Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Southern]

Pretty fucking convenient that "whites don't have a traditional ancestral culture, and black people/other minority groups can never be accused of racism for stealing from it."

My ancestry includes Polish, German, Scots-Irish and English. I bet I could find any number of things associated with those cultures which people of other races have stolen. But the thing is, I'm not a racist, so I don't actually care. Only racists care about shit like that.

Getting angry about white people with dreadlocks is like getting angry that a black guy likes reading comics about Thor.

True story from my side: my mother's family is 100% Germanic-descending people (probably Nazis, since I'm posting in this forum). My dad's family, however, is a mess of genes from all around the place, but definitely contains Native-Brazilian blood - my dad has a darker skin and I happen to have a hint of squinted eyes. Apparently, one of my great-grandmothers was a 100% Native-Brazilian person.

So there you have it: I'm the Slymepit equivalent of Caine Le Injun du Mal. But since I'm actually from a Third World country, I'm also more underprivileged than her, the spoiled little First World rat-lover. Thereby I declare the Slymepit the winner in the Social Justice Olympics, the Pharyngulites can all suck my half-Injun cock and if they don't like it, I'll call them racists and cultural appropriators and I'll toss my surlies on their privileged faces.

Pwned.

[Angry_Drunk]

Not to distract from whitey appropriatin' all the cultures, but this is how you deal with a creepy advance...or I suppose you could just whine on Youtube about it:

http://kotaku.com/creep-stalks-hot-topi ... 1531006164

He describes himself as a "nice guy"? Hooo boy ... not surprised her clam slammed shut faster than a clam snapping shut. :lol:

Ignore what women say people, just observe what actually floats their boat. Learn game instead of listening to them.

I imagine that her "clam snapped shut" when some random creepy fuckwit messaged her out of the blue...or is that too feminist a theory for ya'?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Schala

The description of sex as purely procreative belongs to animals unable to talk and think for themselves, where their categories mean very little in and of themselves. All cats are taught to do clean themselves, be ‘hygienic’ in the bathroom sense, and to hunt, regardless of their sex, as kittens, by their parent(s). They don’t have a notion that men ought to toughen up, stop crying, and women ought to be princesses.

The description doesn't belong to them, it applies to them, and it also applies to us. That's what makes it the more fundamental description, the fact that it is older and more general. You are trying to tell me that the fact that we have formed ideas about sex, somehow changes the underlying reality of what it is physically, and how it came to be. It doesn't . We formed identities related to sexual reproduction because its a real phenomenon and we do it. If we reproduced by budding we wouldn't have the ideas about men needing to stop crying or women being princesses because "male and female" would be an odd factoid from biology class.

The neurological seat of identity has primacy because it’s the only thing that ultimately matters to the individual.

Reality isn't determined by what matters to you or anyone else.

Trans people who are brains-in-a-vat would still identify as their neurological sex. Because the body they have (outside the brain part) and its capacity for reproduction is immaterial to how they are and who they are.

Has anyone actually done that experiment? This seems suspiciously like an "argument from something unverifiable that I pulled out of my ass".

I blame people for calling it gender identity in the first place. It was a stupid name, it brings to mind notions of masculinity, feminity, pink and machoness. Sex identity is more like it. It has to do with identifying as male or female. Nothing to do with gender roles.

And I don’t need any surgeries to be female. I have what people call a penis. Still female. I don’t have ovaries, and have what appears to be normally formed testis producing normal amounts of testosterone normally, I have a 46, XY karyotype. I’m still female. Because my brain says so. It’s not a mental illness. It’s not a delusion. It’s not schizophrenia. And its not about pretending.

I don't view any aspect of my identity as "delusion" or "pretending", but that doesn't mean it overrides my basic biology. If I identified myself as a paramecium, I would still have to concede that, yes I do have more than one cell in my body.

It may be that trans women, have brains that are actually neurologically closer to those (or even indistinguishable from those) of cis women. That would argue for the existence of more sex categories, not the invalidity of existing sex categories, or the invalidity of talking about sex as a fundamentally reproductive phenomenon. That sort of thing is expected in biology as complexity builds. It could be that there are two reproductive sexes in humans that coexist with two neurological sexes, and then some intersex catagories, whereas rats have only two reproductive sex categories and some intersex categories. On the other hand, I don't think you know whether your brain is more like a cis female brain or a cis male brain. That is a scientific question, and AFAIK there isn't a scientific consensus for it.

Plunking this down over here for safe keeping. In case this response is judged to be over the line.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014 ... ment-48045

LMAO. :clap:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

A Virginia Republican Party official is in trouble for his use of the word "twat", which he claims to have thought had the same meaning as "twaddle":

[.img]http://media.hamptonroads.com/cache/fil ... 182181.jpg[/img]

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/va-gop- ... e-lawmaker

:lol:

Just as funny as the day I told my ex wife what the word "frig" meant. Bless her heart she was a product of Grenville Christian College as an overseas student.

Short for frigate, of course.

My German mother-in-law said to to me once, 'Matt, I can always tell when you're really angry.' How, so, I asked. 'Because then you use that fug word.' She decided she'd start using it, too, until I told her what it meant.

[Angry_Drunk]

Without attempting to diminish the feelings of the transgendered and the fact that they feel a real disconnect between their self-image and their biology --- it strikes me that one of the fundamental flaws of the younger generation is they took the standard parental encouragement "you can grow up to be anything you want to be" as the literal truth.

Me, I identify as trans-Batman.

[Dave]

A Virginia Republican Party official is in trouble for his use of the word "twat", which he claims to have thought had the same meaning as "twaddle":

http://media.hamptonroads.com/cache/fil ... 182181.jpg

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/va-gop- ... e-lawmaker

:lol:

Hmmm.... So is he too dumb to realize that "twat" is considered an offensive term by many and inappropriate for a public official to use anywhere it might possibly be overheard or is he too dumb to know what the word means?

