- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
You will look, because who doesn't love a hole that's essentially as sexy as a deep belly button?And @Stupid Sexy Flanders , not today, satan.
Kevin Gibes / Kathryn Gibes / TransSalamander / RageTreb / The Green Salamander - "Am hole:" The epitomized Twitter MtF you thought was just a myth! Donate to his Transformers toy fund today!
- Thread starter 0 0
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
I assumed this Alpha/Beta/Sigma Male stuff was just the new Meyers-Briggs.
People love classifications; some people even get so excited that they make little flags for their in-group.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
Alpha and beta etc began life based on a horribly discredited study about wolves.
In that study they came up with this idea of wolf society, but it turned out it was only relevant on wolves in captivity.
Of course, once psychological studies filter into pop psychology, they take on a life of their own and become over applied to anything which vaguely fits.
Now I am willing to accept that there are roughly under ten types of character.
Go to any town and find a group of friends and you will find equivalent personalities in each group.
But while this is true, I doubt it would be fully consistent enough that one could meet a “sigma” and they would have a carbon copy personality as another “sigma”.
Most people will be a blend across several of those classifications and will have displayed different traits at different ages, in different points and with different people and situations.
I think all this is more to do with current adults being so raised with video games with the narrow character archetypes and the firmly rigid stories of good v evil in 80s cartoons onwards, combined with as I have said a few times on this forum and probably in this very thread, an unprecedented level of tolerance for childish interests into adulthood.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2020
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
He's lucky I don't report him to mods for litcheral terrorism and unsexy sexual harassment, the horrifying scoundrel.
If we flashback to victorian and antiquity, they had their own personality classification systems of pop psychology. Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Chlorinic...
The Judean People's Front
I need a window seat, 'cause this flower's wiltin'
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Mods are notoriously into this sort of thing. If history teaches me anything, you'd probably give Flanders a new, enthusiastic audience.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2018
It's because all the people with this mind disease aren't even western centric in their thinking, but distinctly North American in their mind disease that they have this very narrow view on what is "male" and what is "female" and are hellbent on regressing to a time of hard and strict gender roles and behaviour even more than a fundichristian die hard who demands absolute obedience by all to the King James Bible. They are everything other leftists are against. Remember, their favourite term to insult their enemies besides "Nazi" is "TERF", Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist" a term that originally referred to those who rejected their mind disease and stood against them on the left to try to hold back men from taking from women's accomplishments and liberty, and once they got rid of the feminists every "woman of year" and "top woman who deserves celebration for accomplishment" was suddenly a Troon? Notice how in the last decade they've been banishing all the feminists from leftist places and making it all about their specific fetish that they're trying to force everyone to embrace globally, one that is based on a North American view of what is masculine and feminine?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
Unqueers.
Yes, look at how Realia describes it and how Kevin just blindly accepts (because he was already essentially there) that these are manifestations of "gender" (which is true but also wrong because it's oversimplifying the concept the image is depicting) then extending that until gender is meaningless because classification becomes impossible. But all these people already take classification as truthful and essential and not observational, which is the exact same error the MRA or whoever are making. "Alpha Male" is a relative status not an essential objective one, but all of these people seem to think that by copying behavior you become the thing, but this will fail in the presence of an actual Alpha Male because it's not the behavior and it's not learned to an instinctual level.
By abstracting to animals we can make this more stark and clear, "alpha" status comes from male behavior not from "alpha male" behavior and exists within a complex web of historical social interactions. But these idiots are making this somehow binary and assuming "Alpha Male" simply means good because dominant, when almost every animal species that utilizes this concept does not immediate cast off and eliminate all other males for an obvious reason: a pack leader is meaningless without a pack. And even more importantly: you can be wrong in identifying things you don't understand. Because Kevin finds them erotic I'll use an example from birds, turkeys have an "alpha" that mates with all the ladies but his brothers will help him defend his status because it assists their genetic code reproducing. This is instantly vastly more nuanced and complex than these idiots are thinking about the concept!
The other reason an alpha (or whatever) status isn't just behavior? If it was, an alpha couldn't lose his status. "But another alpha could outperform him in behavior." Perhaps, or perhaps the other alpha could immediately kill him upon showing that behavior. Good for him, bad for the species. They aren't thinking of the instinctual level properly, even in humans it's the truly unlearnable level because it's the result of millions of years of evolution not an active decision by any one individual based purely on reason and an accurate reading of a situation. In some respects it's truly "unexplainable" because you can only hypothesize as to the reason. Humanity is a pretty young species but it's nowhere near as young as these people seem to think. (Especially not because most people tend to operate from an assumption that they or at least their generation were the first humans ever.)
