Categories
Dunning–Kruger effect grandiosity jordan peterson misogyny red pill

Why won’t women DEBAAATE MEEEE? An aspiring Red Piller’s lament

I thought that Reddit’s Red Pillers were all about conning women into bed. But some, it seems, are more interested in debating than dating.

Alas, a good debate can be harder to arrange than a mere hookup, an aspiring Red Pill Redditor reports in a recent post on the Ask The Red Pill subreddit.

Snoopy_ESP complains that the women he meets are all very “basic,” only interested in the most superficial conversations. And when he tries to steer the conversation to what he considers more intellectually engaging subjects the women just can’t keep up with his massive brain.

If you divert [the conversation] to deeper or more complex issues (geopolitics, social changes, new world order, scarcity of resources, politics, philosophy …) they are already lost and they answer with “I don’t know” or they answer you with the simplicities that they have heard in the TV

Yes, I’m sure hearing your thoughts on such fascinating topics as “the New World Order” and “scarcity of resources” must be quite a treat.

They are so basic, you get out of commenting on a series on Netflix and they are unable to have a debate arguing against your ideas because they don’t know about anything that TV hasn’t told them

I almost feel bad for these poor ladies, denied the pleasure of a real debate with someone as notable as Snoopy_ESP just because they’re so basic and stupid.

So Snoopy_ESP has to set aside his desire to debate some random woman he’s buttonholed at a bar.

I think the smart thing to do is to give up and adapt your conversation to theirs so that there are no frictions or they feel intellectually inferior.

Such a thoughtful lad!

A commenter called urbanfoh agrees that women are a bunch of basic bitches of the intellect.

Evolutionary speaking there is no incentive for women to take risk (apart from AFBB [alpha fucks, beta bucks]). Most men will be attracted to them no matter what as long as they are not disabled, very annoying or very ugly.

Evo Psych strikes again!

Womens crab in a bucket mentality even further incentivises women to stay at the mean of the cohort. And being excluded on basis of her views is devastating for a woman while offering no benefit.

Crabs? That’s one small step away from lobsters. I’m betting this guy is a huge fan of Jordan Peterson. Just a hunch.

Men on the other hand need to prove their status in some way. Be it physically, financially, socially or intellectually. Men need to either climb a hierarchy by proving their skills or challenge the very hierarchy itself. Being average is the worst strategy for men.

Definitely a Jordan Peterson fanboy.

One manifestation of that is that womens IQ is closer to the mean while most retards and most geniusses are men. Men are more likely to deviate from the mean of intelligence, interests, acceptable views, politics, finance etc to find a way to prove ones worth to women.

Another one of the “geniusses” who frequent this subreddit offers his boldly heterodox ideas on the subject, which just happen to be exactly the same as his Red Pill brothers and which also — surprise! — bear more than a little resemblance to some of Jordan Peterson’s most famous talking points.

“[T]here’s more genetic variation and risk-taking in men across the board” writes drewcer.

No matter what they say, you can’t go against biology. And biologically, women are the selectors because they hold the key to genetic immortality. Men compete for that genetic immortality in a dominance hierarchy.

“Dominance hierarchy,” huh. Where have I heard this incredibly original idea before? Oh yeah. That last guy, who got it from Jordan Peterson. It’s almost as if these guys have no ideas of their own. Maybe, just maybe, they’re the real intellectual basic bitches.

Which is why their bell curve is more spread-out in areas like IQ, income, etc. And women tend to group around the middle.

Funny that you hear feminists complaining so much about how all the rich people are men but they fail to realize all the homeless people are men, too.

It’s not even a men’s rights issue to me. It’s just biology, and biology is unfair. The good news is we live in a time where we can understand how the game is played (as individuals, anyway – mainstream society is still oblivious) and use it to be our best selves.

Wait, you want to be your own “best self?” Mister, you’ and your pals are in the wrong place for that.

