NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Pecunium — to be fair, we did get some good sex jokes out of it (or at least the FWB and I did, “wait, is this *sex*?” being just hilarious in certain contexts) — but yeah, he should’ve done as you suggest if he could’ve, I’d thought it was an impeachment hearing though? And would thus have to be heard immediately? I might be way off on that though.
Anyways — Atty: Did you, President Clinton, ever allow Monica Lewinsky to fellate you?
Clinton: I plead the fifth
would’ve worked
I believe black was for your strawman because black is the color of death, and your strawman is a dead entity, or something like that.
As far as the impeachment goes, that was a subsequent trial, and the only charges were perjury and obstruction of justice for the testimony in the first case. So in fact, if he had never testified in the first place, there would never have been an impeachment.
“I believe black was for your strawman because black is the color of death, and your strawman is a dead entity, or something like that.” — yes, that’s it!
Re: Clinton, ah, ok, just more layers of legal idiocy then.
Why is anyone even trying to engage this particular troll? He’s both dumb as bricks and so sexist that he doesn’t realize that saying that men who refuse to accept a woman’s no are going to have more sex than men who do is a rapey tautology.
Also, is Motley Cruel Vince’s side project where he tortures live kittens on stage by singing at the very highest end of his register until they cry? By the way, since we’re on the subject, rock stars do not in general (other than the ones who actually are rapists) make women want to have sex by some mysterious method. In reality they have lots of sex with women who turned up already wanting to have sex with them – no persuasion required, just fame.
Cassandra — I’m bothering because someone is wrong on the internet! And in this one’s case, potentially dangerously wrong, I’ll consider it worth the effort if he actually reconsiders anything he said (namely the rapey parts, but really I’d settle for not misrepresenting me left and right).
Oh, and I’m incredibly stubborn XD
Before he gets back to say that fame getting rock stars sex = women fuck rich men, no, it’s a probability thing (and, at least in America, our obsession with celebrities) — but they’re famous, ergo they meet more people, ergo they’re more likely to meet people who want to have sex with them.
Argenti: Anyways — Atty: Did you, President Clinton, ever allow Monica Lewinsky to fellate you?
Clinton: I plead the fifth
would’ve worked
It wasn’t the impeachment the question about Lewinsky was asked in.
And pleading the fifth wouldn’t have worked. Not legally, since there was no criminal aspect to the question, and most importantly not politically.
It was in a deposition for a sexual harrassment case (civil) which was being paid for by people who had Clinton in their crosshairs; people who were getting stragic advice from the Ken Starr, who was the independent counsel investigating Clinton for everything under the sun; on the dubious legal theory that having been empowered to investigate one non-crime, he was allowed to investigate everything Clinton had ever been involved with.
Lying about the Lewinsky affair wouldn’t have been a crime.† Implying there was a criminal aspect to it would have put all the dogs baying; even worse than his being caught out in a non-lie did.
† and he didn’t, in the terms of the lawsuit being pursued, lie; at all. Sex had been defined in a way which excluded oral.
Pecunium — can we investigate Bush for anything we can name then? Please?
“Sex had been defined in a way which excluded oral.” — that was about all I got of it when it was happening, and is why we need to make our definitions clear. Eg troll here insisting that rape = force when I keep repeating that rape by coercion is a real thing.
We can still impeach him. There’s a pretty good case to be made he didn’t fulfill the requirements of the AUMF before he sent troops to Iraq. The Downing Street Memo makes it pretty clear he was fixing the intel. Things Condoleeza Rice said (demanding Hussein account for yellowcake we knew didn’t exist; because the Niger documents were such a blatant forgery), refusing to allow the UN Inspectors do their work… all of those are pretty plainly able to be used to justify a “high crimes and misdemeanors” charge.
That’s even before we get to the question of Valerie Plame.
But that one is a bit personal. If you’d like I can go through my archives and see where the things I wrote then are; but I’m not going to go off on a tear about that now.
Pecunium — perhaps later? This is probably not the place for that anyways. Definitely agreed on the whole “how do you prove you don’t have something?” problem though (and omgs welfare is putting me through that currently and I might start screaming over it)
One actually on topic note —
“MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: … I the the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.”
“I the the” should be “I think the” no?
*catching up with the thread*
Ok, well, THAT happened.
