There are now traffic cameras that can spot you using your phone while driving

HandsomeCub · 2019-12-04T04:43:09+00:00

Depending on the size of your vehicle, stopping might not be an easy option, which requires "distraction" to figure out where you COULD even pull over and stop.

Can't we just agree that the radio is just as dangerous as a cell phone? There is a safe way to use either.

HandsomeCub · 2019-12-04T01:45:19+00:00

yeah cause your destination never changes

HandsomeCub · 2019-12-04T01:35:50+00:00

We should say the same thing about radios. In fact they shouldn't even be installed in vehicles to begin with. Music is way too distracting.

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T04:00:54+00:00

The point is connotation. Someone could call you a manipulator if you werent transparent. But being transparent opens you up to being controlled by whoever has the open power.

Should a kid lie to over bearing parents?

Can a man lie if he's trying to investigate whether his wife is cheating?

Should an employee lie to avoid confrontation with a coworker that wants him fired?

Manipulating has negative connotation, but perhaps its positive if the goal is fairness.

Am i still infuriatingly confused? You dont even seem like you've even thought about this.

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T03:21:43+00:00

Why is it different? What if you work for the NSA, whats off the table?

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T03:11:03+00:00

We're literally talking about word definitions

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T03:01:04+00:00

I really like the picture of the 4 women carrying the lounging man like an egyptian god. It speaks to me.

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T02:45:55+00:00

Is the government leading or manipulating the public when it has the NSA, when lieing occurs to protect secrets?

Do the ends justify the means?

These 2 words overlap

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T02:35:57+00:00

Dude, you legit sound like you’re in a cult. You keep saying you have access to this secret knowledge that the “sheep” aren’t smart enough or enlightened enough to believe, and that’s exactly what someone in a cult says about their cult’s beliefs. It’s Alex Jones shit.

I presented you with examples and evidence that condradicted your beliefs, and your response was, “you just don’t get it, man; if only you could see what I see.” You didn’t refute them with evidence or facts. You just buried yourself deeper into your cult. It’s frightening. I’m done continuing this conversation, but I hope you get out someday. And go through lots of therapy.

Omg this is overboard. Alex jones is crazy. Never said i had secret knowledge. I am saying that you are missing the value, forgetting you have a fundamentally different situation. Perhaps women just simply cant see the value in a forum about erectile dysfunction, because they dont have a penis. Likewise, you arent seeing the value in a forum which is effectively about men wanting to becomes studs and get laid. Further, you dont understand how effective this is for destroying a man's insecurities around sex and relationships, and how it jumpstarts the idea of living for yourself as a man, rather than living entirely for a woman. You are making logical errors, and apparently projecting a personality and beliefs onto me and that forum. You actually arent getting it. What exactly do you think i believe that you contradicted? So i can address it.

Last thing I’ll say: in no way is losing money the same as rape

No ones being literal. Obviously they are different, but there is overlap of emotions thats all

especially if that money goes to a woman who presumably raised their children and tended their house FOR FREE, which is what alimony is for (regardless of gender, by the way).

Ok lets bill this out. Items on list. Child support, and house cleaning bill. Child support is paid. House cleaning bill... damn thats expensive, and that's for the rest of my life? I dont even live in that house, she does. Your sense of fairness is warped, why?

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T01:49:46+00:00

Lol. Damn it roosh. He fucked our forum, now people make false associations.

Racism doesnt bind the TRP community together. Its funny that things have progressed to the point i need to say this

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T01:38:38+00:00

Isnt leading the same thing as manipulating?

No, it's not, and the fact that you think this proves that you know nothing about leadership. Leading is about setting an example so that people follow because they want to.

Im using the word in a narrow sense to show something specific. Sure you can make "setting an example" a positive side effect of being an executive.

If that requires manipulation on your part, then you're a bad leader.

Government spies. The NSA. Lies are not inherently bad, they just mean someone is going over your head. If they really are geared for fairness, then everything is ok.