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Full Metal Ox
25 days ago

…Womens crab in a bucket mentality…

That metaphor persistently avoids the point that the fisherman who put those crabs in that bucket is the real problem.

ribblefizz
ribblefizz
25 days ago

they are unable to have a debate arguing against your ideas because they don’t know about anything that TV hasn’t told them”

Funny; when I’m in the dating mindset I tend to be hopeful I’ll encounter someone who SHARES my ideas and viewpoints. He’s disappointed that people won’t argue against him. I wonder why that is…

SpecialFFrog
SpecialFFrog
25 days ago

How can there possibly be more genetic variation in men than in women?

Viscaria
Viscaria
25 days ago

Most men will be attracted to them no matter what as long as they are not disabled, very annoying or very ugly.

I find this supposed fact a little bit suspicious, but as I am both disabled and extremely annoying I do not have the personal experience to contradict it.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
25 days ago

I feel like our Mr. Big Brain is encountering women who peg him immediately as not worth the effort of educating. When that happens to me, my eyes kind of glaze over and I check out of the conversation, hoping that the guy in front of me goes away quietly and with a minimum of danger to myself. YMMV of course.

How can there possibly be more genetic variation in men than in women?

In a functional sense, this is true. The Y-chromosome is about a third the size of an X-chromosome, with a correspondingly fewer number of genes, but one of the two X-chromosomes in a female-karotype human cell will automatically inactivate and only one of them works in any given cell. So a male-karotype cell has more functioning genes than a female-karotype cell, even though the female-karotype cells have more overall genes, due to X-inactivation. X-inactivation occurs so that cells with two X-chromosomes don’t express double the proteins compared with a cell with only one X-chromosome (and one Y-chromosome).

Of course, this has nothing to do with intelligence, or IQ tests, which are written with a bias so that white men do better than women or non-white men.

.45
.45
25 days ago

@Policy of Madness

Yes, I get the impression he is coming across with hostility right off, trying to “debate” women on the first date. I mean, he seems to expect them to debate against him, so this and his reference of the NWO and all suggests he is a conspiracy theorist and starts with a confrontation shortly after saying “Hi”…

Edit: And now I need to look up this crabs in a bucket thing…

Double Edit: David, I know next to nothing about ultra portable laptops, but someone I know was raving about their latest purchase of same to me, so I can inquire tomorrow about it. At any rate, I imagine the more learned heads on laptops will want to know what this friend of yours wants it for. Do they just want to run Microsoft Word and pop in a DVD now and again, or do they want to do graphic design and play the latest video games?

Last edited 25 days ago by .45
R. Bridger
R. Bridger
25 days ago

lots of men (not just red pillers and conservatives, but liberals and leftists as well) seem to conflate arguments with conversations, so when a woman doesn’t want to argue with them, they see it as the woman being unwilling or unable to carry on a conversation. also nobody wants to talk about the “new world order,” and nobody wants to debate their date

Crip Dyke
25 days ago

@david

How much are they able/willing to spend? I know a bit about this area, having helped several friends purchase laptops in the highly portable and/or highly cheap class.

I am NOT a professional in any computer field, so there will be people (maybe here) who know a thousand times more than I do, but I have at least done internet research for comparison shopping several times over the last 3 years. And because of my obsessive personality, I’ve probably spent 20-30 hours reading reviews of the things. It’s not the best you can get, but if it’s helpful I can definitely give you some time.

Major factors to consider:
Money
Touchscreen necessary or optional?
Keyboard: detachable on non-? (detachable is only found on versions with touchscreens and tends to create problems over time as the connection/ hinges can become problematic, but it does allow you to use a single device as both a tablet and a laptop)
Software compatibility desired
Hardware compatibility desired
Top 2-3 primary purposes (gaming, business functions like word processing, spread sheets, etc., making videos, editing pictures, school, etc.)
How important is battery life?
How important is speed?

If you could pass those on, they don’t even all have to be answered if the answer is “I don’t know” or “doesn’t matter”. But the more answers available, the more help that I (or someone who knows more than me) can be.


an autistic giraffe
an autistic giraffe
25 days ago

comment image

Megi Stardust
Megi Stardust
25 days ago

Debating manospherians is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

happy cat
happy cat
25 days ago

Funny that you hear feminists complaining so much about how all the rich people are men but they fail to realize all the homeless people are men, too.

