Categories
doggoes jordan "slappy" peterson misogyny PUA twitter

Worst. Pickup. Line. Ever. (Courtesy of Jordan Peterson)

Ewww

By David Futrelle

Well, this little joke went over well on Twitter so I thought I’d post it here too.

Here’s one that didn’t go over quite as well. But it might just come to haunt your dreams.

Some good-ass tweets by people who aren’t me:

https://twitter.com/BoringEnormous/status/1028321380213907458

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

363 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

London Trollgrim,

You could have just made an “old ball and chain” joke instead of unleashing that tl;dr drivel.

Because that’s the quality of your post. An old and not very comedy routine. I’m not seeing any actual science.

You want to know why old men are more subdued than they were when they were 20 something bachelors? Because they’re old. The older you get, the less you want to stay out late partying, the less you want to involve your self in gossip and drama, the less you want to engage in fighting or other risky behavior. It’s not gendered. It has nothing to do with nagging wives. Or testosterone deficiency. People just get more boring as they age.

And I’m still confused here. Do you want enforced monogamy for women but perpetual funtime bachelorhood for men? Because unless you want everyone to be gay, that’s not going to work out so well.

What exactly would your ideal world look like?

Makroth - cowboy Jacobin from Hell
Makroth - cowboy Jacobin from Hell
2 years ago

@Slick Mick

You are. Just. So. BOOOOOOOOORING!

Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
2 years ago

Three trolls! Well, aren’t we blessed today…

@London Pilgrim

A man was under his mother, who loved him until handed over to a wife who also managed him. She determined what he ate and when, how the home is furnished and so on.
To a great extent this is unavoidable and part of human nature and can work out well.

Holy fucking shit. I have enough trouble figuring out what I want to eat in any given day, and now I have to manage a man’s eating habits as well?? How about no?

Also, you’d better hope this never actually becomes a thing, because whatever unfortunate man is assigned to be my food responsibility will end up with the same diet as me. Which is effectively herring rollmops, cheese, and chocolate brownies.

Further to this, I’m intrigued by your use of the terms “handed over” and “managed”. You see, I personally would not insult a man by “managing” him. It is insulting, you know. And sexist.

@Slick Mick
I hate to break this to you, but “conversate” isn’t a word.

Slick Mick
Slick Mick
2 years ago

Makroth what am I supposed to be some sort of cocky funny male stereotype here to entertain you… seems like toxic masculinity to me…

Violet, I went to public school…

Z&T
Z&T
2 years ago

Enforced Monogamy,

How about the other side of that? Or, let’s travel back in time some 30 years and wonder why this “didn’t take” for my father – who took off, instead.

And never paid child support.

My friends here are nodding along. We all come from broken homes, where “dad” took off.

If it’s so great, why do so many people keep getting divorced?

And I’m liberal in these ideas because you have to have an ‘outlet’ for those who cannot hack this lifestyle.

Forcing people into it, including via social propaganda, is a bad idea because when it backfires – guess who’s left with the mess?

The kids.

I am one of those kids. My friends here are those kids. Not to mention the nth number of us from broken homes.

Blame the woman? I’m not sure how you can blame the woman in these situations. We grew up in Typical Suburbia, maybe picture The Brady Bunch. So what if Dad Brady ran out the door, what, Mom Brady was an ogre? I don’t think so. What, their life was just so terribly unbearable? I don’t think so.

Myself and most people I know came from such Typical Suburban backgrounds. And dad took off.

How come you’re not enforcing monogamy on yourselves?

Most of us have divorced grand parents too. Our pal T here, her (absentee) father’s parents were deceased, her other grandma, mom’s mom, her husband dropped dead at the age of 43 so she had to go to work. She had 3 small children.

Oh but she must’ve been corrupted by feminism.

Here’s an idea I plan to float by a tax person. Oh you women with your own money! What little I have I worked for and I just inherited a bit more. From my mom, who was an astute business woman and investor.

She passed away last year, I found out my deadbeat dad passed in ’16. Now, operating on the idea of carried over business losses, he was supposed to leave me (life insurance) money, he did not. It was a condition of their divorce.

I think this should be considered a ‘loss’ sim to a carried over biz loss and I AM going to ask the tax person about it.

Unless…
You Enforced Monogamists wish to set such things right, as I’m sure your righteous selves want to do, so therefor you could give me this 50G I was supposed to get, let alone all the past child support my mom never got, so we’re probably close to 100G here.

You’re going to take up a collection for me right away, right? You, the defenders of fragile, “feminine” women, hearth and home, because you feel so strongly and righteous about it all, you’re going to do this, then, right?

I can’t take any credit cards or anything, but Dave here can so you could just send it through him. He’s a good guy too, give him about 100G too. And everyone else here too.