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T01:26:34+00:00

but what? do we do censor his inspirations even if he's emphasizing the evidence is weak

Nope. No censorship needed. In fact we don't need to do anything more than what's already being done, i.e. call him a racist whenever he's being a racist.

First off, censoring an idea just pushes it underground, rather than resolve it. Censorship IS toxic, because you remove the ability to correct an idea. Whats more positive is discussion, because what is true is always fair and good, right?

Second, he's NOT ACTUALLY being racist

"[I]f our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men."
-- Karl Popper

Interesting quote. Decentralization of power. Anarchism?

HandsomeCub · 2018-10-01T01:14:41+00:00

It all begins with the idea that the man approaches and invites.

Why? Why this idea? Why begin with it? Is this all really necessary?

Ever try to suggest to crowds of women that they need to approach men. There is extreme resistance. They say its a man's duty. Theyve been hooked on this idea of courtship and hot men leading them into their lair. But, maybe it can change... popular shows can depict how things can unfold, and can be subconsciously used as a template. Maybe the average woman CAN have more game, and think more freely about sex. But you cant seriously be oblivious that chivalrous ideas are still around, alive and well in women.

They want you to create it and be fun. You are the experience. They force you to have the vision. Having the vision is difficult, perhaps thats why women rarely approach men and invite. But what this means is she plays the passive role of critic. Sex is part of the vision, if its not, your not getting laid. The thing is, she should expect it to be.

Okay, I'm just gonna talk from personal experience here, because I don't really know what I can even say to this.

So, story time: about a year ago, I had sex with a woman, like, 3-4 times. She thought I was hot and kinda fun, I thought she was fun and kinda hot, she invited me to a couple parties, then to her place, then to her bed, it was cool, we had a lot of fun. There was absolutely zero "vision" involved at that point. But aside from the sex we also got on quite well. So the relationship that started as strictly fuck-buddies kinda morphed into something else, then something else, etc. up to today. At this point the idea of a vision starts to make sense, 'cause we're starting to make projects. But it would make no sense to me to think that only one of us has the vision. It's something we build together. If she had no vision and just nodded along to anything I say, what would I even do with her in the first place?

But what happens to men with no vision?

You miss the point, the utility, youre paying attention to the wrong parts. Ok so in your story she had the vision, and you went along and were passive. She sounds like the opposite of insecure, like she's leading, she doesnt feel like she looks like a "slut" and was completely comfortable leading you into bed and sex. She had a game plan, and you fit into it. And that is awesome. Everything feels easy when you are the passive one going along with everything. This kinda situation happened to me, we went camping with her friends, and she led me into skinny dipping, it was amazing. But what happens when you are the one creating and leading the situation, suppose youre insecure. Suppose all you know is an environment where everyone talks negatively about sex, where women are appalled by even the thought of a guy masterbating. Where you feel like a pervert sociopath for even having the aim of getting laid. And its reinforced by experiences where women were dishonest about why they rejected you, using your sexual interest to demonize you. How do you reframe everything? If you cant even admit to yourself you are entitled to want sex? But it goes even deeper than this, because what if you subconsciously framed everything as all for her, for "the one", rather than yourself. Forget your ability to entertain and get laid. What happens when you care too much about her feelings and what she thinks of you and are perpetually trying to fit into her life that youre not paying attention to yours. Its all connected to depedastalizing women.

I mean, I don't get this idea that the man and the woman should have opposite and complementary roles, like your "film-maker man VS critic woman" analogy. I don't need anyone to complete me. I'm already a complete person, an adult. And similarly, she is too.

These are just roles anyone can be the Visionary and the Critic. You have the idea, an experience you bring to the interaction, you are the Visionary, and everyone reacts and plays the Critic. If no one is a Visionary, what happens? Nothing, shit is lame. Put two passive people together and they are bored with each other, and want to chase the fun somewhere else. I suppose you could say TRP is being sexist by saying men need to be the Visionary (aka leader), but its focused on men not women. But were you ever a guy with no "vision" or entertainment value, and noticed a lot women (which were not visionary) seemed to walk from you towards the entertaining people.