Judging by the many Party officials I know in both parties, I suspect the answer is, "Yes."

[welch]

Which nicely brings us full-circle to the shit-fit Stormfront had when Heimdall was played by Idris Elba.

or the current shitfit about a black Human Torch.

Not that Fox would have the stones to do this, but it would be hilarious if at some point someone in the movie asks "Are you two adopted, or step-siblings?" to which Sue and Johnny respond "Nope".

Because invisibility and flying flame-people is less implausible than two siblings having different levels of melanin.

totally, and that would be hiLARious.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Here is David Silverman's detailed explanation of his "conservatism"

In case some of you have questions about the American Conservative article, yes, I once considered myself a conservative. I don't anymore, because I'm only conservative fiscally - socially I'm a liberal.

Ah, he's a Libertarian. Isn't that something they gave Shermer enormous shit about?

Silly, us pitters are all libertarians!

[welch]

Not to distract from whitey appropriatin' all the cultures, but this is how you deal with a creepy advance...or I suppose you could just whine on Youtube about it:

http://kotaku.com/creep-stalks-hot-topi ... 1531006164

He describes himself as a "nice guy"? Hooo boy ... not surprised her clam slammed shut faster than a clam snapping shut. :lol:

Ignore what women say people, just observe what actually floats their boat. Learn game instead of listening to them.

I imagine that her "clam snapped shut" when some random creepy fuckwit messaged her out of the blue...or is that too feminist a theory for ya'?

But, but I saw in a movie once, that this is what women like. I mean, I even found a boom box and a peter gabriel tape thing that will play in it. WHAT MORE DOES SHE WANT FROM ME???

[Dave]

Without attempting to diminish the feelings of the transgendered and the fact that they feel a real disconnect between their self-image and their biology --- it strikes me that one of the fundamental flaws of the younger generation is they took the standard parental encouragement "you can grow up to be anything you want to be" as the literal truth.

Me, I identify as trans-Batman.

I identify as trans-deity.

That you do not accept my self-identity as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and deny my right to reign for ever and ever is a burthen which is not light.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

How timely: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/opinion/m ... ?hpt=hp_t4

I notice the author distinguishes himself from poseurs (pretendians) that claim amerind ancestry.

As a Native American, a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and someone who participates in the Native American community and doesn't just claim to be Native American because I have a picture somewhere of a great-grandma who had high cheekbones, I wonder: Hey NFL, why aren't you just as pissed about the R-word?

Wait! He couldn't possibly referring to his Oglala Lakota bloodsister Inaji could he?

He's referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, Massachusetts), who claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee (or 1/64 Cherokee and 1/64 Delaware, depending on when she tells the story) based on what her batty aunt told her about a photo of her uncle and his high cheekbones.

Warren listed herself on Federal forms as "native american" even though she did not legally qualify for that designation. Her employer, Harvard, even boasted they'd hired a "person of color."

Turns out Warren is 32/32nds white.

[JacquesCuze]

Not to distract from whitey appropriatin' all the cultures, but this is how you deal with a creepy advance...or I suppose you could just whine on Youtube about it:

http://kotaku.com/creep-stalks-hot-topi ... 1531006164

He describes himself as a "nice guy"? Hooo boy ... not surprised her clam slammed shut faster than a clam snapping shut. :lol:

Ignore what women say people, just observe what actually floats their boat. Learn game instead of listening to them.

I imagine that her "clam snapped shut" when some random creepy fuckwit messaged her out of the blue...or is that too feminist a theory for ya'?

Huh?

I have been led to believe that among the social media set that messaging friends of friends and other people out of the blue was totally acceptable.

And I've been led to believe that asking people you know, "do you know who that cute guy/girl/otherkin is who works at Hot Topics" was again, totally cool and how people have met and introduced themselves to others for 1000s of years. Isn't that called, "networking" and encouraged when the object is to find a job, sell a product, make an introduction?

Yes, often it's nice to have your common acquaintance make the introduction, but I've never seen that was the rule, or else "CREEPY!".

So he sent her an advance she didn't like. She could chose any of:

[] sorry, not interested
[] block
[] silent ignore
[] flame

She first chose passive aggressive, then went for aggressive.

That makes him the creep.

[Tony Parsehole]

Without attempting to diminish the feelings of the transgendered and the fact that they feel a real disconnect between their self-image and their biology --- it strikes me that one of the fundamental flaws of the younger generation is they took the standard parental encouragement "you can grow up to be anything you want to be" as the literal truth.

Me, I identify as trans-Batman.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l1lyn ... o1_400.jpg

[AndrewV69]

But, but I saw in a movie once, that this is what women like. I mean, I even found a boom box and a peter gabriel tape thing that will play in it. WHAT MORE DOES SHE WANT FROM ME???

What movie? American Psycho for example is not really what I would recommend as a template for how to pass as normal.

*sheesh*

[Service Dog]

Hi. Missed you all. Hugs, if you want them.

I traded the Pit for Tinder & got swept way-out into the frothy undertow.

Like any saltwater-addled castaway, I'm back with improbable news of distant shores. Namely, this:

Tinder will be the last nail in the SJWs' vampire coffin.

According to my findings, there's a whole world of girls-with-daddy-issues out there, and I remind them of Dennis Hopper. yeah, they all believe in astrology... but that also means they 'sense' I don't need to wear a condom. Abbie's gonna cure herpes real soon, anyway, so... no problem. I mean, if you're gonna be all anti-woo hardliner about a little astrological emotional-reasoning, then feel free to join Justin Vacula at the next Women In Secularism & have fun with the kind of wimmin who accessorize with Surly Amy turds.

