Men Going Their Own Way have a keen eye when it comes to spotting subtle injustices that the rest of us often miss.
Like, for example, the terrible injustice that is … fat chicks dating dudes who aren’t themselves fat.
One Reddit MGTOW recently reminded his comrades just how pervasive this terrible injustice has become in the contemporary world.
Preach it, brother!
Others in the MGTOW subreddit reported their own findings.
He THOUGHT he was happy. Just as the German citizens under Hitler THOUGHT they were free!
Little did he know that his life could have been snuffed out in a moment had his girlfriend — *shudder* — decided to sit on him. We have lost too many men, cut down in their prime by hambeast girlfriends who thought it might be “funny” to pretend that their boyfriends were chairs.
Another MGTOW Redditor applied some powerful STEM logic to the problem:
Can society long survive with the attractiveness ratio so far out of whack? What kind of world is it when dudes who are EIGHTS are saddled with level 5 plain janes? Or when men who are average joes find themselves trapped in completely voluntary relationships with level 2 hambeasts, some of whom are quite angry and/or stern.
It is the thoughtful ovendice — we’ve met him before — who brings real clarity and wisdom to this difficult issue.
I can’t argue with that! Mainly because I have no idea what he’s talking about. How does working hard prevent men from being pigs?
Here’s a song I don’t think MGTOWs are going to like very much.
NOTE: This post contains
@radiojane
Hi! I didn’t see your comment until now. Maybe I just missed it, or maybe you were stuck in moderation?
Anyway, thanks for the heads up. My doctor has actually informed me of all these things already and I’m going back in 3 weeks for evaluation.
Side note: Thank fuck for women doctors. I don’t know how much of this is coincidence but every good doctor I’ve ever had has been a woman. This one was also a former refugee from Iran. I.e. one of those terrible people who ruin our country in various ways, for example by prescribing SSRIs to depressed people. /s
(tl;dr: one does not to read something to refute it if one sees issues in the foundation upon which that work is based.)
@a POIsonous snack
Ah! Welcome back. We get a lot of drive-by’s here, so I wasn’t sure if you’d be back.
I’ll ignore comparisons to LEaving, as it’s sort of beside the point.
You’ve chosen an odd place to plant your flag and make your stand, sir! (assuming that you are a sir of course). It’s good that you’ve done your homework! When you care about being right in a field, it’s always good to do your research, after all.
So you’ve refuted Christianity, or at least those aspects of it supported by those texts! When will you be moving on to the Qur’an and Hadith? The Vedas? The Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita? The I Ching and Guru Granth Sahib? I can go on forever here, as you well know.
This is a trap, sir. Not my trap, mind you – it’s a trap of thinking, indicative of someone trying to defend their tribe instead of thinking clearly. You and I both know it! One does not have to read every text in order to refute something. Explorations do not have to go on forever.
This is in fact a common Atheist position – I don’t have to read all of those religious texts to refute the position they take! If my issue is with the foundation of faith and the supernatural, I don’t need to argue about whether there is any truth in the Talmud. You’ll find that Steve Harris, Aron Ra and others have taken this position in the past, and it’s a good position.
So too with Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism (which is anything but objective). I don’t need to read it to refute it, when I already see flaws in its foundation of selfishness deified.
Humanity is a social creature whose strengths lie in cooperation, and always have. Until I see evidence that this might not be true, I am not being unreasonable in ignoring Objectivism as a stunted offshoot of a flawed Austrian-Model philosophy.
True! I have no desire to read Atlas Shrugged for pleasure or for better internet arguing. But I would read if I planned on making a documentary about how terrible it was.
Oh, god, so much this. If you think “the patriarchy” means “men,” that’s a rookie mistake that can be easily fixed by a few minutes with Google. If you think “rape culture” means “all men are rapists,” you could simply Google something like “feminism and male rape” and get information on what actual feminists believe about rape:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/male-rape-epidemic/
@Alpine, RN
:O
Thank you for the website! It is lovely and I have now bookmarked it.
I had considered going with “Wælcyrge” (Valkyrie) as a name, but that was perhaps a little too hard on the ol’ linguistic apparatus.
@scildfreja- I’m a herald in the SCA, I can document names like woah ?
@ Scildfreja
Thank you for the pronunciation. A better general idea is better than nothing.
Re: Argument styles.