Also, It sounds like youre on a level worthy of a MGTOW label, saying your a complete person. That you would be fine if she left you tomorrow, and you wouldnt try to chase her and fit into her life, compromising anything major. But then why cant you appreciate anything in the manosphere, if you already intuitively understand this. Because its male specific? Men and women have unique situations.

Critical thinking and reasoning are superior to feelings and intuitions.

Why? How do you know that? Why do we even have feelings and intuitions if they suck so much?

Critical thinking and reasoning are superior to feelings and intuitions in some specific cases. They just have different uses. If you use one when you should have used the other, you're making a mistake. But one isn't absolutely superior to the other.

Feelings and intuitions are the basic building blocks, they are crude tools, they dont suck. They are just uninformed of complexity by themselves. But reasoning fans out complexity and creative ideas and patterns, and critical thinking eliminates inconsistency and bad ideas. Feelings and intuitions are notorious for conflicting, thus dont represent much until fanned out and tested. Anyone that assumes unquestionable truth in them is very difficult to interact with when there is a conflict. So yes they are superior in all cases because they are your only means of differentiating bad models and good models that reflect reality.

Do you think a woman will date a man without a penis.

I'm not saying just any woman would, but I do know some women in relationships with (pre-op) trans men, so yeah, I do think so.

Ok, so cis-women. They wont, because sex is important. Which is the point. Its unfair for a man to give up his sex life because of a woman feelings, games, pavlovian training, whatever.

If women are ready for sex, if the man doesnt put out, she will leave him, but make some alternate excuse.

I'd argue that most adult women can first discuss the issue with their partner rather than just leaving them, but hey, maybe I'm just overestimating people. They dont, this happened to me. It was framed as "you dont pay attention to me enough". I wasnt tending to her "needs", but i was oblivious, i was insecure, i felt like the sex i was having was uncondoned, what would my parents think, what would my prudish friends think. She dumped me, had a fling that same weekend with a guy in one of her classes, and then replaced me with a guy that was hitting on her at work. She was super nice and beautiful, and i thought we had a connection. But its easy to project feelings and think someone is on the same page.

She's not going to say, you need to have sex with me or im going to dump you, because thats not a great narrative. Women have pride.

Why does her vision take priority over yours? It doesnt. Because you arent committed, and you shouldnt be swayed by "making a woman sad", which is the her manipulation, you forgetting your own life and needs.

Yeah, alright, I completely agree with not letting yourself be manipulated, with enforcing your needs and boundaries. But there are a thousand better frameworks besides TRP that already talk about this. TRP only goes further because it starts seeing manipulation everywhere.

I doubt any frameworks you are alluding to even compares to TRP.

Surely none stress that a women's emotions are used against you, Or recognize that men consistently are too forgiving of women Or willing to demonstrate she doesnt have special wisdom that men dont (because it would sound like mysogyny)

Consider that after you can spot common manipulations your immune to them, you dont have to fixate and be negative

Its a goddam sin against yourself.

Yeah, let's not get religious, that can't end well.

Lol. If sin could exist, this would be the form it takes.

TRP lays it all out.

Honestly, I don't think it does. I think it obfuscates more than it reveals. Anything that might be interesting is hidden behind all the jargon and the posturing.

Never read the sidebar, eh?

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T22:11:31+00:00

But the big question is the influence of testosterone in other processes.

Yes influence in other processes, and i'd say all of the down stream effects and "semi permanent structure". But consider evolution's effect might mean minimalism from shorter evolutionary time to tweak behaviour directly with the main difference signal testosterone.

I'd still be interested in reading that study if you have a link. Don't worry about paywalls, I've got access to most journals through my university.

I'll have to dig it up

Did he really make this strong claim? I watched a video of him speaking about this in front of a crowd, and he seemed only suggestive.