After all, if you think you deserve things, then we must too, right?

Oh wait, you’re already saying GET TO WORK! ?

Well then you negate your whole premise.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@London Pilgrim
So no response? Is it safe to assume that you feel it’s appropriate to make accusations and not back them up? You feel comfortable misrepresenting what others are saying?

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

Why is Mick losing his shit about how feminists are trying to have “enforced monogamy” when the whole damn thread has been us feminists telling London that “enforced monogamy” is shitty and misogynistic?

A family cannot be razed in a chaotic or violent home.

Actually, I think a chaotic and violent home would be the ideal place in which to raze a family.

raze
razed; razing
transitive verb
1: archaic : erase
2 : to destroy to the ground : demolish– raze an old building

Raising a family, now, that’s a different story.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@Richard Ford

You typed,

The Left cannot refute his arguments so they strawman him.
Really.
Critics need to do better.

Says the one that isn’t pointing out the straw man argument. You know that logical fallacies aren’t like magic spells right? You can’t just intone them and expect an effect.

You farther gesticulated upon your keyboard,

100 years ago we had enforced monogamy without a secret police force to enforce it or people even knowing it was enforced.

Secret police force?
And are you seriously suggesting that the force in the enforcement was invisible? It’s pretty clear to gay people when society tries to enforce heterosexual sex as a standard. I simply don’t believe that whatever you have in your head about enforcement of monogamy matches reality.

Monogamy was simply the way things were.

Nothing is “simply the way things are/were”. Society has patterns of interactions that encourage/discourage, enforce, and propagate social behavior. You read as ignorant on these issues.

So you see.. there is nothing sinister or authoritarian about it at all.

I can’t see shit because you haven’t demonstrated shit. Do you really expect the mere words you deposit on the screen to be evidence? I doubt that is the standard you hold for yourself.

We just need to get back to what works and most people will soon forget about being lesbian squirrels or transgender donkeys or whatever the latest gender fad is.

Who said it “worked”? Define “working”. What is the function and/or goal? People otherwise not hurting anyone who have a different preference with respect to presentation, attraction, or interaction with others would in all likelihood strongly disagree.

Also your need to replace peoples legitimate description of themselves with insulting caricatures is noted. I lose more respect for you with each post. People acting disrespectfully don’t deserve respect. I do not respect you.

They will not miss it at all.

Who is “they”? You are very shitty at being comprehensible.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@London Pilgrim
If you don’t respond I’ll just start having fun with you in my next post. It’s rude and disrespectful to make accusations about people on the same fucking webpage as you and not back them up. You are a gossip at best.

Bakunin
Bakunin
2 years ago

@Mick
Debate me, piss for brains. You made a claim, “feminists are responsible for bachelor taxes”. You put forward no evidence, but insisted we look up the facts. I did, you festering gobshite, and the facts do not back you up. Now either admit that you were wrong, you fucking MGTOW loser, or present some actual evidence instead of whining about how much I’m insulting your pathetic ideology.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@Richard Ford
You squatted on your monitor and squeezed out,
measurement of it is difficult.

It may be that people ask themselves ‘compared to what’ when asked the question. In other words a woman asked 100 years ago if she was happy might be happy because quite limited expectations are met.
Her husband is kind, a good provider and so on. True, he is a bit ugly and he farts a lot but how much can one person expect?
Today we have advertising telling her all the things she does not own. She has woman’s magazines telling her she should be having 11 mind blowing orgasms a night and she has feminism telling her that her husband is defective because he is a man.
Her life is better but her experience of it is worse.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is why you think women are unhappy?

You have never asked a woman why they are unhappy. This garbage facsimile is nothing like what I have seen women complain about. You’re utterly ignorant of what makes women unhappy.

As a man I find you lacking in reading comprehension, persuasiveness, sympathy, or value. I’d create a sign that told everyone that I don’t consider you in the same group as me if I could. You are a shitty man.

Finally you hurked out,

Amazing. You can tell me my views on rape by ‘psychic osmosis’ and even project the ‘all men are rapists’ feminist trope upon the equal rights movement!

You had an opportunity to provide your actual views on rape, and you blew it. Not impressive.

And your reading comprehension is shit, WWTH did not cite feminist views.

We don’t say men are defective. If anything, it’s anti-feminists who say that. You’re the ones always arguing that men are biologically hardwired to rape and be violent.

Disagree if you must, but refer to them accurately you literal incompetent.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

@Mr London,

I’m going to do you the respect of dealing with you directly and honestly, and will take your points at face value. I’ll try to be concise, but you’ve got a lot of wending threads in there that need de-tangling. I’ll be doing some synthesis to glean out the salient points. Please brace yourself. Like I said, I’m going to respect you with some direct and honest conversation here; I’m going to put the kid gloves on.

