Is anyone else just kind of sick and tired of seeing crap like this?

[Thorgasm]

It's an institutionalized thing, in many cases, and a dangerous one at that.





And I continue to say, "grow a thicker skin."

Nothing happened to this girl which even necessarily constitutes "harassment" to begin with.

So what you are saying is that women should be Marines?

 

[Nilly]

It's an institutionalized thing, in many cases, and a dangerous one at that.

And I continue to say, "grow a thicker skin."

Nothing happened to this girl which even necessarily constitutes "harassment" to begin with.

You have no idea how thin or thick skinned that woman is.

 

[Gathomas88]

So what you are saying is that women should be Marines?

Not real big on the whole "logical progression of ideas" thing, are ya?

Frankly, if the chick in this article is anything to go off, I honestly think they might just straight up die half-way through. Lol

You have no idea how thin or thick skinned that woman is.

The lack of resiliency and generalized fortitude on display in the article is rather remarkable to say the least.

 

[Nilly]

Not real big on the whole "logical progression of ideas" thing, are ya?

Frankly, if the chick in this article is anything to go off, I honestly think they might just straight up die half-way through. Lol

The lack of resiliency and generalized fortitude on display in the article is rather remarkable to say the least.

One article is far from enough evidence to make such sweeping statements.

Imagine the conclusions one could make of you should they judge you from one post!

 

[Thorgasm]

Not real big on the whole "logical progression of ideas" thing, are ya?

Frankly, if the chick in this article is anything to go off, I honestly think they might just straight up die half-way through. Lol



The lack of resiliency and generalized fortitude on display in the article is rather remarkable to say the least.

How thick skinned should they be then?

 

[Gathomas88]

But of course you, in your infinite wisdom, have it alllllllll right.

See? Now you're starting to get it. :mrgreen:

 

[Winchester]

Some Lefty Facebook "friend" I vaguely remember going to school with a decade or so ago (lapsed Ron Paul 'Legalize it!' Libertarian, turned short, obese, and ugly foaming-at-the-mouth Bern... err... Hillary-loving SJW just in time for the 2016 election - Oh joy! :roll: ) posted a link to this article a moment or so ago. It's basically a long, melodramatic, hyper-preachy, retelling of every single "creepy guy hits on me" experience some 20-something blonde female has ever experienced.

Is there a reason you linked her physical appearance with her beliefs? I don't even know why they'd be relevant.

 

[sangha]

Given that it was a party, and he was a "friend," I'm going to go ahead and read between the lines here and assume that there was almost certainly alcohol involved, and more to the story than some guy just randomly tackling her.

Of course you will lie and make up facts to defend a male who sexually assaults women. After all, you are supporting Trump so you need all the practice you can get

"No harm, no foul."

It is no surprise that a Trump supporter would see no harm in sexual assault

Would one "assertively" throw themselves onto a dance floor or "aggressively" do so? As anyone even remotely familiar with the English language can tell you, the latter is the more correct option.

One could do either. Once again you are demonstrating that you dont know the difference

Dictionary.com.

​

We arent talking about a sales campaign, though it would not be surprising if you think of sexual assault as a sales technique

Bottom line: We were talking about the same damn thing.

You dont have to confirm that you cant tell the difference again

Can people kindly stop freaking the Hell out over irrelevancies? :roll:

A Trump supporter thinks sexual assault is irrelevant. Gee, what a surprise :roll:

 

[Gathomas88]

One article is far from enough evidence to make such sweeping statements.

The picture painted by the article is one of a rather "soft" individual, who lacks any real hardship to give them perspective in their life, yes.

Imagine the conclusions one could make of you should they judge you from one post!

Well, I'm apparently a "torture victim," according to the UN. I guess you can make of that what you will. :roll:

Lol

How thick skinned should they be then?

Thick skinned enough not to write B.S. articles concerning trivial nonsense, perhaps?

Is there a reason you linked her physical appearance with her beliefs? I don't even know why they'd be relevant.

"He," first off.

Secondly, it simply serves to further illustrate the overall character profile - Someone who is weak, lazy, undisciplined, more than a bit of a ditz, and not terribly "masculine."

 

[Gathomas88]

...supporting Trump...

Trump supporter...

Trump supporter...

Not a "Trump supporter." :roll:

 

[Absentglare]

Just about literally every guy I've ever known who's worked in Sales has made the statement at some point, "If you can pick up a girl in a bar, you can sell a blank."

Frankly, the better question here is just how exactly you're supposed to have honest "passion" for some girl you just met. Who's "manipulating" who exactly here, dude?

Sounds like a lot of self-deluded and naive romanticism for its own sake if you ask me.