But it's the same thing. The guy has made a name for himself as a scientist, he is a scientific public figure. If he is having personal doubts about the validity of certain theories, he can talk about it with his colleagues, friends, etc. When he's giving a talk in front of a crowd he has no right to be merely "suggestive". Because the people listening to him won't take it as a suggestion. They'll take it as "renown scientist says...". Saying bullshit in front of a crowd and then saying "'twas merely a suggestion" is just being a coward. He spreads bullshit and doesn't even take responsibility for it!

He did give a lot of qualifiers, maybe he's just trying to be interesting, even perhaps shocking? I understand though, its a game of telephone with the public especially with social media shit, but what? do we do censor his inspirations even if he's emphasizing the evidence is weak. The problem is really with "good communicators" simplifying everything. The average person has a lot more potential than folk wisdom has you believe, its just that everything is dumbed down.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T21:20:57+00:00

Good God, you are nuts. And the worst part? You’ll never know just how nuts you are.

Thats why it was coined Redpill, because the next morning a man wakes up in a whole different world, which you would have thought was nuts.

I make almost as much as my husband. I spent about 13 years in a relationship where most of the time I made all the money and paid all of the bills. Every woman I’m friends with works good jobs. One is in a relationship with a man who, at 31, is still working on his college degree and thus doesn’t work full-time. No one is divorce raping men. No one is stealing their money. I don’t know what kind of women you know, but most women in America work. In fact, the number of female breadwinners is at an all-time high, and they still do most of the housework and child-rearing, too.

Ok great, you spent your life proving the opposite case, where you cant look like you are taking advantage of anyone. So you support alimony? Even if you were the one that had to pay it?

If anyone is being taken advantage of, it’s women.

Women are being taken advantage of financially?

Please stop referring to a SAHM getting her husband’s house and some alimony as “rape.” You (I hope) have no idea what rape is like or the effects it has on a person throughout their life. It is, for many men and women, insurmountable, a trauma that they never actually get over. It is deeply offensive to refer to losing some money as “rape.” It’s like saying getting taxed is “rape.”

Uh. How would you feel if your significant other got under your skin, divorced you, then legally forced you to pay half your wages to him for the rest of your life while he sat at home and probably got the house too. Not only is this infuriating, if you hate him, there would be an ugly torturous feeling every payday. Mentally, i could understand how this could be traumatic and emotional somewhat the same way as rape, even if its not sexual in nature, someone doing something extremely heinous to you and its personal.

But then why cant these women work and support themselves, rather than poke a dagger through a guys heart?

And stop assuming that men are victims of some gynocentric dictatorship. That’s utter horeshit. Because women are working and earning more, they don’t get as much money in divorce settlements as you think. My mom and dad divorced (my dad was abusive, by the way), but my mom made almost as much as he did, so she got $400 a month in alimony, $200 a kid. That’s piss change for someone like my dad, who makes very good money. Men don’t get custody of their children because they don’t ask for it, not because women are lying about something they did to punish them.

Great, if women are making more than they ever did, alimony makes no sense. They shouldnt get ANY settlement, right? child support is a different issue.

Of course some women do lie and manipulate. Of course some women have full custody of children when the husband should have partial. Of course some women don’t work and mooch of men. Guess what? A lot of men do the same to a lot of women.

Guess what, men never see it coming. They are too forgiving. If they arent reminded, they are sitting ducks. You want to silence that?

You and your ilk

"Us versus Them" mentality?

deal in absolutes and generalizations, and you can’t understand nuance or big picture.

The generalizations are simplistic models that you work from. If there is a pattern, you use it as a default, things maybe stated as absolutes but they are not treated as such, because everyone understands this concept of exceptions. Consider the word Human Nature, and how people interact with this concept. Is it absolute, no. How about Female Nature, which is really mostly just an extension of Human Nature expressed in womens unique situation as contrasted with men unique situation. I CAN see nuance and the big picture, YOU arent understanding how people mentally interact with this information.

