|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 29 2014 01:23 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 23:10 urboss wrote:
Such people are mainly a product of a society where natural male aggression has basically no breathing room. Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already. People get angry, people have aggression and people should have outlets and express it. It isn't 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already.
People get angry, people have aggression and people don't have outlets to express it. It is 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
|
United States22883 Posts
You make it sound like we're neanderthals who should just go outside and beat things with a stick.
There's plenty of ways to express yourself, and I'm almost certain you're facing almost zero oppression in your life.
This reeks of more MRA bullshit. All you're doing is tying in pseudo-scientific evolutionary hogwash to justify the 'boys will be boys' defense. "It's just natural that men express themselves physically and violently!" If you want to take out aggression, go to the gym. Or simply relax instead. Either way, don't frame it as if it's an involuntary situation.
|
On May 29 2014 01:33 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 01:23 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 23:10 urboss wrote:
Such people are mainly a product of a society where natural male aggression has basically no breathing room. Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already. People get angry, people have aggression and people should have outlets and express it. It isn't 'natural male aggression' being oppressed. Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already. People get angry, people have aggression and people don't have outlets to express it. It is 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
What the fuck does that even mean? Natural agression being repressed? Is this some pseudoscience argument where someone claims that the modern world represses a mans "need" to fight? Does anyone make that argument with a straight face?
|
Introverts and psychorigid people don't express their anger in the same way than most people. They just EXPLODE.
|
On May 28 2014 21:44 seom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 16:22 SpikeStarcraft wrote:I dont keep track of all of those shootings in the US anymore. It happens so fucking often, like every 3-6 month? I looked up some statistics on wikipedia. List of school shootings in the USAApparently school shootings happen every week. There were 40 shootings alone in this year. Thats just so insane. some of those don't really count though, e.g. "a student was shot with a BB gun while on the campus of Grant High School. School officials say the shooting happened while the student was in the locker room on Thursday. The student suffered minor injuries."
10 school shootings this year with at least one death is still an every other week occurence in the US.
|
On May 29 2014 01:38 Jibba wrote:
There's plenty of ways to express yourself, and I'm almost certain you're facing almost zero oppression in your life.
Life is full of oppression. You have to respect the laws, you have to be polite, you have to work (or at least to earn money in some way) at some point people just get mad if they don't find some form of happiness or if they don't feel respected. Now obviously they are not always killing people to express their anger but still, i guess you get the idea. For some people ranting to their friends or on the internet (i.e: complaining) or even fighting back is just not enough because it will just get you more trouble most of the time. So they just wait... and explode :/
|
On May 29 2014 01:49 Boblion wrote:
Introverts and psychorigid people don't express their anger in the same way than most people. They just EXPLODE.
Well I'm 95% sure I'm an introvert, I'm betting a significant percentage on TL are as well. But I can tell you if I get angry I try to resolve it rather than let it build up, its just not a smart thing to let it continue under the surface. And I've had my fair share of anger inducing moments!
Really time is actually the best healer. A day of sleep can work wonders, and after a week most issues simply evaporate
edit: Those things you're talking about, respecting laws and so on are really not that big a deal as you think  . I don't think laws are really oppressive, most of the time those laws exist to protect your rights and at worst its just a bunch of regulatory paperwork. Work sucks but I think most people get used to it!
|
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
|
On May 29 2014 01:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 01:33 urboss wrote:On May 29 2014 01:23 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 23:10 urboss wrote:
Such people are mainly a product of a society where natural male aggression has basically no breathing room. Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already. People get angry, people have aggression and people should have outlets and express it. It isn't 'natural male aggression' being oppressed. Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already. People get angry, people have aggression and people don't have outlets to express it. It is 'natural male aggression' being oppressed. What the fuck does that even mean? Natural agression being repressed? Is this some pseudoscience argument where someone claims that the modern world represses a mans "need" to fight? Does anyone make that argument with a straight face?
It is my opinion and yes, I am having it with a straight face.
The oppression of male aggression is something that was in place since the beginning of time and is important for a society to function properly.
However, there are certain factors in modern society that have tilted the natural balance.