I’m going to break this up into two parts. The first part will put a hammer through the specific things you’ve brought up in your last post, pointing out in what ways you’re wrong. The second part will demonstrate that the MGTOW/Traditionalist philosophy you espouse not only is wrong, but cannot come to truth. The best it will be able to do is to be coincidentally true, like a pseudoscience.

I won’t bother you with citations, we aren’t at the point where they’re useful yet. If there’s one you’d like, I’ll produce it for you.

Part One: The Hammer

The best way to describe what I am talking about is to ask you to look at an old couple who have been together for 20 years or more. Notice that the man follows behind the woman, reduces his height in her presence with a sort of cringe and can sometimes come to look like her. There is a science behind this. Testosterone declines when a man is in a relationship. It is natures way of keeping him at home and making his hyper agreeable. In older couples this is maintained simply by the odd disapproving look. The previous generation believed that men and women were a team so no great control is ever applied. This is often a living and mutually beneficial relationship but we should be clear who is in charge. The man says ‘yes dear’ a lot.

You’re making a mistake here. I could be glib and spit out “anecdotes aren’t data” but I won’t do that. For your sake and for the sake of our audience, I’m going to peel the onion and show all of the rings.

I’ll start with a little dose of science, since I promised some. See, the behaviour you’re describing is called approach behaviour in the behavioural sciences. Approach behaviour is confidence and an interest in initiating social interaction. It’s part of approach-avoidance, which is associated with the general threat assessment systems associated with the amygdala and pons.

And hasn’t much to do with testosterone. It’s associated with serotonin – which is why many antidepressants inhibit serotonin reuptake, to make the neurotransmitter more available. Testosterone does seem to have some effect, but it’s small compared to other things going on.

This is all obvious, because women’s brains do the exact same thing as men’s with testosterone, and they usually have much less to work with. In other words, your premise is self-contradictory – if brains worked that way, women would be mewling, servile, submissive people, no matter how much a man’s testosterone might reduce as he ages – he’s still got much more than the average woman.

Counterpoint, sitting on the bus I see a whole lot of the opposite – quiet women sitting in isolation and agreeing with their husbands with “yes dear” on their lips. Or – most common of all – I see people interacting as individuals, each with their own quirks and attributes, some aggressive and others retiring, and most a mix in between. In other words, your feelings don’t mean much, because we can’t replicate that feeling. You confuse tribe-affiliation-signalling with actual evidence.

Now, the far more interesting question here is why do you see this as a reliable pattern in the world? It’s not – I can’t think of anything outside of fiction where this is a stable trope. But you see it. And I don’t deny that you see it. I’m sure you do see it, all over the place.

Have a cool glass of objectivity here – brains are liars. We see patterns in everything, and those patterns we see more often than not correspond to the way we believe the world to be. This isn’t due to a lack of willpower or some mental deficiency, it’s a natural outcome of how our brains work. The pattern-matchers in our head match patterns that they’ve seen before – even if those patterns are just feelings we might feel.

That’s what’s happening to you here. It’s called confirmation bias. Very normal, and hard to beat. I’ll get into that later.

Older people grew up in the expectation of a marriage that would be run by women- but with compassion. A man was under his mother, who loved him until handed over to a wife who also managed him. She determined what he ate and when, how the home is furnished and so on.

What about a woman who doesn’t want to run a marriage? What about a woman who wants to be a mathematician? Or what about a man who wants to tend the home? All the “you can arrange the doilies however you like dear” is bitter ash if you have to lay your dreams on the pyre. Your argument here is that we must sacrifice our dreams for the social order. You make this clear as you continue:

To a great extent this is unavoidable and part of human nature and can work out well. The problem comes with feminism. In traditional societies both parties believe they are running the show and both are correct in their way. The man runs the external show the woman the internal one. Unfortunately feminism convinces the w9man she is in fact being dominated by men through patriarchy. Everything therefore becomes a war that must be won. This may be done in good ways or bad but the whole thing becomes deadly serious. If a man shows independence, or has friends or any independent influence upon his life this will be viewed through this lens and must be crushed.

Your first sentence. By the numbers.

“this is unavoidable” – why is this unavoidable? Because the social order demands it?

“and part of human nature” – No it’s not. You want to claim it’s human nature, you give me some evidence for that. And you had best bring your sturdiest argument – I come armed with the full weight of scientific knowledge behind my hammer.

“and can work out well” – For who? You reveal your biases, my duck. Surely not well for the woman dreaming of enterprise. Surely not well for the girl who’s told that engineering’s not for her. It works out well for men, which seems to be your definition of “society”, but you underestimate how many women hate the thought of going back to those years. Far, far more than those who wear the label “feminist” these days.