[welch]

He describes himself as a "nice guy"? Hooo boy ... not surprised her clam slammed shut faster than a clam snapping shut. :lol:

Ignore what women say people, just observe what actually floats their boat. Learn game instead of listening to them.

I imagine that her "clam snapped shut" when some random creepy fuckwit messaged her out of the blue...or is that too feminist a theory for ya'?

Huh?

I have been led to believe that among the social media set that messaging friends of friends and other people out of the blue was totally acceptable.

not like that it's not. That's not "Hey, i hope this isn't crossing a line, but I bought some stuff at hot topic from you the other day, and you seemed kinda busy. I found out we both know <person> so I asked them what your name is. If you'd like, maybe we could do lunch some place you like sometime? If not, that's cool, thanks anyway."

and then you let it go until she responds, or not. Read the link. That fucker's not "kind" of clingy, he's HIGHLY clingy, and he's already talking about "worshiping" her and she doesn't even know who the fuck this is. Oh, and he lied about how he found her on facebook. Good job there sonny, way to make a low-pressure intro.

And I've been led to believe that asking people you know, "do you know who that cute guy/girl/otherkin is who works at Hot Topics" was again, totally cool and how people have met and introduced themselves to others for 1000s of years. Isn't that called, "networking" and encouraged when the object is to find a job, sell a product, make an introduction?

When you meet a woman in a bar or on a beach, do you follow her around asking her to talk to you, telling her she's a real life version of some nerd chick, and that you'd worship her, even though you're not much? Or do you initiate a convo and if you get the "not interested vibe", fuck off and leave her alone? There's a difference, and even in person, a full court dork press like that is going to be creepy.

Yes, often it's nice to have your common acquaintance make the introduction, but I've never seen that was the rule, or else "CREEPY!".

It helps to not be thought of as creepy if you're not being needy and creepy yourself. That dude was being con-nerd creepy as fuck.

So he sent her an advance she didn't like. She could chose any of:

[] sorry, not interested
[] block
[] silent ignore
[] flame

She first chose passive aggressive, then went for aggressive.

He didn't send her 'an' advance, by the time she told him to fuck off, he'd sent her *eight* advances, with the ever popular "you ever gonna message me back" whine. He could have:

[] Been honest about how he got her info
[] Not been a whiny little creep
[] Not gotten bitchy when she didn't answer back fast enough
[] Not keep messaging her over and over and poking her and all the rest of that needy shit

He chose to instead be a whiny tit, go full on Con-Creep, and then get bitchy because she won't talk to him, after all, he's such a "nice guy".

Oh yeah, he's totes not at fault here.

That makes him the creep.

Him being a creepy little fucker makes him a creep. She should have just blocked his dumb ass and ignored him, and told her boss that if he came in again, someone else needed to help him because he's a creepy little fucker, then reamed her friend out for not warning her, at the very least, that he'd given her info to his creepy-assed friend.

Wah, her explanation was unkind. Well, he needed the romantic fiction slapped the fuck out of him, she gave it a good try.

He was being creepy as hell, I'm not surprised at all by her reaction. He could have chosen not to be creepy, needy, and whiney. He chose poorly.

[Satan]

The other word for it is "bullying".

I have a pet theory that one of the appeals of SJWism to young people--especially young women--is that it gives them social permission to bully others long after they've reached an age where bullying is considered socially inappropriate.

The inside of an SJW's mind isn't something I try to imagine much, so I'm not sure how true it is, but SJWism as bullying permission fits the pattern that SJWs are mental children who never grew up to match their chronological age.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Not to distract from whitey appropriatin' all the cultures, but this is how you deal with a creepy advance...or I suppose you could just whine on Youtube about it:

http://kotaku.com/creep-stalks-hot-topi ... 1531006164

I very much disagree that's the right way to react. Yes, the guy was awkward and came across as somewhat pushy and clingy (though he did space out his messages) to observers, but people don't necessarily realize these things in the heat of the moment. And who wouldn't be a little anxious in these situations, talking to a crush? There was nothing he did that invalidated his claim of being a nice guy. What she did was inexcusably rude and demonstrates female privilege. Women are expected to be the choosy sex, and they are socially rewarded for rejecting advances from men they have no immediate attraction to.

And then some women have the gall to cry, "Where have all the good men gone?" In the bin where they trashed all the hearts they stomped over.

As any conscientious student of sociolinguistics knows, women climbing social ladders are one primary driver of language change. Women from rural communities tend to adopt urbane speech patterns in order to marry up and out. The result is that peasant men are left without a future prospect. This has happened in places like Austria-Hungary and China: China, where men outnumber women, and urbane women complain about there being no good men left.

Where are the feminists fighting the good fight for MRAs?

</sister punisher rant>

[ROBOKiTTY]

[youtube]hbeEuYAZFL4[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

I imagine that her "clam snapped shut" when some random creepy fuckwit messaged her out of the blue...or is that too feminist a theory for ya'?

Huh?

I have been led to believe that among the social media set that messaging friends of friends and other people out of the blue was totally acceptable.

And I've been led to believe that asking people you know, "do you know who that cute guy/girl/otherkin is who works at Hot Topics" was again, totally cool and how people have met and introduced themselves to others for 1000s of years. Isn't that called, "networking" and encouraged when the object is to find a job, sell a product, make an introduction?

Yes, often it's nice to have your common acquaintance make the introduction, but I've never seen that was the rule, or else "CREEPY!".

So he sent her an advance she didn't like. She could chose any of:

[] sorry, not interested
[] block
[] silent ignore
[] flame

She first chose passive aggressive, then went for aggressive.

That makes him the creep.

You forgot the "nuke from orbit" option.

The thing is, he apparently did not approach her in real life when he had the chance to try and build attraction first, and then followup on that.