Can we draw any conclusions from that? - Better not.
|
On May 29 2014 01:58 radscorpion9 wrote:edit: Those things you're talking about, respecting laws and so on are really not that big a deal as you think . I don't think laws are really oppressive, most of the time those laws exist to protect your rights and at worst its just a bunch of regulatory paperwork. Work sucks but I think most people get used to it!
It is only oppressive when you start to think and realize that many people who climb the social ladder are "cheating"/lying and that the amount of "regulatory paperwork" is getting more important everyday.
Kaczynski, another guy who got really mad (but for different reason even if he couldn't get along with women) had something like 180 IQ.
Do you think he was just stupid ?
|
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
On May 29 2014 02:07 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 01:58 radscorpion9 wrote:edit: Those things you're talking about, respecting laws and so on are really not that big a deal as you think . I don't think laws are really oppressive, most of the time those laws exist to protect your rights and at worst its just a bunch of regulatory paperwork. Work sucks but I think most people get used to it! It is only oppressive when you start to think and realize that many people who climb the social ladder are "cheating"/lying and that the amount of "regulatory paperwork" is getting more important everyday. Kaczynski, another guy who got really mad (but for different reason even if he couldn't get along with women) had something like 180 IQ. Do you think he was just stupid ?
Well I just try to think of the average person, most of the people, and whether in their day to day lives what is more likely to cause them to be angry. Relationship issues, friendship problems, struggles at work, maybe personal crises...all of these seem much more probable than issues with the law, because the law for the most part does not interfere with your life except in special cases like maybe wanting to grow marijuana or say if you were a woman and wanted to be a prostitute but you see its illegal everywhere.
People lying and cheating on the way to the top is depressing too, but in comparison with a person's day to day life these are really overarching concerns about how society is ordered, for the most part people don't think about this.
And of course I am not implying that Kaczynski is dumb, he is obviously smarter than I could ever be if we trust the validity of IQ tests. But even smart people can make mistakes, they can be overwhelmed by their emotions just like anyone else. The human mind isn't really designed to be rational, that's the main problem. You have to try hard to make wise decisions and not act impulsively, and of course some people have brains that are wired differently from others in which its more difficult to restrain one's anger. Some may think they can handle it and then be mistaken
|
There is no 'root' to this problem and there is no reason to create a myth about the 'oppressed man' who can't exercise his beastly needs in our modern times or some crap like that. We're not apes for gods sake. We're living in societies of millions and billions of people. It's a statistical necessity that some people crack, there is no way to prevent that. And even if society was the problem, you won't get everyone laid and you can't prevent everyone from getting bullied.
It's way more reasonable to start looking for ways on how to stop people from putting their plans into motion, and among the most important would be as I said before, do something about Americas insane gun culture.
|
On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
|
On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
Things can be resolved by physical fighting, but if they are not ultimately caused (primarily) by that primeval urge as you put it, then its enough to discount the theory that we were initially debating. That is, there isn't a timer on the male psyche in which male aggression (naturally building on its own) is released and we have to find opportunities to release it in some safe setting. So that's all I would say...its just a fine distinction
|
On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
|
On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Did you read the manifesto? It's basically his life story. Based on the response, I will assume no. Semantics matter. It indicates clearly which groups his aggressions were aimed at. Rodgers' hate gravitated towards attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. Again, why does that matter? Those pretty girls were attracted to the guys who bullied him in the past.
What is "your community"? I didn't know I was a part of a PUA community. I have researched it greatly so I know what it is and what it isn't. Arrogance in ignorance isn't bliss. PUA is a social skillset to attract women better. That's it.
If you must know, I believe in progressing women's liberties. There are situations where there are clear oppression against women IN GENERAL and society should come together to break down those barriers. This isn't it.
Also throwing around passive aggressive insults doesn't give an opinion more value. It's a poor response and result in looking childish.
And "Jesus. Become an adult already." 
|
On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
|
On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.' Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
|
On May 29 2014 02:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it. That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
And yet its so effective.
On May 29 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.' Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas. this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that.
Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
|
On May 29 2014 02:48 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:43 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it. That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years. And yet its so effective.
Only at showing the person making the statement have a very limited understanding of what took place during that time and is making grand assumptions based on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