So you just have anecdotes that don't even make your point ?

And why do you think passion requires manipulation ? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Absentglare]

Everyone else, or just a few older women, and a handful of self-styled "feminist men?" :roll:

It's not like either group is particularly well known for their grasp on this particular subject matter. The former A) aren't really accustomed to the culture in question here, and B) are somewhat notorious for their convenient "amnesia" regarding the actual behavior and motivations of young women. The latter are well known for their slavish devotion to the deluded, and often blatantly counter-factual, fanciful utopianism so endemic to the rest of that particular ideological movement.

Why is "feminist men" in quotes ? And what the **** are you talking about with "self-styled" ?

I don't understand why you're acting like you know how the world is better than people who are older than you. This isn't a handful of people we're talking about, most men today have some respect for women; i've never seen a woman-hating, manipulative PUA who was truly happy.

And what makes you think "feminist men" don't grasp this subject matter, but somehow you do ? Why don't you listen to people who have had success in light of your failure ?

 

[Nilly]

The picture painted by the article is one of a rather "soft" individual, who lacks any real hardship to give them perspective in their life, yes.

Well, I'm apparently a "torture victim," according to the UN. I guess you can make of that what you will. :roll:

Lol.

So you dismiss generalizations of you as laughable, but generalizations by you are just fine.

Right..

You have no idea of hardship that the author has been through.

Kind of related to this, but not to the topic in general, might benefit you:

 

[Gathomas88]

So you just have anecdotes that don't even make your point ?

Dude, you basically just tossed out the word "passion" and called it a day. That's not even an anecdote. It's a completely blind assertion, akin to basically everything else you've argued this thread.

I, quite frankly, don't want to hear it.

And why do you think passion requires manipulation ? That doesn't make sense.

And there's that damn word again. What makes you think most pick-ups even necessarily involve "passion" to begin with?

They tend to be rather more awkward, laid back, and even somewhat cynical, in my experience.

I don't understand why you're acting like you know how the world is better than people who are older than you.

Perhaps because I legitimately do seem to in this circumstance (or, at the very least, I'm being more honest with myself regarding what I've actually seen)?

I dunno. Just an idea. :roll:

This isn't a handful of people we're talking about, most men today have some respect for women

It is possible to have "respect for women" without being a far Left feminist whack-a-doodle, you know. :roll:

In any case, I have plenty of respect for women. I'm just not going to gloss over the more cynical realities of their behavior, or of human sexual behavior in general, just to satisfy some goofy romantic or political ideal.

i've never seen a woman-hating, manipulative PUA who was truly happy.

I don't disagree, though I'd say the same concerning overtly promiscuous women as well.

That's why I am not a "PUA," and also why I don't really want much to do with generalized bar and club culture.

And what makes you think "feminist men" don't grasp this subject matter, but somehow you do ? Why don't you listen to people who have had success in light of your failure ?

Why do you keep trying to coach this in terms of "MY failure?"I'm talking about myself, and I never was.

I'm speaking objectively regarding human behavior, and the kinds of tactics I have personally seen work for other men.

 

[Gathomas88]

So you dismiss generalizations of you as laughable, but generalizations by you are just fine.

Right..

You have no idea of hardship that the author has been through.

Kind of related to this, but not to the topic in general, might benefit you:

That depends entirely upon what the "generalizations" in question happen to be. That I'm sort of a grouchy, judgemental, and taciturn egotistical butt-head who isn't terribly fond of people?

Yeah... Trust me. I know. [emoji38]

It's just my personality.

All of these wild accusations of "misogyny" just because I'm not "feminist," or "PC" enough for some Lefty bleeding heart's delicate sensibilities, on the other hand? I'm 'fraid not.

 

[Thorgasm]

Thick skinned enough not to write B.S. articles concerning trivial nonsense, perhaps?

The truth comes out. You think sexual harassment is "trivial nonsense".

 

[Nilly]

That depends entirely upon what the "generalizations" in question happen to be. That I'm sort of a grouchy, judgemental, and taciturn egotistical butt-head who isn't terribly fond of people?

Yeah... Trust me. I know. [emoji38]

It's just my personality.

All of these wild accusations of "misogyny" just because I'm not "feminist," or "PC" enough for some Lefty bleeding heart's delicate sensibilities, on the other hand? I'm 'fraid not.

When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't. - Louis C.K.

You can tell yourself you're not a misogynist, but when you do and say misogynistic things, you're not the one that gets to decide that you aren't.

 

[Gathomas88]

The truth comes out. You think sexual harassment is "trivial nonsense".