Thanks to everyone who posted interesting critiques of EP. I learned some things. Though this might not have been the most efficient way to learn those things.
This isn’t just a couple of buddies being described, this is a well documented phenomenon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/gops-primary-problem-would-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with-any-of-these-guys/2012/03/01/gIQAg95wkR_blog.html
(one of many, many links that come up in google)
I don’t think you have even an inkling of what this type of advertising is really about. Women attracted men long before makeup existed. Advertisers created a standard: you need to look this way or you have no value because ATTRACTING MEN IS YOUR ONLY VALUE. Men didn’t protest and women became convinced that it was their only option, so they conceded. It created a world in which some women go so above and beyond just accentuating their natural beauty and turn themselves into completely different people, oftentimes making themselves ugly to men. What this obsession does is consumes women, keeps their minds fixated on trivial things like having perfect hair, skin, clothes, etc, to keep them stupid. Advertising to women is much more insidious than you care to recognise. And until I see almost every man resorting to “game” tactics like almost every woman is convinced she has to wear makeup before she leaves the house, I’m not apt to compare the two. The only similarity is “do this to attract the opposite sex.” The major difference is that men are not taught that their worth lies in being attractive, but in being accomplished, so the PUA pitch is not nearly as damaging to a man’s sense of self worth.
Have you never heard of a cock block? Male friends turn women off pretty easily. Furthermore, if a female friend is “cock blocking,” it’s normally because she is observing aspects of the man’s personality that she finds to be dangerous and off putting. I thank my lucky stars for friends who are willing to do that. And hate me all you want, but I find it incredibly important to keep an eye on my girlfriends in bars and whatnot so that they have backup when they need it. And I have been thanked profusely by every woman who I’ve butted in for, normally saying, “He wouldn’t get the hint and go away.” Meanwhile, when it seems like my friend really likes the guy and he’s not giving off any rapey vibes, girl I’m all for it. But I will be available in the event that things change.
You don’t get what this desire to not be isolated from your group stems from because your privilege gets in the way of your empathy. It’s ingrained in women to stay safe, and blamed on us when we don’t and something happens to us. That’s something that men generally don’t fear. We are expected to look out for ourselves and our girlfriends.
And as for men isolating themselves, ehh, I would need to see this one to believe it. At least in the bars I frequent, men tend to come in groups and there is generally no way in hell I’m approaching a group of men if I’m interested in one of them. It’s too intimidating and for good reason: three men vs one woman, I’m not likely to win in the event that they have bad intentions.
Anyways, I just don’t think you get it. If you’re talking to a woman and she’s interested in you, odds are she’ll find an excuse to go off with you. If she doesn’t, she’s probably just being nice and too afraid to tell you to fuck off. So your tricks at isolating her are skeezy as hale. Learn to understand body language and social cues and you might not find yourself in these perplexing situations where you’re annoying some woman who is too polite to tell you to leave her alone.
The latter is called rape, JFC!
THis analogy doesn’t work because forcing someone (or coercing someone) to have sex with you is violent and invades their body whereas convinving someone to give you their money is not. We’re not talking about talking to someone who was kinda/not interested in sex but your general awesomeness turned her on, we’re talking about putting pressure on her to make her feel like she has to or there will be some consequence (which ranges from violence to just not leaving her alone and allowing her to remove herself from the pressure). I can walk away from a salesman, but when a guy has me cornered, all alone, drunk, and nervous, it’s a lot harder to walk away. I mean, there are all types of coercion, do some research.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone’s rights.
11.to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person’s privacy.
Believe it or not, it can be pretty easy to tell how someone will be in bed depending upon how they treat you. People who are self absorbed often suck in bed because they either:
1. Don’t give a shit about your pleasure and are only focused on their own
2. Are so focused on proving their worth by pleasuring you that they’re too distracted and worked up to actually pleasure you and you wind up having to fake it just to gtfo
It’s not a 100% guarantee, but there are plenty of cues to take into consideration. Generally people who respect and have interest in you want you to enjoy the experience and will listen to your imput so that, say they intially aren’t good, they can improve with some direction.
Thanks for using stereotypical gender roles to speak for all men while completely ignoring how much of this is learned behavior.
I’ve always completely disagreed with this, but I’m also kind of a bitch, so when I see people out dressed crazily I’m mostly just silently judging them/talking about them with my friends. Crazy clothes are an automatic deal breaker. Same with fedoras, and most hats in general. I just hate them, they’re awful.