A society with a diversity in styles is a very good thing. If you specialize in a more gentle and accommodating style that will be receptive to some people and that is a fine thing, and I hear that it’s good to play to one’s strengths and use them strategically than be okay at more than one thing. My confrontational style has its strengths and limits and not everyone will be receptive to such, and it does take some effort to learn to function well under such intense emotion. I often find that I need to socially isolate myself in order to process things best (which I have to do less over time).
In fact I wish more people were receptive to your style. In fact sometimes (when strategically appropriate) this white masculine male “bad cop” can make other groups feel like “good cop” and they get listened to more. Accommodating the whole range of kinds of people is a smart thing for a society to do, especially in social conflicts. I try to be complementary and accommodating to people in a different way and adapt to the individual social environment.
Also ponies…
@ Kootiepatra
A lot of this is anecdotal, but I have some thoughts in this area. When I think about how we get “programmed” for what we are attracted to I consider the phenomena of sexual fetishes to be useful, except that attraction in general includes more than those sorts of things.
We are capable of absorbing features and tying them to our later preferences, and there seems to be quite a large diversity to what is possible. I think of us as being very “emotionally sloppy” in how precise it is (probably a reason why society is so sensitive to these things, it’s a social tool among other things). Similarly in phobias we pick up environmental features that get tied to fear responses.
It’s not so easy to define yet but I think that there are periods in our life where we are relatively sensitive (or insensitive, relative to the population at large) to various characteristics of people and even groups of people as our society defines them, and during those periods we can get imprinted on those things. Things like physical features, beliefs, ways of acting and more. Our experiences and messages that our society gives us are both likely sources of information here. It’s probably more than one period with different emphasis on what we are sensitive or insensitive to.
I have often thought of myself as “omnisexual” in ways. The list of things that I can be attracted to is longer than the one that I’m not or can’t be attracted to and I can remember periods of my life where I was intensely curious about things and that curiosity was never really satisfied by my culture. Some of the things I did encounter during those times are things that I can say act as fetishes (so much so that I take care not to fetishize people). Additionally some of the things my society tried to tell me I should not be attracted (like homosexuality) are things that are included in material I enjoy, and I have would could be considered an oppositional psychology with respect to social issues which probably affects things here. (That was why I appealed to being less sensitive to some things earlier, it’s a thing I largely have control of).
Other people might be more or sensitive to things based on factors like experience, social information and more. I’m personally certain that there are inherited predispositions that are in play as well as the reason my psychology is what it is has a strong inherited component. None of this argues for people’s tastes being set in stone because we can and do change when it comes to these attractions as well, but some things might be harder to change than others. Experiences and social information probably help here, and at the worst you simply have your own preferences and can control what you do with them as well as get an idea about how you may have gotten them.
Also the way we feel about things that we might not find attractive can change if we form an attachment to another person based on other things. We can discover ourselves becoming attracted to things about the people we form attachments with that we previously were neutral and even negative about. It’s quite a complex but fascinating picture and your part of it depends on your experiences, information you absorbed and general personality.
You’re all using faith to discredit Ayn Rand’s work, and you have no idea of the ideas expressed by her supporters or her detractors are correct or not; they could very well be common misrepresentations, borrowed from one another. People on the left generally complain about how unfair it is when people bring Marx’s work into disrepute by pointing to the atrocities of the USSR, or point to the failures of Latin American socialism; why do you insist on pointing to the attitudes of those who claim to be followers of her as a reason for not reading her? Her ideas are very influential in modern American politics, and it would be ridiculous of you to overlook them.
And yes, I very well do think of a good many of you as belonging to the “regressive left,” due to the fact that whenever someone criticizes Islam, you feel it necessary to step in and defend Muslims; Islam has a problem, and you need to acknowledge it. I think it quite hypocritical that you demand “safe spaces” and the like for women, and go on about how men are such a danger to women, but when someone applies the same logic to Muslims (I.E. getting scared, like any rational person would, when seeing them on a plane) you all complain about “Islamaphobia.” Prove me wrong.
@Brony,
“Overspecialize and you breed in weakness.”
You are correct! A diverse approach is the most robust.
This applies both to a group and to an individual. Hm, maybe I should practice being aggressive for a bit.
http://i.imgur.com/mC0r4lQ.gif
How many of you have used the “you didn’t even read her thesis!” in order to defend Allison Rapp?
Actually, I think Leaving was pretending to be a Russian woman, as they mentioned that they talked to an “American” man who “didn’t have the courage to put [Leaving] in [their] place”.