There are homeless women. Everyone knows that.

Tyne
Tyne
25 days ago

I had a date kinda like that once, but I like discussing politics and philosophy more than I like dating so this happened: first he wanted me to know he was right wing, because he didn’t like how openly lefty I sounded; then he trotted out a lot of pseudo philosophical bullshit, which I pointed out was untrue or biased; then the day after I got a message that he didn’t think it would work out.
I literally was told that he couldn’t stand to be contradicted so we shouldn’t date more “for my safety”. I was slightly shocked. This was not a raging asshole that you could see a mile away was a misoginist. He just disliked THAT MUCH not having the intellectual upper hand in the relationship.

Last edited 25 days ago by Tyne
Sheila Crosby
Sheila Crosby
25 days ago

I agree with @POM and @Megi Stardust
I think what he really wants is a “debate” which quickly devolves into the woman agreeing with him and hanging onto his every dubious, unsubstatiated word.

rusalka
rusalka
25 days ago

Aside from all the evopsych bs that followed OP’s post I’m pretty sure that this guy’s inability to find a woman to d(eb)ate has mostly to do with himself and his whole worldview. I’ve never went out on a date with someone that I haven’t talked to at least a bit beforehand (and I’m sure aside from blind dates that’s pretty much the same for anyone else). And his type of non-substantial boastful pseudo-indellectual blubbering sounds like this guy may think of himself as super duper intellectual when he actually has the depth of a puddle. So maybe the actual reason he doesn’t meet any intellectual women is simply because they wouldn’t want a date with him anyway. And even if one ended up on a date with him… he seems like the type of guy who makes a bunch of weird nonsensical or even offensive claims about the state of the world, that you can only respond to with an awkward “Ehhh… I don’t.. know?”. Because where would you even start debating stupid pseudo scientific shit like “dominance hierarchy”?

He just disliked THAT MUCH not having the intellectual upper hand in the relationship.

@ Tyne: First of all: That guy sounded scary… But I’m also not sure that it’s really about intellectual dominance… This is actually a pretty good example of why OP may not get his “debates”. If a guy told me he “doesn’t like” my presumed worldview and told me he opendly identifies with a misanthropic/ xenophobic/ misogynist one – I’m pretty sure I’d keep my opinion to myself out of safety. The fact that he even outright told you to stay away from him for “your safety” is almost ironic. This is a pretty perfect example for the hypocrisy of these people screaming about how their opponents have no arguments, just to turn around and pretty much literally threaten you when you actually dare to argue.

Trying
Trying
25 days ago

This pompous ass just said that men who are homeless deserve to be because it’s just nature, which is unfair. Meanwhile, feminists are out there helping the homeless in various ways. Because MRAs don’t really care about men.

I don’t grace these pills with “debate” because they are so boring. I know enough about JP talking points that I can predict what they’re going to say. Plus I know they are so entrenched in their lobster cult that nothing I say to counter those points will matter to them at all. So why entertain a tedious and meaningless exchange? Better chat about the MCU until the date is over and I can never be bored by him again.

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
25 days ago

@Policy of Madness

Of course, this has nothing to do with intelligence, or IQ tests, which are written with a bias so that white men do better than women or non-white men.

I read an article once, which I would love to cite forever and ever but cannot now find, that gave a history of IQ testing. Apparently at one point during the 50s iirc, test designers came up with a prototype IQ test that was going to be much better than the previous version at testing true intelligence, a great improvement based on the latest science, etc. Then during the testing stage, women scored on average 10 points higher than men, so they rubbished the whole thing because obvs that can’t be accurate. I so wish I could find that article again for anyone who wants to argue with me that IQ tests aren’t just a cover to say the group in power is the smartest group and therefore deserves to be in power.

@David Futrelle

I don’t know what ultra-portable means in this case, but System 76 is where I get my laptops. It’s because they run Linux natively with a smooth OS that I don’t have to bullshit around with, though. Could totally not be what you’re looking for.