More generally, the idea that women’s domain is the “internal” show, and man’s domain the “external” – tell me, how does that differ from “a woman’s place is in the kitchen”? You claim this is equal, but equality means freedom. Freedom for women to leave the kitchen if the choose, and men to enter it if they choose. It’s ironic really. In the one sentence, you define patriarchy very well – the inner and outer spheres and never the twain shall meet. Then in the next sentence you say that feminism “convinced” women that Patriarchy was oppressing them. Feminism told them they didn’t have to live in the box that society said they had to stay in, and that’s all.

You paint it very well. Good job.

If a man shows independence, or has friends or any independent influence upon his life this will be viewed through this lens and must be crushed.

I’m going to ask you to provide evidence on this one too. Be aware of your own confirmation bias as you do it, too. I’m not saying that because I think you’re particularly biased, mind you! But we’re all biased, and you demonstrated above that you’re vulnerable to it in this area especially. So do keep it in mind.

We need to define what i mean by enforced monogamy. It does not involve allocating virgins ISIS style but it does mean ownership of decisions. A family cannot be razed in a chaotic or violent home. Drama can be exciting, affairs, conflict conspiracy! All are exciting but none build a stable society.

People should be proud of good choices and regret bad ones. If you talk to people who’s lives are a mess you may discover they knew their actions would lead to the current situation! People actually know when they are making a mistake!

A sense of shame is all that we need to have people behave decently. The state has taken to policing language and opinions. Our sense of decency should do this for us!

I’m glad you’re against abduction of women, slavery and rape. No, seriously, that’s apparently a higher bar than it should be these days. You really need to work on what your actual definition is, though, ’cause I can’t make sense of it.

Are you saying that “enforced monogamy” is “a sense of shame”? So it’s just “don’t slut around, you slutty sluts.”

I’m disappointed in you. Moderately – I mean, I could see that beneath your posts from the beginning, but it’s sad to see the same old argument over and over. All feels, no reals.

Let me dig into this a bit deeper to show you your error. Spoilers: it’s the same one as above.

“A family cannot be razed in a chaotic or violent home.” – agreed! I’ll forgive your typos as you forgive mine. What does that have to do with anything? Chaotic, violent homes are typified by domestic abuse, and you wont’ find any supporters of that here. You can’t be saying that…

“Drama can be exciting, affairs, conflict conspiracy! All are exciting but none build a stable society.” – Ah, so that is what you’re saying. Women have a reputation as being drama-loving, hormonal, emotional, mendacious, and treacherous, and you’re saying this is the root of Feminism, and the root of societal problems today.

Did you know that these things have been studied, though? And that – when the fog of confirmation bias is blown away by the cool winds of cautious study, we find that they’re bullshit? Anthropologists and sociologists have found that, while it is perceived that women are more emotional, they actually prefer more stable, quiet, and non-dramatic outcomes, and work towards them. Men, on the other hand, favour dramatic altercations and passionate outbursts. I believe Dawkins himself discusses this in one of his books, about how this makes sense for an evolutionary perspective, given that women typically have a much greater child-rearing cost and will therefore favour stable, pragmatic partners.

Same with being shallow and vain – this shallowness and vanity that is so well popularized in our culture is more to do with male perception of women than actual behaviour. Did you know that when women take up around 1/4 of the time in a conversation, men in that conversation perceive it as dominating the conversation? And that the suggestions women bring are far less likely to be adopted or even acknowledged by male peers? And that those ideas, when introduced by a man, are far more likely to be accepted – without even recognizing that a woman introduced the idea earlier?

I invite others to chime in with their anecdotes, if they like. Heaven knows they’re out there.

What you’re experiencing here is more confirmation bias. You see women in the world being treacherous, drama-prone and conspiratorial because you hold the belief that it’s true. It’s not true, but your brain shapes your perceptions to a much higher degree than you seem to realize.

This seems to be the root of your error, my duck. Our beliefs entangle with our perceptions, and we’re largely unaware of it. This leads us to a skewed perception of the world. There are tricks to right ourselves, but they’re not common.

Let me show you one.

Part Two: The Anvil

This error of confirmation bias is one of many that humans are prone to. We all are, and I hope my fellow Mammotheers keep it in mind that they aren’t immune to it. We need to safeguard ourselves against it, and there really aren’t any tried and true ways to defeat it. In these situations, I often ask my MRA combatant – what do you do to confront your own confirmation bias. Answer is always the same – willpower, careful attention, “an objective viewpoint”.

All of these answers tell me, right away, that my opponent has no way to confront that bias in themselves and has never seriously considered how to do so. I won’t insult you by asking you the same question.

