why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

it doesn't matter if these ''nice guys''are jerks or not,the fact
they are lonely and struggling,and most often omega,''low status
men''.There are tons of sexist alpha males,that very rarely get
chewed out by feminist.Feminist have a hatred towards unpopular guys.

it doesn't matter if these ''nice guys''are jerks or not,

the fact they are lonely and struggling,and most often omega,''low status men''.

There are tons of sexist alpha males,that very rarely get chewed out by feminist.

Feminist have a hatred towards unpopular guys.

I get it now, as you have essentially changed the sentence. "The truth, many times, is ugly" at least has some sense to it. "The truth is incorrect" does not. Either you need a qualifying word before 'incorrect', or to have 'incorrect' itself in quotes. Otherwise it is gibberish. I guessed what it meant from context. I had to guess, as the line on it's own was, again, gibberish. I'm sure it made sense in your head. It's just that it didn't on screen.

You still haven't told me what FACT I have denied and dismissed. A little unfair. Our discussion might go somewhere if you did so.

I don't think it's politically incorrect to consider the IQ FACT, more that, well, what is to be made of the fact. Is there even such a thing as IQ is supposed to be? If so, can it be measured? etc.

For sake of argument, I will agree to your statement that, on average, Jewish people do better than Black people on the same IQ test. And, well, what? What is there to talk about? Do you consider it important? Why? Etc. I don't mean to drag this into a discussion on IQ, by the way. I was using your FACT to make the point that, even where we agree on a FACT, we may disagree on its importance and relevance and meaning. The problem is when one party attributes a particular importance to a FACT, and thinks that, actually, the importance is inherent in the FACT, when it has actually been attributed. But when you won't tell me what FACT I have dismissed, we can't even begin to talk about importance, meaning etc.

Either you get it or you don't.



I can only suppose you're writing as though I have any interest in the US comedy world, and the opinions of those therein. I don't. I'm not entirely sure why I should, either. If I wanted to, I would. I don't want to, so I don't. I don't know who Grothendieck is, nor what he says about mathematics. I don't suppose such a thing would interest me, assuming I could understand it. It may well be important to me, if he says things that could impact upon my life in a practical way. What some comedians I haven't heard think of another comedian I have heard a little of but didn't care for - try as I might, but I can't see how what those opinions are will impact practically on my life.

But then, there are many such things - people having opinions about things I don't have much interest in. I have enough things I'm interested in, and enough people whose opinions I deem worth considering to keep me quite busy, ta.

Do you know Simon Price's opinion of the third Manic Street Preachers album? Do you even care? Do you even know who any of those people are? I'd be pleasantly surprised if you did, but I'm not going to opine that you haven't got a clue about music if you don't, and that you really should and that, honestly, it'd be like a layman not being interested in Mary Warnock's views on voluntary euthanasia.

See, I'm not you, and you're not me. I think we're both relieved at that (rather beautiful) FACT.

(Edit for removal of repetitions, and the typos I've noticed thus far)

You apparently don't know what "non sequitur" means.

when did you ask me about a constitutional amendment to ban conscription?

Likewise, notice that I used paraphrase marks ('...') rather than quotation marks ("...") because I know how to use punctuation.

See above. Unlike you, Xfiles Geek actually proposed some solutions rather than railing against the supposed unfairness of it all.

you keep making his point for him, MP--you insult and say he denies things, yet refuse to tell him what he's denying or how he is supposedly wrong, then announce that you've won the argument.

do you really expect this behaviour to impress anyone? do you think we are all blown away by your "indisputable logic"?

I don't know. I mean, three laughing emoticons? That's a hell of an argument.

I had a read through the thread earlier, and what the central problem here, and with a certain venn diagramed anti-feminist/'rational'/Game overlap thinking (or, 'thinking') in general, seems to be is that some men are utterly convinced of a particular theory of how women are, and what they want from men, and how men are, and what they want from women, and what sexuality is, etc. It doesn't matter that any number of women (and men) may say 'no, I'm not like that, and don't know many people who are, that's not my experience', that any number of examples run counter to their theory, because they really really like their theory. It's got some scientific bits in and everything (which handily allows for anyone who disagrees to be labelled 'anti-scientific', or someone who denies FACTS).

It seems to me that, where one's theory is found wanting time and again, one goes away and rethinks it. It is Cnut levels of folly to stamp your feet and insist reality live up to your theory.

I brought it up here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5961370 ... t=#5961370

You responded to here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5961555 ... t=#5961555

I'm only seeing apostrophes. If you care about data, maybe you should use a real, formal language, like TEI...

you keep making his point for him, MP--you insult and say he denies things, yet refuse to tell him what he's denying or how he is supposedly wrong, then announce that you've won the argument.

do you really expect this behaviour to impress anyone? do you think we are all blown away by your "indisputable logic"?

Lady, get this through your skull: I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy smarter than you people.

I posted a video of a guy turning an angry woman like all of you into a horny giggling woman _ because he knows how you work.

Really?! I have to spell it out for you?
*'Mangina' is a slur used against men who sympathize with feminist. It is along the same lines as the earlier 'hen-pecked,' a term to shame men into agreeing with other men rather than taking women seriously.
*'Mangina' is a combination of the words 'man' and 'vagina,' and is thus a way to suggest that any man who agrees with feminists is not a 'real' man, is less than whole, and is partly female. It recapitulates the idea that being female is less than being male, along the lines of 'throws like a girl (weak),' 'p**** (sniveling),' and 'girly-man (lacking in fortitude).' It emphasizes the idea that being a 'real' man is about *not* being a woman, rather than about being a grown-up male.
*Mangina' is a term that is used pretty much exclusively on radical MRA forums. It is used pretty much exclusively by reactionary people to represent reactionary ideas.
*Use of the term 'mangina,' therefore, is a strong signal that the user is a reactionary person with reactionary (and repulsive) ideas and ideals.
*People with reactionary ideas and ideals are so far outside the norm, and consistently so wrong, that in the absence of extraordinary evidence or logic to support their claims, they may be dismissed out of hand in the same way that we might dismiss someone arguing for a perpetual motion machine on a physics forum.

And feminists call women "misogynists" when they don't toe the line. I guess you're not relevant.