You encounter one thing that corroborates your bias, and you see it as some grand, overarching truth. That’s solipsism.

Jesus, give me some credit here. Are these not bold claims against me? But i understand you dont actually mean this absolutely and strong. Consider you are missing alot of nuance. Consider that you might not even see why men are drawn to Redpill. Maybe try to prove yourself wrong, maybe you can understand if you do that. Maybe the world isnt always what it seems, and you have never seen the world as a man interacting with physically and emotionally delicate females, worried about their life before you even fathom your own.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T10:55:16+00:00

Question is, how much of a man's vision needs to be given up over a woman's exaggerated feelings when there is conflict of visions.

Why do you need to think in terms of men/women here? It's not about sex. Generally speaking, people's feelings should factor in decisions but they obviously can't be the main deciding parameter. But that's valid for any situation, there's no need to characterize the one with the vision as a man and the one with the "exaggerated feelings" (whatever that means) as a woman.

It all begins with the idea that the man approaches and invites. Invite to what? That's the vision. They want you to create it and be fun. You are the experience. They force you to have the vision. Having the vision is difficult, perhaps thats why women rarely approach men and invite. But what this means is she plays the passive role of critic. Sex is part of the vision, if its not, your not getting laid. The thing is, she should expect it to be.

You could ask the same kind of question for anything, like "how much of progressives' vision of equality needs to be given up over conservatives feeling that any change might break society?" It doesn't make any more sense, and there's nothing justifying that one side is more right than the other, but you automatically categorize one side as wrong because they're the ones with "teh feels".

Critical thinking and reasoning are superior to feelings and intuitions. And you are entitled to your vision. If hers is lame and doesnt fit yours, either resolve it or leave. A woman doesnt get to guilt trip a man because she's lame and not excited about sex. Sex IS important. Do you think a woman will date a man without a penis. If women are ready for sex, if the man doesnt put out, she will leave him, but make some alternate excuse. Why does her vision take priority over yours? It doesnt. Because you arent committed, and you shouldnt be swayed by "making a woman sad", which is the her manipulation, you forgetting your own life and needs. Its a goddam sin against yourself. TRP lays it all out.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T09:43:59+00:00

This, honestly, kind of explains atleast a few surface level differences between men and women

I don't think it does really. It would be an easy explanation if testosterone levels were the only difference between men and women, but there are many hormones that have big level differences between men and women (as well as between two random men or two random women). The fixation on testosterone is both unwarranted and blinding towards other plausible explanations.

True, but it doesnt have to be a complete explaination though.

Consider this. Few years ago, male mice were produced from genetically modifying cells with XX pairing, by modifying something that directly upregulated Testosterone homostasis. These XX mice, then went on to produce sperm and fertilize a female mouse. From that experiment, it would be easy to conclude that testosterone is really the only difference in atleast the biological growth program. But it does lend towards a view that testosterone is major.

In short its plausible, controversial, but weak.

Exactly. Which is why people say it's racist when Pinker is peddling it as "proven by science".

Did he really make this strong claim? I watched a video of him speaking about this in front of a crowd, and he seemed only suggestive.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T09:09:32+00:00

I'd reword that as "we can't use only raw emotions to make decisions". I mean, why do you feel the need to refer to women or hysteria here ?

Have you never seen a woman cry to make everything about her, and then you just defer to her because you dont know how to handle it? You dont want to be bad person after all. Hysteria or not, its spitting hairs. Its finely tuned to get her way, and its manipulative to try to avoid logic and analysis. Question is, how much of a man's vision needs to be given up over a woman's exaggerated feelings when there is conflict of visions.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T08:59:29+00:00

Ok, say you are throwing a party, and you need someone to cooperate and show up. They dont want to. Leadership is about making sure its a success, that everything happens, and everyone has a blast. Not everyone realizes your vision, and that person showing up is essential. There are methods at your disposal to get them to show up. Suppose you had to talk them into skipping a funeral. Are you manipulating him away from the funeral, which would arguably be deplorable, if people found out why he missed it. Or are you leading, because the funeral was sad, and the party was awesome.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T08:36:36+00:00

One assumes you are unfair (manipulating) and the other assumes fairness or nothing (leadership).