MGTOWs and the “Traditionalists” squirm quite a bit at this accusation that they’re biased – it strikes right to the heart of their identity. The Enlightenment – and Dark Enlightenment – view of science and rationality is one of Powerful Men, using their Reason to cut through the fog of ignorance. The idea that the objectivity they claim might be an illusion terrifies them, I suspect.

And yet, the mechanisms of real science and rationality – not the propaganda fairytale of Imperial Europe – those mechanisms are built in with methods for defeating these biases. But those mechanisms, for as much as the traditionalists and MRAs celebrate them, oppose the Great Man of Science myth that’s so important to them. Because they’re about collaboration, about working together, about the dissolution of the Great Leader. They expose the lie that science is the result of some brilliant individual, bravely battling against the darkness. Truth is illuminated by a thousand candles, not one torch.

This is why the various manosphere philosophies can’t ever really pursue truth – they deny the mechanisms that could destroy their biases; because their philosophies are constructed from those errors wholesale.

Here – the last few paragraphs have probably been bitter, and I imagine they didn’t penetrate. Here’s a reward – a mechanism for defeating confirmation bias. I use it frequently.

In science you’re likely familiar with the Principle of Parsimony – that which can be removed from a theory, should be. It’s often called Ockham’s Razor. Popular with the YouTube atheist crowd. But there’s an unsung partner to it called the Principle of Charity. It often isn’t cited directly and doesn’t have a catchy name, but it’s far more central to winnowing truth from the datastream.

The Principle of Charity instructs you to always take the strongest form of your opponents’ arguments. I’ve laboured to do this with you – I haven’t teased about typos, have invited you to point out your strongest points for me to engage, have pointed out places you’re correct. I’m not doing this to be nice. (Well, I am trying to be nice., but that’s not the point). I’m doing this because if I have a wrong idea, I want it to be destroyed. If bias has shaped my perceptions, I want that bias crushed as thoroughly and swiftly as possible.

This is the only means I’m aware of for combating confirmation bias – all of the methods I’ve had cited at me are weaknesses. Willpower is just going to make you stubbornly cling to your beliefs harder. Intelligence is just going to let you make more elaborate and clever arguments in defense of your ideas, and make it easier for you to imagine holes in the positions against you. Careful observation is just going to make those patterns of bias more detailed and clear. None of that works. The only solution is to sharpen your enemy’s blade to test against yourself. There’s no other answer I know of.

I welcome your response.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

@troll:

I am half way to being a male feminist!!

Well, that much is true — you’ve definitely got the “being a male” half down pat.

The only way forward is the destruction of feminism but there is no force capable of doing so.

So, you admit that we’ve already won.

Why not just get it over with, then? Go run up the white flag and we’ll accept your surrender.

Nequam
Nequam
2 years ago

Boy, I hear a lot of insects whining. How many citronella oil lamps do you think we need?

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
2 years ago

London Pilgrim

look at an old couple who have been together for 20 years or more. Notice that the man follows behind the woman, reduces his height in her presence with a sort of cringe and can sometimes come to look like her.

For pity’s sake. Tomorrow mr magnificent and I celebrate 40 years of wedded bliss. And we are old – it was the second marriage for both of us. However, he does have reduced height – all a natural part of getting older. In our case, though, there’s something more. He has a brain injury. Because 5 years ago … I (along with the ambos, the ER, the ICU, the hospital and the rehab facility) had to revive him with CPR (and induced coma and all the rest of it) when he literally dropped dead at my feet. Despite our efforts, there are continuing but not insurmountable health problems in addition to regular checks on his now implanted defibrillator.

He would have done the same for me had our positions been reversed.

It’s all about love. We’ve been lucky, others aren’t so lucky … they might have the horrible marriages we escaped and never find the love of their life afterwards. Some do find such love and then have it horribly taken from them by death or ruined by illness or accidental injury or other misfortunes. Others strike it lucky from the start, and then live long and happy lives until they die. Others never feel the need or are so involved in other activities that they never feel the lack. And then there are those who, for whatever reason or no reason at all, would like to have a contented life with a loving partner and never attain it — and refuse to engage themselves in any other individual interests or social activities.

Seeing as it’s my wedding anniversary, I’m taking the liberty of quoting the poem (a very old poem, Ann Bradstreet, 1612 – 1672) included as part of my marriage vows and which now adorns our wall in beautiful calligraphy.

To My Dear and Loving Husband

If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me ye women if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay;
The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray.
Then while we live, in love let’s so persever,
That when we live no more we may live ever.

I meant every word of it then. I still do now.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
2 years ago

Oh dear. I’ve just realised that misery guts here will read my contribution as acknowledgement that a “traditional” marriage (as he describes his unpleasant presumptions) is the way to go.