Instead, from what I made out he put her on a pedestal, elevated her to a godess and did everything but wash her feet with his tongue from afar, and then aproached her online in full on obsessive mode as her toilet slave.

The issue with the nuclear rejection she handed him is that that sort of unjustified adoration IMO could just as easily turn 190 degrees in the other direction. Do not ask me how she should have handled it other than NOT doing it that way. If the guy is unstable then it could end badly.

*shrug*

YMMV

[Guestus Aurelius]

Not to distract from whitey appropriatin' all the cultures, but this is how you deal with a creepy advance...or I suppose you could just whine on Youtube about it:

http://kotaku.com/creep-stalks-hot-topi ... 1531006164

I very much disagree that's the right way to react. Yes, the guy was awkward and came across as somewhat pushy and clingy (though he did space out his messages) to observers, but people don't necessarily realize these things in the heat of the moment. And who wouldn't be a little anxious in these situations, talking to a crush? There was nothing he did that invalidated his claim of being a nice guy. What she did was inexcusably rude and demonstrates female privilege. Women are expected to be the choosy sex, and they are socially rewarded for rejecting advances from men they have no immediate attraction to.

And then some women have the gall to cry, "Where have all the good men gone?" In the bin where they trashed all the hearts they stomped over.

As any conscientious student of sociolinguistics knows, women climbing social ladders are one primary driver of language change. Women from rural communities tend to adopt urbane speech patterns in order to marry up and out. The result is that peasant men are left without a future prospect. This has happened in places like Austria-Hungary and China: China, where men outnumber women, and urbane women complain about there being no good men left.

Where are the feminists fighting the good fight for MRAs?

</sister punisher rant>

I thought she overreacted and was unnecessarily mean about it, but he was definitely being creepy and dishonest. Deserved to be called out for that behavior.

[JacquesCuze]

I have been led to believe that among the social media set that messaging friends of friends and other people out of the blue was totally acceptable.

not like that it's not. That's not "Hey, i hope this isn't crossing a line, but I bought some stuff at hot topic from you the other day, and you seemed kinda busy. I found out we both know <person> so I asked them what your name is. If you'd like, maybe we could do lunch some place you like sometime? If not, that's cool, thanks anyway."

and then you let it go until she responds, or not. Read the link. That fucker's not "kind" of clingy, he's HIGHLY clingy, and he's already talking about "worshiping" her and she doesn't even know who the fuck this is. Oh, and he lied about how he found her on facebook. Good job there sonny, way to make a low-pressure intro.

So I certainly am not the go to person to ask how facebook introductions work, but I do know I've been guilty of the "of course your approach didn't work, of course you should do this instead" when there is no actual evidence one approach was measurably different from the other. But I agree, he wasn't as smooth as you or I would have been. Later on, you'll also discuss how she should have behaved, and I will agree with that too. But we don't always have these perfect cases to discuss, usually it's a mix of crapola that facebook gives us.

In his defense, his "clingyness" (described by Kotaku as creepy and stalking) was the entire contents of a week long conversation on Facebook to which she responded intermittently. Asking for more information at times, and then just going silent.

This wasn't a conversation that took place over 24 hours.
This wasn't the canonical conversation that starts out "Hello", is never ever answered and ends up 60 minutes later "F YOU F YOU F YOU!".

So he sent her an advance she didn't like. She could chose any of:

[] sorry, not interested
[] block
[] silent ignore
[] flame

She first chose passive aggressive, then went for aggressive.

He didn't send her 'an' advance, by the time she told him to fuck off, he'd sent her *eight* advances, with the ever popular "you ever gonna message me back" whine. He could have:

[] Been honest about how he got her info
[] Not been a whiny little creep
[] Not gotten bitchy when she didn't answer back fast enough
[] Not keep messaging her over and over and poking her and all the rest of that needy shit

He chose to instead be a whiny tit, go full on Con-Creep, and then get bitchy because she won't talk to him, after all, he's such a "nice guy".

Oh yeah, he's totes not at fault here.

She is talking to him sporadically over that week, and even after his "creepiest" "worship" post, two days later she responds to him again and with a question.

Oh well, there are more interesting things out there to have lulz over. Adria Richards reported some dude who tweeted "donglegate" at her as abusive.

[AndrewV69]

Not to distract from whitey appropriatin' all the cultures, but this is how you deal with a creepy advance...or I suppose you could just whine on Youtube about it:

http://kotaku.com/creep-stalks-hot-topi ... 1531006164

I very much disagree that's the right way to react. Yes, the guy was awkward and came across as somewhat pushy and clingy (though he did space out his messages) to observers, but people don't necessarily realize these things in the heat of the moment. And who wouldn't be a little anxious in these situations, talking to a crush? There was nothing he did that invalidated his claim of being a nice guy. What she did was inexcusably rude and demonstrates female privilege. Women are expected to be the choosy sex, and they are socially rewarded for rejecting advances from men they have no immediate attraction to.

Welp, as I said in a different post there may be a more pragmatic reason to not go full Setar on his sorry ass cause it could end badly for her in the end. Then to top it off this gets posted on the interwebs so it could look like malice to a certain person.

And then some women have the gall to cry, "Where have all the good men gone?" In the bin where they trashed all the hearts they stomped over.

A common manosphere trope is that most guys are invisible except as a utility to most women. They got their sights on a "hunky millionaire who moonlights as a gardener" (who will suddenly fall in love with her (only her cause she is special) and wisk her away on his private jet to some tropical island and ... ) and anything else is "settling".

As any conscientious student of sociolinguistics knows, women climbing social ladders are one primary driver of language change. Women from rural communities tend to adopt urbane speech patterns in order to marry up and out. The result is that peasant men are left without a future prospect. This has happened in places like Austria-Hungary and China: China, where men outnumber women, and urbane women complain about there being no good men left.