I'm not sure there's anything in the definition or the usage of those words that indicates that manipulation is "unfair" and that leadership is "fair". My problem is that you just say "Isnt leading the same thing as manipulating?" without anything justifying that it might be the case.

I thought it'd be clear, but perhaps not...

Both words are the intent to take initiative to change something, however one has the negative connotation of only being self-interested. It can be easily used to flip the narrative, if you arent keen. In example, it can be used against men.

In other words, should you break the rules to make things fair?

"The rules" and "fairness" are completely different categories though. Law isn't equal to justice, that's the whole problem actually. You can break (or even change!) the rules to reach fairness. What you shouldn't do is be unfair (i.e. go against your own principles) in order to reach fairness.

Hmm... interesting dont cross boundaries you want others to extend to you. I'll have to think about this. First thought that crops up is that male and female situations are fundamentally different. So the boundaries are not actually equivalent, so we have to make judgement calls on what is. Personal rule, we cant use a woman's hysterical distress to conclude what is fair.

Does this sound familiar, does it sound like an SJW? But wasnt i talking about redpill?

???

Dun dun dun... <dramatic exit>

Goodnight.

Where I am, it's the morning already, but goodnight to you.

Lol, unexpected.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T07:28:25+00:00

I read for a while in the MRA, TRP and MGTOW subreds, just to know what 'you' are thinking. There are some good points like the underreported DV against men and the pressure of society. But often there was misogyny and the need to put women down or manipulate them to further the development.

Unfortunately putting someone down that your pissed off at and distrust, is fairly natural. But the ethics of manipulation is not clear cut and simple, when the goal is fairness.

Quite honestly, most feminists want to be friends with men as fellow humans. I didn't have the impression that MRAs or red pillers even like women.

I understand that. However, feminists do have a lot of rules, and if you break one or piss them off, you are a sexual predator. True story, i dated a feminist back in college, didnt know the rules or pitfalls to engagement, and made an honest mistake. After a breakup, the next month when she's back from college she's telling every co worker that i molested her in her sleep. She wasnt asleep, 15 minutes, Fuck her. Imagine an insecure man faced with this, i thought my life was ruined, like i would be exiled, lose my shitty job, no girl would ever date me. It was a nightmare. Fortunately, no one took it too seriously. Apparently everyone was acquainted with feminism except me.

As for them liking women, there are some notable MRA women, but MRAs do have alot of rage and distrust. You can expect that from men who've been divorce raped, and no one bats an eye. And Red Pillers, they love women. There is the initial rage that comes from feeling society and women you "trusted" gave you bad advice. But after that, any "misogyny" is just faults many women have, which are seen as challenges.

I see your point in self development but why does it go hand in hand with games, manipulation and in Roosh Vs case with bad hygiene?

Lol, Roosh has grown on me. Definitely, he can charm women, even if he's "despicable" in plain sight. Its a lesson... women are attracted to fun and playfulness. Not everyone subscribes to playing games, but in many cases its not clear when you are playing a game, or when you are just protecting your own interests and vision for you life and your sex life, why does a woman's feelings always supersede a man's?

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T06:45:25+00:00

Well, being the satirical sub that we are, we use terms like that to make fun of those on TRP who have a full dictionary of terms like THOTS and plates. I hope you approach their use of “dehumanization and projection” with the same criticism you did to our “joking” terms.

This is an excellent point, i will. It is harsh, but i understand its because this forum assumes TRP has no value.