That’s easy. Just pledge to be like everypony else and live in Starlight Glimmer’s little commune. Of course, this means you need to give up your cutie mark first.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/b/bf/Starlight_proud_for_taking_Twilight's_cutie_mark_S5E1.png
STOP! Misgendering! My! Datemate! You! Fucking! Turnip!
For fuck’s sake! Their pronouns are right there in their username you shit!
Use them!
QFT.
Thanks, babe. I’m pretty sure they just said that to be an asshole anyway. It worked.
They’re probably assuming EVERYONE here is a cis woman on the fact many of us here are feminists.
@Scildfreja
At the group level overspecialization can indeed be a weakness, but with something like aggression and arguments in a situation like that I would not necessarily characterize lack of ability as weakness in an individual (things like self-care for example). It certainly can be useful to gain a general understanding though.
While I am doing planning for that project that might be a blog at FTB, if I can offer some pointers or give suggestions involving problems I would be willing to give them. For one thing putting space between a draft and actually posting it would be a really good habit. Very often our “knee-jerk” replies are very problematic and even now I sometimes put a night’s rest between a draft and posting it. I certainly often give it a couple of hours to think about it.
@a POIsonous snack
It’s time for you to fuck off.
Also, thank you, Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid, for also correcting that asshole and sorry I missed you before.
((Saffron’s post is migrating down the page D: I wonder where it is going?
Fly, little post! Be free!))
It’s true that individuals are often better to specialize; it was really more of a general statement to try to remember to be flexible. (It is also a quote from Ghost in the Shell; i’m not sure why that one stuck with me on that one but it did)
I always try to let a post cool before pressing “send”, too! It’s important to remember that the first thing one writes is usually not the best, and the application of some time will often let your perspective mature. A great number of times I’ve written a big long post, given it a few minutes, then came back only to delete it all and replace it with a couple of sentences.
Brevity, soul of wit, etc!
@Imaginary Petal
Name: a POIsonous snack
Trigger Status:
[ ] Not triggered
[ ] Kind of triggered
[ ] I can’t even…
[ ] Triggered
[ ] Def triggered!
[x] HELLA TRIGGERED!!!
Reason for Entriggerment:
Ableism: Was told to “fuck off.” Cannot and will not fuck, because impotent and asexual.
The offender is set to appear before the High Cuck Council to determine an appropriate punishment. The offender will be bringing snacks to the hearing; please be aware of gluten allergies, individual ethical inclinations, and the possibility of culturally-appropriating a dish. Thank you.
Intentionally ignoring the fact that a bunch of us said we have read Ayn Rand, or didn’t read closely enough to notice? Either way, blatantly inaccurate. I’ve read two of her books; how many books by prominent feminist thinkers have you read?
@ a POIsonous snack,
oh my.
Do you really think that “triggering” is equivalent to “being offended” or “being irritated”? Because it is not. It is not about being over-sensitive, or upset about being hurt cause you hurt my fee-fees.
Do try again though! I’d suggest maybe not using a repurposed decade-old meme, though. Freshen it up! You seem like a creative sort of person, I’m sure you can come up with something witty and inciteful. I suggest using anime gifs and Trump references, they seem to be in fashion these days.
This post contains 4% of your daily recommended intake of sass
Is poisonous snack going into meltdown mode already? All because we don’t like Ayn Rand? My, what a fragile little flower. He hasn’t even been here 24 hours yet and nobody has been too mean yet. Weak.
That meme goes back to, at least, the early 1990s. I first saw it on FidoNet, and it wasn’t the height of wit then, either. Minimum, it is 25-years stale.
@weirwoodtreehugger
I’m “going into meltdown” because my posts are being removed. I produced at least several more posts on this site, and none of them have been allowed to surface. My questions cannot therefore be answered by the commentators. The creator and maintainers of this website care very little for free expression; they are far too invested in the business of coddling their regulars, thus negating the possibility that more conservative voices can be heard here. This comments section is far from the ideal market place free ideas that is so fundamental to western civilization.
@Scildfreja
What’s with all the horse gifs?