Unfortunately for that theory, mr m and I have always been feminists, hell-raising leftie union organisers, reliable members of community groups and generally not much in the traditions we were raised in apart from that last item. We’ve tended to scoff at our children describing us as “kindred spirits” – but we probably are.

tim gueguen
2 years ago

Slick Mick needs to remember to use the sarcasm tag when he posts.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

@mildlymagnificent, you are so adorable <3 I wish you and your sweetheart all the very best.

epitome of incomprehensibility

@mildlymagnificent – Happy anniversary!

@Scildfreja – That was an excellent unpacking and sorting-out.

As for confirmation bias, I was wondering – since you write about how to avoid it in an argument situation – how does someone go about recognizing it in themselves in everyday life?

This is probably too big and vague a question! 🙂

(Also, now that I’m writing to you, I also wanted to say that what I wrote a few weeks ago about the phrase “stream of consciousness” sounded snotty, and I’m sorry. )

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

Happy anniversary, mildlymagnificent!! Best wishes to both of you.

@Scildfreja – that was a magnificent and very humane response to London Pilgrim. As usual, you did not disappoint. I hope he sees it, and learns something positive from it.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

Thank you Buttercup and eoi!

@epitome of incomprehensibility,

As for confirmation bias, I was wondering – since you write about how to avoid it in an argument situation – how does someone go about recognizing it in themselves in everyday life?

Very tough. That’s really what I’m talking about above, though – you need to live the principle of charity. It’s a very humbling, difficult thing to do – you start with the assumption that you’re wrong, and you keep repeating that to yourself at every stage.

Frankly, it’s less about specific actions themselves and more to do with the habits they form. If you apply the principle of charity everywhere, you get into the habit of taking external evidence very seriously and casting your own beliefs into doubt. It doesn’t have to mean you lack conviction, but it does mean that you can never quite avoid self-doubt.

Other people will interpret this as a weak will, on the surface at least, because you don’t stick by what you say all the time, and you’ll find yourself more easily convinced by things around you. They’ll call you flighty or timid or unsure. This is mostly because our society confuses boldness and truth.

It’s especially hard to keep this up when faced with really morally repugnant opposition. These Incels, these Fascists – they don’t deserve to have their arguments taken seriously, because they’re built on predatory cowardice. But remember – you don’t apply charity for their sake, you apply it for your own. Allow yourself to consider their positions at full effect, as awful as they are. If you’ve got moral character it’ll be a disgusting experience, but you’ll have a better understanding of what makes them tick, and you’ll be able to grind away your own flaws with the chaff of their beliefs, too. You’ll recognize similarities in thought between you and them, and will be able to see where your own beliefs wend similar to theirs.

Confirmation bias is only one of a host of biases – the false attribution error is one that fills my head a lot these days. I’ve caught myself indulging in it more and more lately, and I’m less sure of how to confront that one.

Brains are weird.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

@eoi,

I missed this bit!

(Also, now that I’m writing to you, I also wanted to say that what I wrote a few weeks ago about the phrase “stream of consciousness” sounded snotty, and I’m sorry. )

I’m afraid I don’t even recall it! I’m sure it was totally okay and you were probably right, whatever it was!

calmdown
calmdown
2 years ago

Wow, “lack of traditional values (now apparently it was “gender confusion”) caused the fall of Rome.” I haven’t seen that one in a while, but it’s one of my personal favorites. I’m also a big fan of Straw Feminism 101: All Men are Rapists. Also “raze” and “conversate” are definitely words.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/i-think-its-converse.jpg

calmdown
calmdown
2 years ago

I hate to break this to you, but “conversate” isn’t a word.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/i-think-its-converse.jpg

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

I hate to be a pedant, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary

conversate, v.

1. trans. (refl.) To associate or become familiar with. Obsolete. rare.

2. intr. U.S. colloq. To engage in conversation, esp. with a person.
In later use associated esp. with African-American usage.

Earliest reference for the 2nd meaning is 1811, most recent is 2005.

Just getting in there before the lobsters jump on it.

Skylalalalalalala
Skylalalalalalala
2 years ago

Happy Anniversary, mildlymagnificent!

I did have to laugh uproariously at the idea that being married for 20 years makes you “old”. Unless being in your 40s is old now? My grandparents, now they were old (they both lived into their 90s). And married for over 60 years – they had their 60th anniversary in 1995 and grandpa died in 1998, although grandma lived a few months past what would have been their 70th anniversary.