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

@David, I love my Surface laptop as it’s super light & easy to take to and from work on the train. But I’ve no idea what specifics your friend is after, so that may well be a useless contribution, lol.

Re “all the homeless people are men” I know it’s howlingly wrong but I just have to point out that here in Australia one of the biggest (and fastest growing) groups of homeless is made up of women and children fleeing family violence… at the hands of men.

North Sea Sparkly Dragon
North Sea Sparkly Dragon
25 days ago

Womens crab in a bucket mentality even further incentivises women

This doesn’t make sense linguistically.
Is this a reference to ‘crab bucket’ theory from STP? Has he seen it somewhere and thinks he understands it? Crab bucket appears in Unseen Academicals, and is a criticism of people who hold others back because they’re afraid of what might happen, what will the neighbours say? Everyone can be part of the crab bucket, it’s used to enforce social conventions, like misogyny or patriarchy.

Moggie
Moggie
25 days ago

It seems strange to me to jump straight to “debate” when you’re just getting to know someone. Debate is an adversarial dialogue which will have a “winner” and a “loser”, and the winner will often be the person who is most practised at dishonesty. It can be an enjoyable activity between consenting adults, but it’s not how most people would choose to learn about a potential partner.

Sarah Z on why debating sucks:

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
25 days ago

I love debates. But it’s hard to debate someone when their idea of a debate is them blathering on about conspiracy theories and refusing to listen to the person they’re talking to. It’s the “not even wrong” thing; I can’t debate you if nothing you say makes sense.

I suppose we don’t know for sure if this guy is engaging in wild rants and calling them “debates”, but his choice of topics (new world order?!) sure makes it seem that way.

Hyber
Hyber
25 days ago

Small talk, as tedious as it is sometimes, is necessary to form social bonds. Generally you don’t just jump into the deep end of “intellectually engaging topics” -pool with someone you just met. Yet I don’t have trouble understanding that a person like these don’t understand that. Their sole motivation behind their debating urge is to prove their superiority and gain reinforcement to their own ideas. Someone already mentioned pigeon and chess. The outcome for the likes of Snoopy_ESP would be about the same in any case: women don’t debate him –> they are stupid ignorant skanks; women do debate him –> they are stupid ignorant skanks with inferior spoon-fed arguments.

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
25 days ago
Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
25 days ago

@ Hyber,

Their sole motivation behind their debating urge is to prove their superiority and gain reinforcement to their own ideas

Well said. No wonder the women he meets are backing away, scanning the crowd for their friends…

I was once invited to speak on a panel discussion, and an audience member had brought a sheaf of notes with him, full of counter-arguments…all, of course, without first hearing what we on the panel would be saying. It was like a real-life version of an internet troll: same bombast, same unwillingness to actually read listen to the article discusion before diving in with ranty comments. And his oft-repeated line was about “having a debate”, too.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
25 days ago

So odd that this swine never seems to find pearls being cast before him.

First of all, it takes a particular sort of social tone-deafness to think that “scarcity of resources” is a great topic for a first date (unless they met on a prepper forum). I suspect he’s hoping to manipulate his dates into feeling hopeless and depressed and anxious to attach to an alpha male. When his date’s eyes glaze over and she attempts to steer the conversation back to less bleak topics, he’ll feel justified in his contempt. It’s not that he’s offputting, it’s that women don’t have the intellect to appreciate his worldview (in which women are to blame for the state of the world, but are also sheeple who need everything explained to them). Heads he wins, tails women lose.

On top of that, it takes a special sort of misogynistic solipsism to believe that woman are all a hivemind clustered around the same average basic personality, while men are all Unique Fascinating Risk-Taking Snowflakes.

Men are more likely to deviate from the mean of intelligence, interests, acceptable views, politics, finance etc to find a way to prove ones worth to women.