Okay then, so what IS triggering? Because it sure does seem like a bunch of oversensitive people to me.
http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/15/21/1432152088-o740d.gif
Thing is, that’s a stupid joke, but it’s still an effective one, after a fashion. Exaggerating a worldview and perceived set of behaviors and contrasting it with the banality of snacks. Add in that your nym incorporates snacks… bravo. Almost
See, I can’t tell how much of what was said is an actual joke. Oh, some of it surely is, but how much are you really exaggerating? Do you really think people have convenient ‘how triggered am I by this’ checklists? Do you really think classifying the phrase ‘fuck off’ as ableist is making a point? Do you really think there’s some kinda authority, official or otherwise, that hunts down and punishes social justice wrongdoers? If you were to answer yes to any of those questions, I’d believe you. Kinda ruins the joke, buddy
Arabs… Blacks…Latinos…Whites…
Long ago, the four races lived in harmony. Then, everything changed when the nonwhites attacked. Only Der Furher, master of all races, could stop them. But when the world needed him most, he committed suicide. Roughly 70 years passed, and America discovered a new Furher, an orange business mogul named Trump. Though his support his great, he’s got a long way to go before he’s ready to be president. But I believe that Trump will make America great again.
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1vu8lmcNe1r6frako1_400.gif
‘kay!
I’ll be quick, so that it’s easier to read!
Look, someone in this thread who read it and thought it was terrible! Someone who points to has read Rand and also points to other critiques about Rand! And another! And another! And another! And another! All in this thread! If you peruse throught he site, you’ll find that many of us have read it. Those who haven’t are trusting other people who are more informed and have done the hard work. Which is exactly how society works! (science does this too! That’s what references are about, allowing people to follow the chain of inference if they want to)
The difference between these two is that it is disingenuous. Marx was naive in his communist theories, and the USSR was a failure to live up to those ideas – a reasonable failure, of course, because communism as Marx wrote it required that every person involved be a saint.
In Rands’ objectivist world, the expected outcome is misery for most of humanity. Marx’s philosophies were naive. Rands’ philosophies are evil.
This is of course debatable! You can claim that bringing about Rand’s objectivist wonderland would be an end to suffering and an era of true freedom and peace and happiness for all mankind. But I’d say that you’re the one living in a fantasy land, in that case!
Who said we overlook them? We don’t overlook them. As above; many people here have read it, and find it abhorrent. As for me, I have studied objectivism directly in its philosophical works, because I have far too much to do in the day to drag myself through the tortured prose of a self-hating egotistical abusive freeloader like Rand.
Also, I am not American, so it doesn’t really affect me as much!
You’re right! There are some awful things in Islam, or more particularly, in some interpretations of the Islamic faith. Just like there are some awful things in flavours of Christianity, and some awful things in flavours of Atheism. Even though Atheism isn’t a religion!
Almost like there’s sometimes awful things in how people think, regardless of their belief system!
We here on this side of the ideological aisle are trying to avoid playing into the hands of ISIL and the terr’ists by refusing to demonize entire segments of humanity. That’s what they want. That gives them power and strength.
Why would you want to give them the power and credibility? I certainly don’t. I’m proud that my country has welcomed the refugees from Syria with open arms, and wish that we could take in more. I’m happy to invite them into my own community. May they live long and happy lives with us.
http://www.radiomuseo.it/joomla/images/collector/collection/dischi/lilla%20vacabonda%20%2001.gif
Ah, yes. When you dig deep enough into the right’s mindset, you always find fear.
I’m sorry if that is harsh – I don’t mean it to be! You’ve admitted it here, and that takes a certain amount of bravery. Let me provide you with some of my own context here.
I have sat beside muslims on busses nearly every day of my life. I have worked beside them, been friends with them, been their clients and their servers. I am not afraid of them, nor have I any reason to be. I’ve worked beside Saudi and Lebanese and Somali, and all were wonderful. In North America, I’m far more likely to be killed by a Christian dominionist than I am a muslim, statistically.
You are allowed to be afraid – nor do you need to justify it! Fear is an emotion, and we have very limited control over these things.
Your fear is not justification to harangue or harass others, however. Nor is it enough to forbid them freedom of movement, freedom to own property, or any other freedoms that the civilized world enjoys. Fear is irrational and untrustworthy – look to statistics and to cool discourse for truth.
I would suggest that you limit your exposure to stressors – to Fox news or websites that advocate fearing or aggression! Thes eprovide little in the way of new information, and instead tend to provide nothing but adrenaline. This clouds thinking and makes the foolish or evil seem reasonable.
As for “proving you wrong” – you can’t prove a fear wrong. Fear is a hormone balance within the brain, and can be no more proved than the null set. It is within the kernel from which rationality arises.
I only hope that you can overcome your fear, and learn to judge each individual on their merits.