Where are the feminists fighting the good fight for MRAs?

</sister punisher rant>

I dunno nofing 'bout sociolinguistics but I suspect that males as a surplus to requirements seems to have repercussions in the past. Some of them unpleasant too.

[Za-zen]

The SJW mind (rebecca watson pop talk coming, so forget everything i say as made up bullshit when you finish the read):

The most important thing to understand is that the SJW in its natural habitat cannot grasp how a person can exist without identity tags. Tags are what define your personhood, and more importantly how the SjW can define your personhood for you. Without tags you don't exist, as to the SjW mind all things which aren't coded as realities in SjW101 are constructs.

Realities to the SJW mind are the tags with which one is labeled or self describes. Think "i identify therefore i am". This may appear to be paradoxical at first glance, trust me it isn't. The paradox is a construct.

Many amateur observers believe the SjW to be a self flagellant, masochistic in nature, displaying many key indicators of a depressive. This, for the majority of the herd is a misdiagnosis. Their behaviour, whilst frenzied amidst the pack, is highly indicative of lower order social animals in competition.

Their mating rituals involve a curious game of cat and mouse, where one must cum before consent is withdrawn, the other must withdraw consent before the cumming can take place, in order to gain the most orgasmic of tags, "one who did not consent".

Chapter 2 to follow.

[guest]

Does anyone know what happened to Skeptically Yours / Ardent Atheist?

I am right in thinking they stopped around the time they were "meant" to mention the Shermer contributor$ in Oct 2013?

I asked on the FB page and they said that they were busy on other projects but hoped to get back into it soon (going from memory). I recently listened to the last ones to catch up and Emery mentioned some video/editing work. I gather there is something in the works, but haven't looked into it in a month or so (IIRC)

They did Brian Dunnings music video or helped with it.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Most of the people who reject the idea of female privilege or refuse that anything needs to be done about it in the dating game appear to be either single women, who have a major stake in keeping the status quo or men in relationships, who have a stake in keeping the status quo so that their status continues to mean something.

Even single men who expect (or hope) not to remain single for long have a minor stake in keeping the game rigged, so they can glory in their status when (or if ever) they get there.

Only egalitarians and foreveralones want change, but this may not be a winnable fight.

[welch]

I have been led to believe that among the social media set that messaging friends of friends and other people out of the blue was totally acceptable.

not like that it's not. That's not "Hey, i hope this isn't crossing a line, but I bought some stuff at hot topic from you the other day, and you seemed kinda busy. I found out we both know <person> so I asked them what your name is. If you'd like, maybe we could do lunch some place you like sometime? If not, that's cool, thanks anyway."

and then you let it go until she responds, or not. Read the link. That fucker's not "kind" of clingy, he's HIGHLY clingy, and he's already talking about "worshiping" her and she doesn't even know who the fuck this is. Oh, and he lied about how he found her on facebook. Good job there sonny, way to make a low-pressure intro.

So I certainly am not the go to person to ask how facebook introductions work, but I do know I've been guilty of the "of course your approach didn't work, of course you should do this instead" when there is no actual evidence one approach was measurably different from the other. But I agree, he wasn't as smooth as you or I would have been. Later on, you'll also discuss how she should have behaved, and I will agree with that too. But we don't always have these perfect cases to discuss, usually it's a mix of crapola that facebook gives us.

In his defense, his "clingyness" (described by Kotaku as creepy and stalking) was the entire contents of a week long conversation on Facebook to which she responded intermittently. Asking for more information at times, and then just going silent.

So let me guess. He's a poor innocent lamb who did nothing wrong, and she's just a heartless harpy. I think he's not alone in taking hollywood too seriously.

By the time we get to the 21st of an essentially one-way conversation that started on the 16th, he has:

1) already admitted he lied about how he found out who she was. This is a great way to establish you're trustworthy.

2) bothered her twice for not answering back fast enough, including straight up whining about it. So short of blocking him, he's established that ignoring him isn't going to work anytime soon. Great, he sucks at that too. What an awesome way to not be creepy.

3) Said that since she hasn't ACTIVELY blocked him or Deleted her account, she must be fine with him. Let me just use his own words here:

"So here is what I have been thinking. You haven't blocked me yet. And you haven't deleted your account either. So you aren't too creeped out by me tracking you down."

Now, what does she know about him at this point? Not much, but what there is? All bad. And he just told her that as far as he's concerned, unless she blocks him or deletes her account, she must be kind of into him. Da Fuque?

Oh, and that he's already decided who she is to him. Felcia Day. Chloe Dykstra. Whom he'll never meet, but hey, she'll do.

I know you need to make this about the evil bitch, but for the love of fuck, at least ponder that. Someone she does. not. know. is now telling her all this, and mind you, has straight up said that since she hasn't blocked him or delete her account to get him to leave her alone, she's totes okey-dokey with it. This is based on what from her? Not saying "no" with sufficient ferocity and vehemence. Oh, and if she doesn't reply back enough, he's going to get whiny. Awesome sauce. He's steadily removing any options she has to let him down with anything but a stick to the face. And again, what does he establish as saying "no" with enough vehemence? Blocking him (a dubious strategy at best, if you ponder how he first met her) or deleting her account.

This wasn't a conversation that took place over 24 hours.

If you look at actual time spent, this isn't a conversation that lasted two hours. Fuck, maybe she was trying to just ignore him and hope he went away. After the seventh day of "WHY WON'T YOU TALK TO MEEE" I think it's pretty fucking obvious that won't work, and again, he's clearly said "since you haven't blocked me or removed yourself from facebook, obviously YOU ARE FINE WITH ME."

Exactly how the fuck do you let someone down easy when they keep taking away all your options but piping them?