You. need. to. study. privilege.
While money is a form of privilege, it is not the only privilege.
A rich black person is still more likely to be racially profiled than a white person(have you ever seen the Chris Rock joke about police having him convinced he stole his own car?)
A rich woman is still more likely to be raped/sexually assaulted than a man
A rich lgbt is still more likely to be assaulted for their sexuality/gender than a straight/cis person
Being rich makes life easier in some ways, it doesn’t erase systemic oppression
You don’t seem to understand the way that ingrained gender roles can influence behavior. Concepts that should’ve been out the window decades ago are still peddled to the modern day youth. It takes time for society to overcome stuff like this, which is why you still see racism, sexism, and homophobia today. As long as men and women are being taught to act a certain way, those actions are being reinforced by media and their peers, and few people challenge them, you aren’t going to see drastic changes in learned behavior.
There are so many conclusions to make about this that it’s absurd to assume that women are attracted to the money specifically. For example, maybe those men have the luxury of going out more, thus meeting more people, thus having more opportunities to find sex partners. When you’re worried about paying rent and keeping the lights on, going out to the bar or clubbing is usually not what you’re going to be able to spend your money on, and you’re probably going to be spending lots of nights in, not meeting new people.
Oh? That’s funny, because I see confidence in the men I meet being directly related to their looks and not their money. I have a friend who is pretty overweight and not traditionally attractive, but he has a really good job and makes decent money. He struggles to find dates. Meanwhile I recently met a man who had no job but was lean and traditionally attractive. His facebook profile shows women fawning all over him and him being super selective about the women he actually dates. That’s anecdata, but you keep speaking in absolutes and making generalizations that none of my life experience backs up, so I’m not just gonna take your word for this stuff.
Argenti:
I didnt speak of the Pope. The Pope wasnt even the subject of our discussion. I talked about PUA Adam being in the PUA hiearchy elected by popularity. Since he took his girlfriend to seminars where he was the main event and still Made Top 10 you claiming those seminars teach people they should not have a girlfriends is clearly wrong.
Do you really think it is realistic to claim people learn not to have girlfriends from a guy who has a girlfriend and bring her to the teaching seminars where he is top 10 in the world?
Btw If you dont want my responses on your blog just tell the people who discussed the subjects they can find my responsens at The Culture Commentary. If they want discussion they can respond there, or at Manboobz if they cant handle being on neutral turf. Neutral meaning TCC is not a blog where lots of my friends agree to anything I say.
Jessay:
Well men attracted women long before PUA existed, the point of both businesses are doing those things better and during a tougher situation. Neither are something new.
Advertisers created a standard? Citation?. Advertisers hardly created womens opinions. More likely womens opinions decided what works in advertising. You show something women dislike and they do not buy the product. Women do not buy whatever they are told.
This is also true in PUA. Anything I ever learned in PUA was written cause women were more attracted by it. Also you are overplaying the standard. Beauty is not told to be the only value women have, they are told its the best value. This means less work and more profit in evolutionary terms. However Soccer players being richer than guys in gymnastics doesnt mean guys having to be soccer players.
On the assumption women listen to men protesting at all Citation? Since when do women care men protesting anything? Men protesting are at best described as weak whiners and at worst women see any protest regarding women as against women. When men wanted women to wear longer skirts feminism wanted freedom for short skirts. When younger men starting to like short skirts and turning it into a business feminism wanted women to wear more clothes and Ariel Levy asking why liberation turned women into female chauvinists.
Yes and this correlates culturally with women getting more choice and power. It doesnt correlate with countries where women have less choice and power. This is called “The sexual paradox” Thus the women in the world doesnt empirically support your theory the reason for their behavior is having less power.
Yes and the more power women have the more of these things are observed. Its clearly not correlating the way feminists have believed. However feminist theory seem to work the same way as advertising. If they say things women like there is no demand for empirical support. You could never be in feminist theory and tell women that women have power to do things cause women would chose not to listen.
This is off course nothing New. Daphne Patai have already presented the problem.
Care to give a citation on this? I personally dont think any feminist scholars ever need empirical correlation and I also dont think women would accept feminist theory having wrong explanations. Same as in advertising I dont think women buy stuff they do not like and you have presented nothing that indicates they do.