Name this alleged "harassment."

When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't. - Louis C.K.

Some people are overly sensitive drama queens, who - quite frankly - just need to get over it. You can't please everyone, nor should one even try.

You can tell yourself you're not a misogynist, but when you do and say misogynistic things, you're not the one that gets to decide that you aren't.

Here's the problem with that sentiment, bud. You're not defining this alleged "misogyny" on the basis of anything involving legitimate "hatred of women." You're basing it off of how closely any given person aligns with your heavily skewed personal political dogma.

That's the problem with socio-cultural Left in general on these kinds of issues. This whole "you will agree with me, OR ELSE, you MONSTER," attitude is little more than self-serving intellectual authoritarianism aimed at quashing dissident thought.

Who died and left you people the freaking "thought police," exactly?

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

[Absentglare]

Dude, you basically just tossed out the word "passion" and called it a day. That's not even an anecdote. It's a completely blind assertion, akin to basically everything else you've argued this thread.

I, quite frankly, don't want to hear it.

No i didn't. I've tried to encourage having more respect for women, as individual, intelligent people.

Although you're right about one thing: you don't seem to want to hear it.

And there's that damn word again. What makes you think most pick-ups even necessarily involve "passion" to begin with?

They tend to be rather more awkward, laid back, and even somewhat cynical, in my experience.

Are you joking ? You think that sexual desire is devoid of passion ?

I didn't say that they aren't laid back- i have been preaching calm confidence: that's not mutually exclusive with passion.

Perhaps because I legitimately do seem to in this circumstance (or, at the very least, I'm being more honest with myself regarding what I've actually seen)?

I dunno. Just an idea. :roll:

Are you accusing me of being dishonest ...? You're not making sense.

It is possible to have "respect for women" without being a far Left feminist whack-a-doodle, you know. :roll:

No ****, but you keep telling me that i'm an effeminate, "feminist man" simply in virtue of having respect for women. It is a despicable argument that you should be ashamed of.

In any case, I have plenty of respect for women. I'm just not going to gloss over the more cynical realities of their behavior, or of human sexual behavior in general, just to satisfy some goofy romantic or political ideal.

Sure, if you define "plenty" to be "almost none."

No ideal is intended to be satisfied. Just mutual respect for other living creatures.

I don't disagree, though I'd say the same concerning overtly promiscuous women as well.

That's why I am not a "PUA," and also why I don't really want much to do with generalized bar and club culture.

Good.

Why do you keep trying to coach this in terms of "MY failure?"I'm talking about myself, and I never was.

I'm speaking objectively regarding human behavior, and the kinds of tactics I have personally seen work for other men.

You're speaking in anecdotes with this narrative that men are victims because romantic involvement is not effortless. Newsflash: it ain't easy for women, either.

 

[Nilly]

Here's the problem with that sentiment, bud. You're not defining this alleged "misogyny" on the basis of anything involving legitimate "hatred of women." You're basing it off of how closely any given person aligns with your heavily skewed personal political dogma.

That's the problem with socio-cultural Left in general on these kinds of issues. This whole "you will agree with me, OR ELSE, you MONSTER," attitude is little more than self-serving intellectual authoritarianism aimed at quashing dissident thought.

Who died and left you people the freaking "thought police," exactly?

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Oh so you're telling me what I'm basing my thoughts on now?? Unfortunately Gath, that doesn't fly. I'm basing it off what you say. I along with a number of other people, believe that what you're saying (and what you've said in the past) is, at best, disrespectful to women, and at worse, blatantly misogynistic. You can dismiss it all as us being all in a giant left wing conspiracy, but the truth is you sound just like a crazy person insisting he isn't crazy.

FYI, I've called out plenty of lefties (inc some of the aforementioned friends in my earlier posts) for misogynistic behaviour too.

 

[Gathomas88]

Are you accusing me of being dishonest ...? You're not making sense.

I'm accusing you of either communicating your ideas remarkably poorly, or of basing them off of overly-romanticized and ideologized "white knight" wishful thinking rather than reality.

No ****, but you keep telling me that i'm an effeminate, "feminist man" simply in virtue of having respect for women. It is a despicable argument that you should be ashamed of.

Again, you're not talking about "respect for women."

You're talking about slavish adherence to a dogmatic feminist ideology which blatantly puts women and their concerns ahead of men. That's not even remotely the same thing.

You're speaking in anecdotes with this narrative that men are victims because romantic involvement is not effortless. Newsflash: it ain't easy for women, either.

No, what I'm saying is that they're not exactly the innocent little wallflowers, just waiting to be "violated" by Male "assailants," the popular feminist narrative wants to make out.