This wasn't the canonical conversation that starts out "Hello", is never ever answered and ends up 60 minutes later "F YOU F YOU F YOU!".

That might have been better. It would have ended faster than him taking a fucking week to finally bother her enough to where she felt the only way to get the assclown to stop was to rip his face off. When you back someone into a corner, that's to be expected.

So he sent her an advance she didn't like. She could chose any of:

[] sorry, not interested
[] block
[] silent ignore
[] flame

She first chose passive aggressive, then went for aggressive.

He didn't send her 'an' advance, by the time she told him to fuck off, he'd sent her *eight* advances, with the ever popular "you ever gonna message me back" whine. He could have:

[] Been honest about how he got her info
[] Not been a whiny little creep
[] Not gotten bitchy when she didn't answer back fast enough
[] Not keep messaging her over and over and poking her and all the rest of that needy shit

He chose to instead be a whiny tit, go full on Con-Creep, and then get bitchy because she won't talk to him, after all, he's such a "nice guy".

Oh yeah, he's totes not at fault here.

She is talking to him sporadically over that week, and even after his "creepiest" "worship" post, two days later she responds to him again and with a question.

Oh well, there are more interesting things out there to have lulz over. Adria Richards reported some dude who tweeted "donglegate" at her as abusive.

Well again, let's look at your options:

1) silent ignore. Fail, he was quite clear that he viewed non-communication as some fucked up version of 'sweep me off my feet'. Funny how you missed that part. Also, it never even occured to him that a person he doesn't know may have something going on, like, oh, moving, that could delay her response. Nope. Can't be a good reason. Let's bother the fuck out of her.

2) Block. AN option, but again, that's making it like she didn't try hard enough. WTF he has some fucking responsibility here. He could have maybe backed the fuck off and not gone into full on con-creeper mode, oh and with a healthy dollop of "nice guy" guilting. And, since he knows where she works IRL, that doesn't mean he won't bother her at work. Again, he's established that he's not good at anything but board to the face-level messages.

3) Sorry, not interested. You know, given how pathetically persistent he was, I can actually see not expecting that will work. When the small annoying dog is humping your leg, you can pretty much guess that "oh puppy, could you please stop" isn't going to work. Given she works at a hot topic, i'm pretty sure he's not the first con-creep/nice-guy to pull this shit. Could have been worse, he could have been an SCA creeper. THOSE guys are just...ew. And again, he's not established that subtlety will work well.

4) Flame. the most extreme option, but ultimately, the one that probably worked the best. Probably had to explain to her boss about the situation, (ALWAYS AWESOME), and to their mutual "friend" why they should not give their creepy-assed friends their facebook info.

If he'd actually not been so fucking pushy, whiny, demanding, and creepy, had he actually been even vaguely cool and relaxed, sure, you'd have a point. But he was pushing her pretty hard from the word go, and instead of reacting in the suitably humble fashion you would approve of, she realized what he was, virtually piped him, and will probably never have to worry about him again.

If he doesn't want to be treated like a creeper, stop being so fucking creepy.

[welch]

and as far as the "he was crushing on her". Oh bullshit. This isn't Jr. High, or even High School. It's the real adult world, and one is expected, as a real adult, to properly manage shit like that. "crushing" is not some get out of jail free card for either sex.

[ROBOKiTTY]

It's meaningless to argue with welch; he's already been preprogrammed, and he has two switches, on and turbo-on.

[JacquesCuze]

...

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong. I did some searching on the Welchipedia to figure out what's behind so many of our conversations.

http://i.imgur.com/pVOwVWM.jpg

[welch]

It's meaningless to argue with welch; he's already been preprogrammed, and he has two switches, on and turbo-on.

Aw, an ad hom. Bless your heart.

Did you learn that in skeptic skool?

[Service Dog]

Tinder will be the last nail in the SJWs' vampire coffin.

Aww, sheeit. I thought I'd breeze back in here with a non-sequitur conversation-starter, rather than bother to catch up to what's being discussed today. But it looks like my comment was too-enough to the ongoing conversation-- thus wrongly indicating that I have, like, formed opinions, about whatever-it-is you're talking about.


I stand by the quoted line, tho. In a word where we are free to associate/ or not. It's hard to hide the fact that some girls DO want to sit on Michael Shermer's lap... uncoerced. SJWs seek to bury that fact, but Tinder exposes it.

Extrapolate the same notion beyond carnal pastures, and 'guys don't do that' evaporates... and Atheism-without-a-plus is "allowed" to exist.

[ROBOKiTTY]

It's technically not an ad hominem since welch is an automaton. It would be an ad machinam.

[welch]

...

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong. I did some searching on the Welchipedia to figure out what's behind so many of our conversations.

http://i.imgur.com/pVOwVWM.jpg

Aww, you give up so easily when someone won't follow your little bullshit narrative.

u mad?

[JacquesCuze]

...

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong. I did some searching on the Welchipedia to figure out what's behind so many of our conversations.

http://i.imgur.com/pVOwVWM.jpg

Aww, you give up so easily when someone won't follow your little bullshit narrative.

u mad?

No, but dinner actually is ready.

Last time we spoke you told everyone I was going to put you on ignore. This time you misrepresent me as being mad.

I've given up taking the time to try and correct you when so often go off the rails. It's not my job.

(Sadly, I believe I'm going to use that welchipedia thing more and more as a crutch in lieu of coming up with another way to humorously point out the errors in your logic.)

[welch]

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong. I did some searching on the Welchipedia to figure out what's behind so many of our conversations.

http://i.imgur.com/pVOwVWM.jpg

Aww, you give up so easily when someone won't follow your little bullshit narrative.

u mad?

No, but dinner actually is ready.

Last time we spoke you told everyone I was going to put you on ignore. This time you misrepresent me as being mad.