Those are not comparable. You are confusing the normal things (women do make up, men do pickup/dating) with the modern extreme things (some women do extreme appearance-change some men do PUA) Also you dont take into account higher number of women want fewer number of guys.
“Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent”
This means a larger number of women than men will compete against eachother cause a larger number of men are considered worthless losers and arent even in the competition.
In what way is that better? More people can be good at being beautiful than at being successful thus a larger number of women can be attractive than is possible for men. Thus most women go for the 10% best guys. For the women it seems to be great being a guy.
Dude, you said that you were leaving. Begone! Does anyone have some banishing incense handy?
Arkitvarum: Nope. You bring the subject up here, you get to talk about it here. If you think a place you own, when you describe a place no one here but Dave can do anything to a post as one where we are engaging in “censorship”† because we insist on reading your words and comparing them to themselves, and you haven’t got the intellectual honesty to support your claims; hell you can’t even keep the same claim from one sentence to the next.
Why in the name of all that’s holy; when this is as close to “neutral ground” as you are going to get. I, nor Argenit, nor Jessay, nor Ithliliana, nor Cloudiah, nor anyone (but Dave) can do anything to anyone else’s words. And the banhammer here comes for personal attacks. So far you’ve avoided that.
So thanks, but I’ll stay here, rather than try to beard the jackal in his lair.
† which isn’t, “He won’t let me talk”, it ‘s a gov’t refusing you the right to speak at all. You can still say black people are lazy, and jews are money grubbing thieves but you can’t say it in my living room. That’s not censorship. When the gov’t throws you in jail, or cuts out your tongue for saying something, that’s censorship.
It’s an important difference
Anyone looked (speaking of a Man Going his Own Way” at Varpole recently?
…well, I’m totally down with outlandish and colorful clothes. I think they look awesome. And a dude dressed as a peacock certainly catches my eye. So, mission accomplished! When you dress funny you signal to those who dislike flamboyant dress that you’re not their type, and you signal to me that you’re my type.
Ish. I’m not down with dudes who are disrespectful to women. Anything out of the PUA handbook in a conversation, particularly negs, and you are right out.
I love flamboyant clothes (and hair), but the PUA version of eye-catching catches the eye in all the wrong ways. It doesn’t read as unique and interesting, it reads as do you not own a mirror?
It’s cute that this little fart wants citations for everything.
PUAs mostly look like they got lost on the way to a rave.
After stumbling out of a time machine.
(Not in a fun way, in a “the 90s want their accessories back” way.)
Pecunium:
How would I know? This is what was written earlier.
Thus I gave the link to reply in case people here dont let comments up. Simple as that. now to your response.
Pecunium:
It do not agree cause being persuaded to want it is the exact same as being made (by method of persuasion) to want it. This as opposed to being made to want it by any other method also being the cause of you wanting something. You wanting something imply consent. Choices however often involve a tradeoff where you get what you want by doing something you dont want. For instance jobs often involve getting money by doing stuff people would not do were they not paid. And women often have sex with a guy earlier than they would like cause they want to be treated special.
This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all. For example there was a reality TV-show where a couple become boyfriend-girlfriend. She however wanted to wait with sex. The TV-company wanted action so they sent in a supermodel in the show to put the moves on him and make his girlfriend want to have sex. This is also what happened. By the logic you have used she was “raped” cause seeing another woman showing interest in her boyfriend made her change her plans and have sex sooner.
I decide what is of value in my relationships – same as everyone else. When we first meet her being interested in me is her seeing value in me and likewise. Then after sex same thing when deciding if we wanna keep seeing eachother. The main difference here is women are harder on men in the first decision for sex while men are harder on women for the second decision on relationships. Research will tell you when men are scarce, women have more casual sex. When women are scarce, men spend a more time on courting them before getting to bed and less causal sex happens.
As I said on Manboobz “Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones.”
“W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, which is 57 percent female, put it this way: “When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message.”
Not at all. Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all. First if we are attracted we meet and have sex. Then if she likes me, she wants to keep seeing me, If i like her I want to keep seeing her. Thats called equality! We will then be seeing eachother and see what happens. The entire point of your argument seem to be the old situation where people date first – and then maybe have sex.