Because guess what? The minute a woman has an opinion or argues back, he’ll shut her down, talk over her or (if he’s losing the debate) denigrate her femininity. Most women have learned it just isn’t worth discussing unconventional beliefs with reactionary men who are determined to win at all costs. It’s an exercise in frustration and futility. In some cases, it can even be physically dangerous.

”Women don’t take risks with debate” has the same energy as “Women just don’t seem to enjoy sex”.

 because they don’t know about anything that TV hasn’t told them

Meanwhile, this guy only knows what the internet has told him (along with some book that instructed him to clean up his room).

Last edited 25 days ago by Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Muscovy Duck
Muscovy Duck
25 days ago

What gets me about this is I’ve dated people who actually are non-asshole intellectual types, and broken up with some of them because even though they were making reasonable points they couldn’t really turn the debate mode / intellectual conversation mode off. I felt like I always had to be on my game intellectually, and I don’t like that in a relationship because in a good relationship you can let your guard down.
These misogynistic pseudo-intellectuals take that stew of issues and just add on the nasty flavors of “this doesn’t even make sense” and “I don’t want to debate the validity of my lived experience.”

Also, hi everybody! I have finally stopped lurking and said a thing.

Chris Oakley
Chris Oakley
25 days ago

Off-topic, but has anybody been able to re-establish contact with Naglfar yet?

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
25 days ago

Kid, you get way further and have a lot more fun if you try this one neat trick. Try actually talking, not some highschool mythical points scoring bullshit.

General: Where’d this whole “debate me!!!!” crap come from, anyway? As in, what kicked it off and made it the thing to be doing among self important nonentities?

John
25 days ago

It should be noted that women are socialized since birth to be more risk adverse in general.
And that doing risky behavior isn’t greeted nearly as supportingly as it would be for males.
And let’s be clear; red pillars hate when women actually deviate from the traditional feminine standard.

I once saw a red pillar tell another to not date any woman who’d make more than them through fearmongering about comparisons to her male coworkers or boss. Guy got a lot of likes.

John
25 days ago

Also who likes discussing politics? Especially when there’s a point of disagreement in a date?
”I don’t know” could be a response someone gives when they just don’t offend or support someone’s statements.

Masse_Mysteria
Masse_Mysteria
25 days ago

Setting aside the fact that debating random people you just met is probably not most people’s idea of a good time, I like how wide the array of “more complex topics” is. Asking someone to debate “geopolitics” is probably going to get a resounding “wuh?” for being so vague. “Let’s debate the situation in Palestine!” would be less vague, but not being up on every geopolitical thingamajig doesn’t mean you can’t have varied interests.

Also, it speaks volumes that admitting ignorance sets Snoopy_ESP sneering. The big brain move is obviously to pretend you are an expert on everything, and that things you haven’t heard about are insignificant.

epronovost
epronovost
25 days ago

So the guy is a conspiracy theorist who wants to debate to prove he is correct in is delirium about the new World Order and how globalists try to destroy the world and when women don’t engage with him because he is obviously a bit crazy or try to debunk him using actual credible sources they are dismissed as idiots who can only repeat what they hear on TV. Did I get this right?

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
25 days ago

@eprovost : beware of the term “crazy”. It tend to lump together people who think in a different way ; people who have a cerebral impairment ; and people who willfully delude themselves into thinking their alternative reality is real.

That guy is probably in the third category, but people in the first two very much don’t want to be associated with that third category, in no small part because there’s plenty of terrorists and (wannabee or not) murderers.

Moggie
Moggie
24 days ago

@Threp:

General: Where’d this whole “debate me!!!!” crap come from, anyway? As in, what kicked it off and made it the thing to be doing among self important nonentities?

Maybe it can be traced back to Duane Gish, the young-Earth creationist. He never tired of challenging others to debate about creationism versus evolution, and is immortalised in the term “Gish gallop” for one of his debating techniques. Other conservatives may have decided to emulate him.

epitome of incomrepehensibility

Okay, I do enjoy debating things with my boyfriend. Not “debating” in a formal sense; I just mean arguing about things that aren’t too personal and aren’t likely to cause emotional conflict. E.g. he’s more negative about the Internet in general than I am; I think the problems it exacerbates aren’t necessarily unique to it. So we’ll debate about that.