I've given up taking the time to try and correct you when so often go off the rails. It's not my job.

(Sadly, I believe I'm going to use that welchipedia thing more and more as a crutch in lieu of coming up with another way to humorously point out the errors in your logic.)

Given your fascinating definition of logic as being akin to "what I think is right" you should stick with the pretty pictures. THey're more your speed. Definitely use them when tempted to talk about networking or computing.

[DaveDodo007]

Benjamin Radford is doing skepticism again which should go down well with the 'believe the survivors.'

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... ase_study/

[didymos]

What in the....

Uncomfortable? No. Baffled? Yes.

[dogen]

Huh?

I have been led to believe that among the social media set that messaging friends of friends and other people out of the blue was totally acceptable.

And I've been led to believe that asking people you know, "do you know who that cute guy/girl/otherkin is who works at Hot Topics" was again, totally cool and how people have met and introduced themselves to others for 1000s of years. Isn't that called, "networking" and encouraged when the object is to find a job, sell a product, make an introduction?

Yes, often it's nice to have your common acquaintance make the introduction, but I've never seen that was the rule, or else "CREEPY!".

So he sent her an advance she didn't like. She could chose any of:

[] sorry, not interested
[] block
[] silent ignore
[] flame

She first chose passive aggressive, then went for aggressive.

That makes him the creep.

Oh come off it. He's a fedora-wearing neckbeard omega, if I ever saw one. That doesn't excuse the whole you go, grrrrrlll! wankery, but he is a fucking dweeb. And I say this as someone with the social skills of a rectal polyp.

[dogen]

That makes him the creep.

Him being a creepy little fucker makes him a creep. She should have just blocked his dumb ass and ignored him, and told her boss that if he came in again, someone else needed to help him because he's a creepy little fucker, then reamed her friend out for not warning her, at the very least, that he'd given her info to his creepy-assed friend.

Wah, her explanation was unkind. Well, he needed the romantic fiction slapped the fuck out of him, she gave it a good try.

He was being creepy as hell, I'm not surprised at all by her reaction. He could have chosen not to be creepy, needy, and whiney. He chose poorly.

You, sir, give me wood.

:clap:

[Badger3k]

Benjamin Radford is doing skepticism again which should go down well with the 'believe the survivors.'

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... ase_study/

next witch of the week!

[dogen]

The issue with the nuclear rejection she handed him is that that sort of unjustified adoration IMO could just as easily turn 190 degrees in the other direction. Do not ask me how she should have handled it other than NOT doing it that way. If the guy is unstable then it could end badly.

*shrug*

YMMV

Heh, non-Euclidian.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kDiS9TU1ung/T ... _super.jpg

[Badger3k]

What in the....

Uncomfortable? No. Baffled? Yes.

So, is she saying she is a superstar who gets raped a lot? Or that she has an overdeveloped ego and thinks she is prime rape material? WTF indeed. Maybe she is accusing her husband, building up the divorce case?

[another lurker]

welch, you're a goddess.

[dogen]

Hi. Missed you all. Hugs, if you want them.

Wow, you've clearly been away for a while. Hugs can now only be offered in the 'Pit when Enthusiastic Consent has been given.

[qoute]
Tinder will be the last nail in the SJWs' vampire coffin.
[/quote]

That's as maybe, but what we all need to know is this: hammer or screwdriver?

[James Caruthers]

I thought she overreacted and was unnecessarily mean about it, but he was definitely being creepy and dishonest. Deserved to be called out for that behavior.

This.

His behavior was poor. He didn't approach her in person, but tracked her down online and tried to go from there. When he didn't receive a reply, rather than either writing her off or waiting, he kept pestering her. As she correctly pointed out, they were strangers. He acted clingy and put her on a pedestal. I think maybe there's a way to blame feminism for that last one, since I constantly hear feminists saying men need to do more for them and step up to white knight more for them, but whatever. :roll:

Her response was also poor. She blew up at the guy. No self-control or restraint there. She could have said "fuck off," but she went on a great long rant to show how amazing she was and how wrong he was, and surprise surprise it also ended up online. Wonder how that shit happened? Funny how much modern women hate nice guys, because as far as I can see, modern feminism is creating these nice guys. Keep it up! :lol:

The guy might actually be nice in real life, but he doesn't know how to behave around women. She was rude and arrogant and went over the line to tear him down, but maybe what she said will wake him up and make him realize his approach comes off as incredibly creepy. Acting like a stalker simp is not a great pro strategy for life.

[Pitchguest]

Hi. Missed you all. Hugs, if you want them.

We don't do hugs anymore. We do tugs. :shifty:

[Steersman]

Benjamin Radford is doing skepticism again which should go down well with the 'believe the survivors.'

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... ase_study/

Interesting. Also that Radford linked to a new article in eSkeptic on the Farrow-Allen case in which “witch hunt” is bandied about (or around). Which of course Ophelia, in her inimitable style, weighs-in on with a mighty tome of in-depth analysis. Although I note she seems to have missed this “Woody Allen could be self-justifying rather than lying. So could Mia Farrow.” Further details at 11 … :popcorn:

[AndrewV69]

The issue with the nuclear rejection she handed him is that that sort of unjustified adoration IMO could just as easily turn 190 degrees in the other direction. Do not ask me how she should have handled it other than NOT doing it that way. If the guy is unstable then it could end badly.

*shrug*

YMMV

Heh, non-Euclidian.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kDiS9TU1ung/T ... _super.jpg

Haha. I did not notice either till you pointed it out.

[free thoughtpolice]

What in the....

Uncomfortable? No. Baffled? Yes.

Ms. Andery is difficult to understand because she is a very deep person.
For instance her slam poetry masterpiece "Poop Poop Poop, Wiener Wiener Wiener!"

[dogen]

What in the....

