one way ticket purchased with cash, then you probably will be subject to enhanced scrutiny, so some profiling does still take place, especially where there’s a lack of resources.

But the preferred option is now ‘behavioural analysis’. If you want an overt demonstration of this, fly El Al. You’ll be subject to a lengthy interview before boarding. The interviewer isn’t particularly interested in your answers, but how you react.

Most behavioural analysis is covert though. You’ll be monitored in the departure lounge to see if you trigger certain flags. That takes a lot of resources though; it’s something only humans who’ve had expensive training can do, and it takes a lot of them to cover a busy airport.

Perhaps unsurprisingly though there’s now a massive recruitment drive in that field.

TL;DR Worrying about all flying Muslims is daft. The security services don’t, so neither should you.

These are things that people tell themselves to excuse themselves from accepting the horrible things that their fear makes them do.

Scildfreja, this made me cry a little!

@POIson

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. You can never tell what they’re up to, you have no idea what they’re thinking, what the world is like to them and what they think of you and your own. It doesn’t matter what they say, you can never tell when those people are telling the truth. So often it happens to be the case that one of them acts all nice in public, but then he turns around and blows something up. You just can’t trust them.

Welcome to my life.

I have autistic disorder level 1 – no cognitive deficits (formerly Aspergers). I can’t see what people are thinking, and people have a hard time reading me. People are kind to my face, but I know that any act of kindness could be an attempt to lure me into a trap so that I can be bullied for my neurotype, my race, my hairstyle, or my atheism (all of which have happened).

By your reasoning, you need to get your allistic ass out of my country.

@a POIsonous snack
I’m going to revisit your entry into this community as a means to demonstrate why you got the treatment that you have. You could be a decent person to have a conversation with, but you have some significant issues that you need to resolve first.

General note: Here is a helpful concept, Tit for Tat morality. Note that this form of innate human moral rules needs ethics, but few things are broadly agreed upon. I think that when another person starts a fight it’s acceptable to meet them at their own level absent any community standards with respect to fights, and make sure that I don’t do make many things habits it can achieve some useful purpose. I try to combine this with honesty about why I am acting the way I do and leave room to suspend hostilities if the other person admits what they did and alters their behavior. It’s highly situational and one can be a good “social mirror” in a strategic sense that is useful instead of simply to fight.
Note that I also don’t see mere fighting as a problem in and of itself, it’s just that if the aggression does not include any substance, the whole point is trying to “win” and not be correct about reality.

***

@FrickleFrackle

Sure, and I’ll bet you use the same logic with books like: The Bible, The Koran/Quran, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, The State and Revolution, The Catcher in the Rye, anything by Bukowski or Cormac McCarthy, William Shakespeare, because Harold Bloom.
(1) You’re not excused from studying the book itself just because you don’t like the fans of it. (2)I rather think that you just don’t like the idea that you might find that you like Rand, or agree with some of the things that she says, so you refuse to read it.

Numbers for commentary added by me.

(1) Is an assertion and opinion provided without any reason or logic. Rhetorically it’s presented as if you are a teacher and the other person has an obligation so it pretends to be an argument and demand, but absent any reason or logic it’s empty.

If you are willing to assert social demands of others without justification, others get to do that to you in response.

(2) This is an attempt at interpreting the motivations of FrickleFrackle, but again it’s absent any reason or logic rendering it simple making shit up. I’m not saying that you can’t try to interpret the motives of others, heck I have a system for doing it that includes evolutionary theories about emotion. But you have to be able to back your shit up if you want any respect and want to do anything beyond slightly more complicated name-calling.

If you are willing to assert the motives of others without reason or logic, others get to assert your motives without reason or logic.
***

@Bine
(1) Stop it, just… Stop. No, your dollars are not 70% of ours, even most feminists are willing to admit that this supposed wage gape of which you all speak is at least .90 – .95 cents for everyman’s dollar. (2)The majority* of the wage gap is the result of women’s choices – (3)don’t you support women’s choices, or do you intend to make women “equal” to men by forcing them into the same professions as them, and basically just make them over as men?

(4)*I am uncertain as to whether or not the remaining 5 – 10 cents is truly the result of sexism, but I don’t think it terribly productive to assert that it is; that is almost a sort of “god of the gaps” argument for feminists.