Anyway, he’s someone I enjoy talking to (most of the time!). If this “Snoopy_ESP” tried to engage me in an *intellectually demanding* conversation (my instinct says he wouldn’t because he’d pick someone he finds better-looking, but let’s just go with this scenario) I feel like I’d have one of these reactions:

a) confused, because out of my comfort zone (so the “I don’t know”-er in his scenario)

b) annoyed by his attitude, and tempted to act trollish by throwing out random long words (“Yes, but is the federal reserve dodecaphonic or just historiographically intersubjective?”) or just being silly (“Oh, I love geopolitics! Especially the gummy kinds.”)

Yes, I haven’t seen Naglfar in a while! but I don’t want to seem like I’m shaming someone for not being around. I haven’t written on Twitter in months because I’m not organized. But I hope everything’s going well with her.

And welcome, Muscovy Duck!

Last edited 24 days ago by epitome of incomrepehensibility
Contrapangloss
Contrapangloss
24 days ago

I love silly, stupid ‘arguments’ (Kirk v. Picard, Brussels sprouts, sandbar shark = best shark or no, etc). However, only so long as the debate remains friendly, and only so long as the debates are not every single time we chat.

If an issue that is centered on the personhood of one of the parties is treated as a ‘debate’, I have huge and fundamental problems with it. No one should have to ‘debate’ whether or not their existence is legitimate.

If any serious relationship or friendship issue is a ‘debate’ instead of a collaborative discussion, I have a huge and fundamental problem with it.

If all the small things are ‘debates’ and one party insists they win every time and that the looser is a fool, or calls the other person names for disagreeing, I have a huge and fundamental problem with it.

If someone has to constantly ‘prove their worth’ to you by being a good debater, you are an arse and do not deserve the simple pleasures of ‘discussing’ why Picard is and always will be the finest captain of the starship Enterprise.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
24 days ago

Off-topic, but has anybody been able to re-establish contact with Naglfar yet?

I asked David to.

Edit to add:

Thanks Moggie. I’d heard of Gish galloping as a technique, but somehow missed the originator of it. Guy obviously grew up on Irwin Correy routines!

Last edited 24 days ago by Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Contrapangloss
Contrapangloss
24 days ago

… Just for the record, that last line should have had a /s.

Also, welcome @Muscovy Duck!

Also, also: @Moggie, that video is great, and I love it.

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
24 days ago

@ Contrapangloss,

If an issue that is centered on the personhood of one of the parties is treated as a ‘debate’, I have huge and fundamental problems with it. No one should have to ‘debate’ whether or not their existence is legitimate.

I agree 100%. I feel like people who call this kind of thing a “debate” are being deeply dishonest. There is nothing to debate here; people who use the word debate in this context are doing it to afford themselves a shred of plausible deniability, so that when they’re called on their bigotry they can claim that the person who called them out is just unwilling to participate in a free and honest exchange of ideas. It’s the pseudo-intellectual version of “I was just joking; you [choice of minorities] have no sense of humour”, and it’s a vile tactic.

Also: Team Picard!! It’s not a debate when one side is so clearly in the right. 😆Picard was my intro to Star Trek and so he’s always the one and only as far as I’m concerned, and I’m not even a Trekkie.

Contrapangloss
Contrapangloss
24 days ago

Side note: The more I think about it, the more I wonder if these ‘debate me’ and ‘discussing Netflix is the sign of a shallow mind’ folks are missing a big part of the socialization puzzle.

I can learn a lot about a person’s world views and temperament from how they talk about literature, art, movies and music.

Like, what do they focus on? Who do they hate? Why do they hate? Who do they love? Do they respectfully acknowledge other takes and opinions, even if those opinions and understandings do not change their overall preferences, or do they get angry if I disagree? If I like something they think is stupid, can they exist in its presence without grumping about how stupid it is and how vapid I am for liking it?