I don’t recall grandpa ever saying “yes, dear” to grandma, though. Usually he said things like “I’m going for coffee.” Not long before he died, he was more likely to say things about not realising how much work keeping up even their smallish apartment was (he had to start helping because it was too much for my 87ish grandmother). He also usually walked next to grandma so she could lean on him when they walked anywhere outside of their home, because she had balance issues and he was decent human being.

Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess
Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess
2 years ago

@mildlymagnificent

Happy Anniversary!

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@mildymagnificent

Thank you for sharing this. We agree far more than you might think. Loyalty, love, compassion and so on are a big part of the traditionalism that the left effects to despise and yet sometimes secretly practaces.

Sometimes those who talk of nothing but good secretly do evil and sometimes people who promote socialism secretly do good. It is a strange world.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@scildfreja.

Thank you. I really value what you are doing and astonished too. Most probably because of my biases, yes. We all have them.

It has been my ambition for a long time to have a rational discussion with a feminist. The usual reaction I get is a stream of insults and straw men or phisical violence (a slap across the face is generally not seen as violent when comming from a woman but I like to judge men and women by the same yardstick).

I will read your posts again and give them the consideration they deserve. I would like to lay my pain asside so that I can think more clearly. I will do my very best to do so.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim

The usual reaction I get is a stream of insults and straw men or phisical violence (a slap across the face is generally not seen as violent when comming from a woman

Video or it didn’t happen.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@scildfreja

First things last. I never stated that men and women should be held to different standards. This is what I am trying to get away from!

Feminism would have us believe that ‘patriarchy’ holds women to a higher standard of sexual conduct. I think it is probably true that women tend to call other women sluts a lot (as a jockying for status) but is this really patriarchy?

Society values what is rare. A man who is sexually sucessful is admired on one level and scorned on another because it is a rare achivelent. It is not approved of but it is impressive as an achievement. For a woman it is rather easy.

How whould it be possible to have a society where one sex is expected to be faithful and the other not. How would that even work unless all men were to become bisexual?

This is one of those unexamined ‘truths’ of feminsim. I think we have the right to question them particularly as it is a logical impossiblity.

Why do I think female control of long term relationships is inevitable? Only because it is true of London and London contains pretty much every culture of the world. I would have come across an exception by now.

It also seems remarkably consistant throught English history. It is true that what we know about English culture comes mainly from the middle and upper classes because the working classs rarely got written about but the patten seems clear none the less.

You also assume that I want to compel people to live ‘my way’. This is a natural assumption for someone on the left as for them everything is compelled. If feminism is a good idea then it must be adopted by everyone and none may complain about it.

I am from the right and therefore pro choice in all things. If you are a feminist then be one- but do not impose it upon innocent bystanders. This is all I ask. I choose not to be and I will leave feminsts alone to the extent they leave me alone!

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@scildfreja

I think I have caught an unconcious bias of yours!!!

Whenever I talk about a negative behaviour you assume I am talking about women exclusively! I am not!!

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

Is the London Troll still here?

Anyway it is nonsensical to claim society values sexually successful men because they are “rare”.

If that were true good looking, classically desirable men would be slut shamed because it is easier for them and classically unattractive women who are sexually successful would be applauded.

That’s not the case because it’s about controlling female sexuality.

Anyway I still don’t get why he is here. He’s basically an incel anti-feminist who is also completely incoherent with his argument and makes little attempt to actually properly address the questions posed to him. I mean “control relationships” and he knows this because he lives in London?

This is just poor trolling surely.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

And just to add slut shaming is not just something women do.

Plenty of men devalue women based on sexual history.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@treehugger

‘Feminists say women don’t have to be married if they don’t want to.’

Do feminists say the same about men I wonder?

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@steph

You are part right. Sluttyness is not so much about history as availbility. When a woman devalues another woman in this way she usually refers to clothing and appearance.

It is true that men do not marry slutty women but this is a practical matter. He wants the children he raises to be his own. It does not prove that he values her less as a human being- although he might.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@steph

‘If that were true good looking, classically desirable men would be slut shamed because it is easier for them and classically unattractive women who are sexually successful would be applauded.’

This rather proves my point..

If men were women and women were men this would be true. The fact is that men must be successful and charismatic to get attention. Money alone will not do it. Looks count for almost nothing.

He is admired for these qualities. Success with women proves he has Alpha qualities. A man who goes to Bangkok and sleeps with 100 prostitute is not admired.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

No London Pilgrim it’s not a practical matter.

It’s seeking to control female sexuality. Promiscuous and infidelity are two different things. You are trying (and failing) to justify a double standard.

And I didn’t prove your point. I was pointing out that it’s nonsense to claim that slut shaming is just about valuing that which is rare or “harder” to do. It’s also a nonsense to claim men must be successful and charismatic to get attention. Plenty of men lacking both have many sexual partners.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim

Of course feminists say men don’t have to marry if they don’t want to.