Uncomfortable? No. Baffled? Yes.

Ms. Andery is difficult to understand because she is a very deep person.
For instance her slam poetry masterpiece "Poop Poop Poop, Wiener Wiener Wiener!"

Is this the deep web of which I hear, so tell me?

[Guestus Aurelius]

Hi. Missed you all. Hugs, if you want them.

We don't do hugs anymore. We do tugs. :shifty:

:dance:

[another lurker]

Since 'sell by date' often comes up around these parts...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/older-fathers- ... 27680.html

Even so, the magnitude of increased risks faced by kids born to dads aged 45 and older versus dads aged 20 to 24 was surprising, said lead author Brian D'Onofrio, an associate professor in the psychological and brain sciences department at Indiana University.

Compared with kids of the youngest dads, those fathered by men at age 45 and older faced risks almost 25 times greater for bipolar disorder; 13 times greater for ADHD; more than three times greater for autism; almost three times greater for suicide attempts; and about two times greater for schizophrenia and substance abuse.

The study was published online Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry.

[James Caruthers]

A common manosphere trope is that most guys are invisible except as a utility to most women. They got their sights on a "hunky millionaire who moonlights as a gardener" (who will suddenly fall in love with her (only her cause she is special) and wisk her away on his private jet to some tropical island and ... ) and anything else is "settling".

I have noticed that some girls never wake up from their Disney Princess fantasies. You'll see women in their 20s, 30s, even 40s who don't know what they want to do in life, but expect to meet a dream man with a dream job and life that they can step into with no effort. I think some of these modern feminist women want the power and money that comes from being a career woman, but don't have the skills, intelligence or drive to work that hard. But such a woman generally does feel entitled to money, power, a cushy life, etc. I suppose a non-MRA explanation would be these people are BPD or NPD, and they're just drawn to feminism because it gives them narcissistic supply. There are so many people within the feminist movement to love to kiss the asses of narcissistic bitches with no skills or value to society.

I know men can be assholes too, but as said previously, I have met several of these princess type women, and haven't met any fatass couch potato men who honestly believe they can be the next Bruce Lee or Michael Jordan. Society is very efficient at destroying young male fantasies. If you can't do something as a man, you will usually be told several times. Loudly. Which is probably how it should be.

Most of the people who reject the idea of female privilege or refuse that anything needs to be done about it in the dating game appear to be either single women, who have a major stake in keeping the status quo or men in relationships, who have a stake in keeping the status quo so that their status continues to mean something.

Even single men who expect (or hope) not to remain single for long have a minor stake in keeping the game rigged, so they can glory in their status when (or if ever) they get there.

Only egalitarians and foreveralones want change, but this may not be a winnable fight.

Parts of japan (herbivore men and dried fish women) are currently heading towards a major foreveralone epidemic, and yet nothing in their dating game seems to have really changed.

In my opinion, the only way to change the dating game is to change the way you approach it. I.E. Demand truly equal relationships and don't settle for less. Be a person who respects and loves yourself. One thing I notice from a lot of male SJWs and feminists is this self-hatred of their male status, or masculinity, or their race, or their sexual orientation. And of course, they lap up the shit that feminists spew at them constantly.

http://jaythenerdkid.wordpress.com/2013 ... op-saying/

It's a shame any man listens to feminists when it comes to dating, because they seem to despise the men who try to support them. They tell men to stop finding thin women attractive, so the male feminists say "real women have curves" and this makes them fair game for the thin feminists to bitch about. Even though it was fat WOMEN (feminists) who started that whole anti-slim meme. But they'll ignore that so they can better shame the men for agreeing with fat feminists.

[Mykeru]

What in the....

Uncomfortable? No. Baffled? Yes.

*Sigh* They get so mad when you divert from their narcissism.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Damn Patriarchy...

[youtube]PcsRl_LIJHA[/youtube]

[didymos]

So, I was reading this old article about Sarkeesian and Stephanie Guthrie. In it, the death threat against Guthrie which resulted in the cops being called was quoted:

On Twitter, a user told her that he’d be “The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, bitch,” promising “I will wip you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before, mark my fucking works.” Guthrie, justifiably, called the cops.

Now, some of you may recognize that. For those who don't...

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta

LOL

[Old_ones]

What in the....

Uncomfortable? No. Baffled? Yes.

LOL. If she is routinely using that as a conversational gambit, I bet she is also the David Lynch of awkward silences.

[katamari Damassi]

Benjamin Radford is doing skepticism again which should go down well with the 'believe the survivors.'

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... ase_study/

Interesting. Also that Radford linked to a new article in eSkeptic on the Farrow-Allen case in which “witch hunt” is bandied about (or around). Which of course Ophelia, in her inimitable style, weighs-in on with a mighty tome of in-depth analysis. Although I note she seems to have missed this “Woody Allen could be self-justifying rather than lying. So could Mia Farrow.” Further details at 11 … :popcorn:

New accusations against Bradford in 3..2..1..

[katamari Damassi]

Since 'sell by date' often comes up around these parts...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/older-fathers- ... 27680.html

Even so, the magnitude of increased risks faced by kids born to dads aged 45 and older versus dads aged 20 to 24 was surprising, said lead author Brian D'Onofrio, an associate professor in the psychological and brain sciences department at Indiana University.

Compared with kids of the youngest dads, those fathered by men at age 45 and older faced risks almost 25 times greater for bipolar disorder; 13 times greater for ADHD; more than three times greater for autism; almost three times greater for suicide attempts; and about two times greater for schizophrenia and substance abuse.

The study was published online Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry.

Hmm.. Dad was in his early 50's, Mom was 42 and smoked and drank throughout her pregnancy. I do have ADD, but otherwise am just fine. In fact I'm better than fine as the prehensile tail comes in handy.