Also being too interested before sex doesnt help guys at all. One of the most common reasons women give for not wanting sex is “he seemed desperate”
I dont agree. I am talking about me and her having sex. Me getting sex and her getting sex is perfectly moral and equal. Her using sex to get me to do things I dont want to would be less moral. If I like her i wanna keep seeing her, and there is no gurantee she will say yes cause she might not wanna keep seeing me. She cant demand I wanna see her, I cant demand she wanna see me. Nobody is used, we are just having fun together and seeing where things are going.
I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem). However if that was the case she would not wanna keep seeing me after having sex with me so where would the problem be even if this was true? It doesnt seem to help your argument at all.
That is relative attraction being measured. Which means comparing A, B and C and girls getting to choose who are more/less attractive. However they dont know what is also studied is whether girls decide who is more attractive based on picture alone or using information provided althoug not a part of the task.
Yes I do, however I also assume people reading are objective and if people reply to their own interpretations more than the material I provided. This kind is commented here:
“What a language with its gender system means is what people use it to mean. It is an evil principle to think that we can tell other people what they mean by what they say, because of some theory we have that makes it mean something in particular to us, even when they obviously mean something else. Nevertheless, there is now a common principle, in feminism and elsewhere (especially flourishing in literary criticism), that meaning is only in the response of the interpreter, not in the mind of the speaker”
Not at all, you are ignoring the context. I compared test A with prof. Conleys test B and told you test B doesnt work cause people dont know how they react to such things and when they happen people do not even have the time to think about half the things in the test. Also I explained Conleys idea of EP is wrong cause according to EP guys use visual cues to decide the age of a woman, knowing her age would not matter. Also women take cues of high status from guys behavior, this is the point of the subject PUA.
Where am i supposed to have said that? What I do say is feminists have some good ideas but bad unrealistic methods. Most times people talk of feminism they said “feminists wants…or feminists are against” Meaning the ideas. Even if I believe those claims they do not tell me in what ways things are supposed to happen.
*stumbles out of a time machine* Egads! What forsaken world have I landed in?
“I didnt speak of the Pope. The Pope wasnt even the subject of our discussion.”
It would appear I’ve stumbled into an era that no longer understands how to properly clarify antecedents! When you are speaking with someone, and they say something like “I don’t care if he’s the pope” and then you reply without clarifying who the “he” in your statement is, alas, the only logical conclusion is you meant the same “he” that they did — the pope.
“Do you really think it is realistic to claim people learn not to have girlfriends from a guy who has a girlfriend and bring her to the teaching seminars where he is top 10 in the world?”
What manner of era is this, where people argue that one relationship disproves what they just said about relationships in general?
“This is an absurd statement! Rape means she doesnt want sex at all.”
Is this time of yours one where taking advantage of people is acceptable, desired even, if the person gives any sign they’re interested, or simply no sign strong enough that they aren’t? Tell me, in this strange land of yours, is there even an indicator, besides violence, that is strong enough to signal that your partner isn’t interested? This is one very odd era, where people who I assume have not just stumbled out of a time machine cannot check legal citations but lo! my misplaced time traveling self can! It would appear that in your time a woman can want sex, and change her mind during the act and it still be rape, amazing time this is!
“Thats more you assuming I would decide whether to keep her of dump her before even having her at all.”
Ah but you do still own your women, times haven’t changed that much I see, too bad I cannot report back to the good Queen Victoria on this matter, she’d be most intrigued.
“I really dont care replying personal attacks (ad hominem).”
Oh but it would appear that your Latin is sorely lacking, for woe is me but that is not what ad hominem means. It would appear this wondrous thing called “wikipedia” has definitions right at your fingertips, simple amazing that, and, as could be clear from the words argumentum ad hominem, this mean an argument against the person, instead of arguing against their thoughts — mere name calling does not an ad hominem make, you peddler of fish!
“Yes I do, however I also assume people reading are objective and if people reply to their own interpretations more than the material I provided.”
Thou speaks of objectivity whilst also discussing how people reply, yet how people reply is quite obviously a subjective standard. Tell me, is this strange time of yours ruled by the Church of England and people now dare ignore the Church’s proclamations of objective standards? Blasphemy!
CassandraSays — thank you, that was quite fun!
And sorry to anyone my Church of England crack may’ve offended (I’m hoping any religious people reading along will note that the point is about humans never being objective and it’ll make sense)