It’s a nicer and smoother way to interact and suss out important things than having to ask the direct “So, you know (insert minority group) are real people, right?” or “ You can handle disagreement without being verbally abusive, yes or no?

Spoiler

Example of “How We Discuss Things Matters!”

Does the Brony like the ponies because the ponies are for him and Applejack(?) is somehow the last bastion of all that is good about the South-and-Family-Values-TM**?

Or does a guy like the ponies because there’s heartwarming messages about how friendship is important and some of the songs are kind of catchy? Maybe has some fond memories of watching the show on a long ferry ride, and it’s stuck with him ever since?

Brony #1: Danger! Danger! This guy sucks! Get out now! Danger!

Brony #2: This guy might actually be okay.

** Why does this ping my confederate fanboy/white-supremacist radar SO HARD? Yikes, man. Just… Yikes.

Yikes.

*Doing this here AND in a spoiler block because I wanted to talk about how the way they talked about the show is illuminating, but didn’t want to make anyone hurting read me focusing up the wrong tree and ignoring them.

Last edited 24 days ago by Contrapangloss
Snowberry
Snowberry
24 days ago

Mostly irrelevant news: If you’re invested in Dogecoin, you might want to cash out soon before the bubble bursts.

Full Metal Ox
24 days ago

@Contrapangloss:

Given the specific example you chose, I take it you heard the latest about the FedEx shooter?

Contrapangloss
Contrapangloss
24 days ago

@Full Metal Ox

Yeah. I’ve a friend who just started at a different fedex location two weeks before the shooting, whose been a bit terrified because the motive was unknown and they were worried that their center would be next.

And David’s next post was timely.

I meant to have a cross-thread sign on the spoiler, don’t know how I goofed it.

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
24 days ago

Oh, come on. Kirk took down a planet-eater ferchrissakes, and could talk almost any other wayward robot or computer AI into switching itself off or self-destructing. And when that didn’t work, out came the phasers. Plus he had some great speeches. And as for Brussels sprouts, obviously they were selectively bred to be an instrument of torture for (bad) parents to inflict upon naughty children. There is no other remotely plausible explanation for why such horrors exist in the world, short of positing entities like Satan whose existence I do not consider at all plausible. 🙂

Contrapangloss
Contrapangloss
24 days ago

I see your planet killer, phasers, and arguing AI’s into self destructing. Those are quite fun. Maybe even convincing, perhaps!

I raise you the joy that is the classic Picard face-palm, the superior (in both scariness and nearly unfathomable obnoxiousness) “god-like” antagonist, and genuine character growth and change leading to the most satisfying button on the series finale compared to of all final episodes, everywhere.

Picard’s penultimate line just kicks me right in the feels, because it is a truth that has been built and won over seasons, and I love it so much. It is beautiful.

We both agree on Brussels sprouts though! They are truly a blight on the history of agriculture.

No offense to those of you who like them. You can have all mine! More for you, none for me!

Edited to add: sorry for the thread jacking. I apparently overflow with nonsense tonight.

Last edited 24 days ago by Contrapangloss
C.A.Collins
C.A.Collins
24 days ago

Best ST commander? Sisko, hands down. Sorry Picard fans. Sorry Kirk aficionados.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
24 days ago

Best ST commander? Sisko, hands down. Sorry Picard fans. Sorry Kirk aficionados.

Janeway just shakes her head and smiles slightly.

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
24 days ago

Sisko isn’t bad. Well, most of the time. He got pretty morally questionable in “In the Pale Moonlight”, as I recall.

On the other hand, Janeway is practically a female Kirk. Sometimes even using a hand phaser herself to fight off bad guys, pithy one-liners like “Time to take out the garbage”, and the only person known to have actually brought the Borg to the negotiating table. Maybe she belongs in the #2 spot, or it’s even a tie. 🙂

Contrapangloss
Contrapangloss
24 days ago

Well, my plot to keep the captain-off tightly limited to prevent me from having to make hard choices just went up in flames. Whoops!

I’m still a Picard, but deciding between the whole lot of them is difficult.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
24 days ago

Captain Saru

*drops mic*