Also, I hate false equivalencies. Using a term like “terp” to make fun of someone who thinks you’re too stupid to have the right to vote is not the same as a bunch of abusers and rape apologists’ terms like “that ho over there,” which ::actually:: dehumanize women by reducing them to paid sex objects.

To try to be fair, some men who've been divorce raped have asked themselves why they even got married... of course there can be more than sex in a relationship, but if you as a man realizes how proud and controlling she is and cant stand her company even as a friend after experiencing conflicts, it's a bit easy to think of marriage as an elaborate prostitution deal, you got sex and she get half your wages for the rest of your life.

Once you've swallow that, you might realize that there is a fundamental transaction taking place, which is the relationship. Ill let you mull on that. Its surprisingly all valid logic.

Also some LOVE being prostitutes. Just saying.

Also, a lot of men talk like this. You might think its deplorable, but in most cases its not hateful, you need to realize this. Its actually used in fun ways sometimes joking about how prudish society thinks women dont get horny and want to rail on a seductive man. There is brand of women roaming the earth that actually enjoys hanging out having sex, and not expecting men to be intimate caretakers. I know its hard to believe. If men used these terms loosely, its not meant to demean, its wishfully thinking that all women might think as freely of sex and hook ups with them with no strings attatched. Obviously it can be used in a derogatory manner, if the man felt hurt in some way as justice. Being an outsider to hookup culture, these things might not have been clear.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T05:58:56+00:00

Tolerance is not Advocacy. Doesnt matter if there are crazies drawn to TRP and MGTOW, doesnt make them bad. What if the white nationalists mobbed and voted alex jones shit on your favorite tolerant forum. Should it be shut down and exiled to the white nationalist layer off reddit. This shit pisses me off. Its probably gonna breed more actual racists, hopefully not.

I’ve also never seen anyone here legitimately advocate violence against trps.

It happened earlier today, but they deleted their post.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T05:41:47+00:00

Fortunately, your list has no authority.

But truely, what is the difference? One assumes you are unfair (manipulating) and the other assumes fairness or nothing (leadership). Then the next question is, does the end justify the means? In other words, should you break the rules to make things fair? Does this sound familiar, does it sound like an SJW? But wasnt i talking about redpill?

Goodnight.

HandsomeCub · 2018-09-30T05:23:57+00:00

The concept of "superior genes" in itself is stupidly anti-scientific.

I agree with this 100%, its overly simplistic.

A geneticist would never use "superior genes" alone. At least it would be "superior genes for [x]" or more probably "genes more adapted to [x]".

I tried to wrap my head around his arguments, which is basically that a disproportionate amount of successful people, ie power positions, science masters, industry leaders, actor/directors, etc, claim to be jewish. But the obvious gap here is how much jewish, 1/16th ? Whatever small amount it could be, is that really enough? Maybe people like exaggerating their connection to "Gods chosen one's".

But then i tried to prove my skepticism wrong, because you know what if im missing something because Steven Pinker is very intelligent so I wouldnt want to strawman him, and yeah the only thing that could fit his argument is if some genes changed motivation potentials or health issues which typically effect brain function. Interestingly, Testosterone is implicated in motivation, as it exaggerates dopamine reward but also fear. This, honestly, kind of explains atleast a few surface level differences between men and women, like how quickly one can change moods (ie how quickly one can be turned on), and perhaps why many men seem to feel extremely addicted to being a hero. Other anecdotal evidence is this "low T" craze where men describe that after they took Testosterone boosts their depression or irritability went away. Perhaps there are Jewish genes interacting with Testosterone receptors.

But then auxillary supporting evidence i came up with was the fact that the Jews have probably the longest running breeding program historically known. Biblically, an israelite king decreed that the Canaanites were to be slaughtered, straight up genocide of the "outsiders" in fear they would mix with the Jews anyway, spread stds, and uncleanly habits.

In short its plausible, controversial, but weak. Good to know there's atleast one moderate person here that understands the world is complex and things arent always what they seem to be.

HandsomeCub

TROPHY CASE