(1)Another unsupported assertion, this one rhetorically styled as an order, and thus a textual attack. Why are you to be considered an authority on what feminists think of the wage gap? Back your shit up. You probably realize that the wage gap is a commonly accepted phenomena in feminist and left-leaning circles, and you are in a community that accepts it. You attacked, and you got attacked back.

The second best thing to do would have been to share the information that you have to have seen that indicates that most feminists believe what you assert, and ask what demonstrates a 70% wage gap. The best thing would have been to be willing to talk about the dual phenomena of feminine products being more expensive, and female people being paid less as a general concept no matter what the size.

If you are willing to make aggressive demands of others to stop talking and nit-pick their beliefs instead of ask questions about them to find out why they believe what they do, others are allowed to do the same to you.

(2) Another unsupported assertion. In this case the most annoying thing might be that even if your assertion is true, you don’t explain the relevance. You still don’t offer any reason or logic. The thing a person interested in a discussion (or argument even) would do is explain why the putative fact of women choosing certain professions undermines something the other person said or believes.

If you are willing to assert things about the beliefs of others without reason or logic, others are allowed to do that to you in return.

(3)This has to do with how you used (2), it gives away some of your motives. Instead of simply trying to correct another person about something you see as incorrect, you engage in social warfare. You know that women being able to make choices as freely as men is important to people here, so you use the idea of women’s choices against Bina without showing that it’s even a thing. Combined with your lack of willingness to back your shit up it’s a reasonable assumption that social manipulation and attack is your primary purpose here.

If you are willing to use social concepts important to others against them in an aggressive manner, others are allowed to use social concepts important to you against you.

(4) Another unsupported assertion, this time that something Bina said is equivalent to a “god in the gaps” argument. Logical fallacies are not like magic spells, you can’t simply speak the name of one and expect it to magically be so. They have a structure (logic) and motivation behind their use (reason) and when you assert one you have a responsibility to show how it is so or you are simply doing slightly more complex name-calling.

If you are willing to assert that others are engaging in fallacious reasoning without backing your shit up, others are allowed to do the same to you.

@Pandapool

(1)I know you meant that comment as an attack on men’s rights, but the sad thing is that that’s the truth of the matter. Every word of that comment, I mean. It’s sad that at times like this you almost come close to realizing the truth, of getting to the heart of things, but it’s like something is stopping you from finally making that last connection. (2)Of course, I’m assuming that you’re a woman, in which case, (3) most of this is already known to you (albeit on a deep, subconscious, primal level that might be unbeknownst to you), but this speaks, I think, to your ability to delude yourselves into thinking that you’re not like this. (4)This is just human biology.

(1) Another unsupported assertion. Why is it the truth? Each of those positions that were stereotyped are assertions about reality that characterize a whole group of people by their very nature.

If you are willing to assert that others are missing some big truth, others are allowed to do that to you.

(2) An unjustified assumption. Why would you assume that Pandapool is a woman? Many of us here are men, even men that can be stereotypically aggressive like me.

If you are willing to make broad assumptions about the nature of others as individuals, others are allowed to make broad assumptions about your nature as an individual.

(3) Another unsupported assertion. Why do you believe that there is any subconscious or primal going on for Pandapool that they are ignoring? Seriously, this is pure discrimination (believing they are different) and prejudice (assuming things) provided without reason or logic which is literal sexism. Any human being willing to make such polarized statements about groups of people better be willing to share the things they base such on or they will be very likely to get hostile treatment.

If you are willing to assert underlying immutable basic characteristics of others, others are allowed to assert underlying immutable basic characteristics about you.

Ethics note: while it works for the tit-for-tat morality, actually mirroring the group connection can propagate bigotry outside of cases where the group has objectively definable shitty character like the KKK or similar. Otherwise there are likely immutable things that are group independent (outside of the group of people with that characteristic). Personally I stay away from this one, I like to be optimistic about bigots and such.

(4)Another unsupported assertion. That the previous is “just human biology”. If that is so you can show us how you know this because there are actually people studying biology.

If you are willing to make unsupported assertive appeals to general human nature via biology, others can make unsupported assertive appeals to general human as well.

Ethics note: mirroring this one is also dangerous when it comes to group connections, but assertions about the individual one is facing off against can be fine.

It’s your choice a POIsonous snack. It does not have to be this way, but you are getting treatment based on how you have treated others. There are even others avoiding dishing out what you have.