Which feminists do you know who push the idea that men (and by extension women) have to marry?

You are confusing social conservatives with feminists.

Plus a minute ago you were defending Peterson’s “enforced monogamy” comments and now you are criticising feminists for apparently insisting men marry. Is Jordan Peterson now a feminist?

You are a boringly inconsistent troll.

And yes deriding somebody has not worthy of a serious relationship due to sexual history is devaluing them as a person. As is defending them being disrespected on account of their sexual history (as these kind of men tend to do.)

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@steph

Then will you recognise the double standard here.

When a woman does not marry she is some sort of empowered feminist princess.

When a man does not marry he is an incel and it must be because he hates women.

Maybe not everyone is lucky in love. Maybe their value as human beings is independent of whether you feel they are attractive?

Just a thought.

Moon Custafer
Moon Custafer
2 years ago

When a woman does not marry she is some sort of empowered feminist princess.

When a man does not marry he is an incel and it must be because he hates women.

The men who call themselves incels are a subset of unmarried men, and they’re the ones who keep indicating they hate women, by publicly cheering whenever one is killed.

There are plenty of unmarried men who are not incels.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@moon

So are you willing to grant men the same rights as women when it comes to not getting married?

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

London Pilgrim/Robert Ford wrote:

When a man does not marry he is an incel and it must be because he hates women.

Way to change the definition of incel.

I don’t see them ranting about not getting married; all I see them do is rant about not getting laid.

You do know that those aren’t the same thing, right? Because you keep making up definitions of common words rather than using the definitions everyone else uses.

Gee, I wonder why that is? It couldn’t possibly be because it gives you (flimsy and intentional) cover to claim “you don’t understand what I’m trying to say,” right?

Of course not. \s

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

London Pilgrim/Robert Ford wrote:

So are you willing to grant men the same rights as women when it comes to not getting married?

Jesus fucking Christ; there you go again, just making shit up and pretending it’s a fact.

Please provide evidence of any credible feminist who says that women shouldn’t have to get married but men do. Just one.

You can’t do that, just like you can’t provide evidence for any of your other claims, because the evidence doesn’t exist.

Just because you say it, that doesn’t make it true. Helll, with you, if you say it, it’s probably bullshit.

Evidence. Where is your evidence?

Show us your evidence.

Quote the feminists who have this imaginary double standard on marriage that you completely made up.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

@London,

You have invented that “double standard”.

Nobody calls men who choose not to marry “incels”. NOBODY.

Incels is a term a certain class of men have selected for themselves because they are annoyed that the women they feel entitled to date don’t wish to date them.

You cannot just invent things. Anybody can check out the incel sites and see these aren’t merely bachelors…

The clue is in the term “in”cel. As in “involuntary.” If they were merely choosing not to marry why would they call themselves “involuntarily celibate”?

Can somebody just take this troll out? I can deal with somebody having different views but when they just start talking nonsense it is too much.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

And nobody sees an unmarried woman as an “empowered princess”.

She is either called a spinster or just an unmarried woman. Unless you can support your assertion. You cannot make stuff up and claim it as fact.

London Reception
2 years ago

@steph

At what point did I say that incels chose to be incels. I would hardly use the kinder term ‘unlucky in love’ if that were the case now would I?

I find it significant that you only atack men for being incels. There are women who make this claim too- why not attack them equally?

There is a peculiar kind of projection going on here. You invent bizarre meanings for things I say and then use my actual position to disprove your straw man version of what I say.

Sincerity please!

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

@Steph

Unfortunately, as Trump so clearly demonstrates, if someone lies all the time and just keeps lying because they don’t have the basic decency and respect for others to value truth, there’s no really way to “take them out.” They just keep lying and will never stop.

The best we can do is point out that they lie constantly, so that people who actually care about truth and honesty and reason know what the liar is.

Thus it is with LP/RF. He can’t back up any of his lies, so he doesn’t even try; he just ignores people who ask questions that will nail down his statements as false.

Apparently, he’s too stupid to try ignoring Sclidfreja, so instead he seems to be going back to his old standard: lying about what she said.

It’s pathetically obvious what he’s doing, but there’s no way to actually stop him from lying.

It’s what he does.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@steph

Quite obviously since my focus was on the double standards of this board I was talking about the people here.

I notice you have dodged the question again.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

London Pilgrim/Robert Ford wrote:

Quite obviously since my focus was on the double standards of this board I was talking about the people here

Oh good, then you can point to where any member of this board (who isn’t a troll) has said that men have to get married and women don’t.

It should be easy.

Unless you’re a liar, of course.

I look forward to you ignoring this request for evidence to prove your claim. Again.