Women are no better or worse than men. Quite frankly, a large part of the reason why men behave they do in the first place is in reaction to female behavior, and vice versa.

In short, it takes "two to tango." Neither side is either purely "aggressor" or "victim" here.

This really shouldn't be such a controversial thing to admit. :roll:

Oh so you're telling me what I'm basing my thoughts on now?? Unfortunately Gath, that doesn't fly. I'm basing it off what you say. I along with a number of other people, believe that what you're saying (and what you've said in the past) is, at best, disrespectful to women, and at worse, blatantly misogynistic. You can dismiss it all as us being all in a giant left wing conspiracy, but the truth is you sound just like a crazy person insisting he isn't crazy.

FYI, I've called out plenty of lefties (inc some of the aforementioned friends in my earlier posts) for misogynistic behaviour too.

Okay, so what have I "said" then, specifically? :roll:

That a lot of women care about things like money, looks, and social status? That a fair share of women actually like their men more on the aggressive and handsy side? That some women *le gasp!!!* are actually shallow and manipulative bitches just as bad as any man, who will use and abuse men for their own selfish whims?

I hate to break it to you, dude, but none of that is "misogyny." It's factually true. Maybe not of all women, per se, but of a large enough number to be non-trivial.

You're confusing "respect" with "putting on a pedestal." Again, women are not immune from either analysis or criticism simply because it happens to be "politically incorrect" in certain circles - Especially not when those "certain circles" are going to insist on picking men apart limb-from-limb under a freaking microscope for the supposed "crimes" of an incredibly small minority.

 

[Nilly]

I'm accusing you of either communicating your ideas remarkably poorly, or of basing them off of overly-romanticized and ideologized "white knight" wishful thinking rather than reality.



Again, you're not talking about "respect for women."

You're talking about slavish adherence to a dogmatic feminist ideology which blatantly puts women and their concerns ahead of men. That's not even remotely the same thing.



No, what I'm saying is that they're not exactly the innocent little wallflowers, just waiting to be "violated" by Male "assailants," the popular feminist narrative wants to make out.

Women are no better or worse than men. Quite frankly, a large part of the reason why men behave they do in the first place is in reaction to female behavior, and vice versa.

In short, it takes "two to tango." Neither side is either purely "aggressor" or "victim" here.

This really shouldn't be such a controversial thing to admit. :roll:



Okay, so what have I "said" then, specifically? :roll:

That a lot of women care about things like money, looks, and social status? That a fair share of women actually like their men more on the aggressive and handsy side? That some women *le gasp!!!* are actually shallow and manipulative bitches just as bad as any man, who will use and abuse men for their own selfish whims?

I hate to break it to you, dude, but none of that is "misogyny." It's factually true. Maybe not of all women, per se, but of a large enough number to be non-trivial.

You're confusing "respect" with "putting on a pedestal." Again, women are not immune from either analysis or criticism simply because it happens to be "politically incorrect" in certain circles - Especially not when those "certain circles" are going to insist on picking men apart limb-from-limb under a freaking microscope for the supposed "crimes" of an incredibly small minority.

Ermm everything in the past few pages, that's what we've been arguing about! And of course you don't believe it's misogynistic, you've already laid out why you don't think it's misogynistic, but everyone's rejecting that claim. Just because you insist it's not misogynistic, doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[Gathomas88]

Ermm everything in the past few pages, that's what we've been arguing about! And of course you don't believe it's misogynistic, you've already laid out why you don't think it's misogynistic, but everyone's rejecting that claim. Just because you insist it's not misogynistic, doesn't mean it isn't.

Translation:

Facts, observable reality, and common sense are all "misogynistic," just because they don't fit certain peoples' preferred political narratives.

Got it. :roll:

Par for the course for those who blindly adhere to Leftist Utopian fantasy, unfortunately.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Translation:

Facts, observable reality, and common sense are all "misogynistic," just because they don't fit certain peoples' preferred political narratives.

Got it. :roll:

Par for the course for those who blindly adhere to Leftist Utopian fantasy, unfortunately.

The Left is sure that they can re-engineer and re-educate the human species into a better life form, through the force of their will.

No joke.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Ermm everything in the past few pages, that's what we've been arguing about! And of course you don't believe it's misogynistic, you've already laid out why you don't think it's misogynistic, but everyone's rejecting that claim. Just because you insist it's not misogynistic, doesn't mean it isn't.

I dont so much as reject it as tell you(F) that if you want to get your rocks off by calling me a misogynist then you just go ahead and do that. Get back to me when you have had your fill of name calling so that we may get back to conversing on the subject at hand.