These dudes are all the dudes who have decided to make "evolutionary psychology" their entire thing but never ever actually bothering to learn about any of this stuff or actually consider it beyond a way of interpreting their own stereotypical beliefs as if they're a top-down surveyor of socially free forces. Kevin and the troons "gender" is all of this filtered through a gender studies prism based on shit they've never read let alone understood. The troon argument is really not any different than the dumbed down human-centric behaviorist yet also socially ignorant position a casual assumption about these topics leads to, it just applies it to "man" and "woman" based on an assumption that late 20th Century American social positions were the true essences representing the final evolutionary state of humanity because that's when they appeared. As I said somewhere else on here the other day, it's pretty much Creationism but God is me.
Last edited:
Attractive Sexhaver
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
Every person I know that has seriously described themselves as an "alpha" has been a deeply insecure individual who isn't especially popular or well liked in their social group.
People secure in their masculinity and their place in a social hierarchy don't generally obsess about it this much. Having to posture and assert your manliness is itself the act of someone who explicitly does NOT feel secure in that status-- occasionally because they're in a hyper masculine environment and they're constantly being tested, but usually because deep down they know they're a faker and they're terrified people will find out.
Moreover, only an idiot would try to be the "alpha" in every possible situation, because there's plenty of times when they're not the most capable person. I've worked with a very tough fire chief who 100% deferred to his elderly female EA on matters of end of financial year and budgeting, because she knew her shit and he correctly surmised it was better to let her lead on these matters rather than override her and fuck things up.
I never asked him, but I would imagine he didn't for a second agonise about whether he would look "beta" in front of his people. He'd already earned their respect and loyalty and he was too busy worrying about actual problems.
People secure in their masculinity and their place in a social hierarchy don't generally obsess about it this much. Having to posture and assert your manliness is itself the act of someone who explicitly does NOT feel secure in that status-- occasionally because they're in a hyper masculine environment and they're constantly being tested, but usually because deep down they know they're a faker and they're terrified people will find out.
Moreover, only an idiot would try to be the "alpha" in every possible situation, because there's plenty of times when they're not the most capable person. I've worked with a very tough fire chief who 100% deferred to his elderly female EA on matters of end of financial year and budgeting, because she knew her shit and he correctly surmised it was better to let her lead on these matters rather than override her and fuck things up.
I never asked him, but I would imagine he didn't for a second agonise about whether he would look "beta" in front of his people. He'd already earned their respect and loyalty and he was too busy worrying about actual problems.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
I like the way that as Kevin is a bit of a cult lolcow here, not a mass appeal lolcow like bossmanjack, that we have a few off topic discussions.
They are triggered by Kevin’s stupid takes on things, but they are not strictly about Kevin, so in many threads there would be purists reeing about off topic and thread derailing.
They are triggered by Kevin’s stupid takes on things, but they are not strictly about Kevin, so in many threads there would be purists reeing about off topic and thread derailing.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
Sperging about how fucking stupid Kevin's takes are by explaining them or applying any logic to them is part of the charm.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2018
And the person who proposed the theory has been trying to take it back for YEARS.
Sociology being one of my autistic interests, most papers I see on group dynamics these days seem to propose people fill fluid roles depending on the group they are in and what is best at that time rather than any set position you will always fill. It also seems to be less about personalities and more about the superorganism functioning viably to ensure that the group as a whole can redirect resources towards related children. So the "Alpha" of group A will likely fill a different role in group B and as people grow and change or the dynamics change they might move from "Alpha" to something else. We don't seem to be programmed to have any set form of dynamic that we need to fulfill, just a list of roles that need to be handled by however many people are needed.
There seems to be a natural human inclination to fill certain roles within a group and you will just have everyone go to their best fitting role naturally over time rather than there being an actual hierarchy or any type of classification of who goes where while people pushing to steal any particular role usually don't turn out doing well. Natural shifts in roles happen for potentially everyone as people come and go from the group, and this usually isn't done consciously. Instead when we see someone better suited to do something than us in the group and everything is functional we just naturally reshuffle to make them fit where is best. No one can agree on how many types of person this breaks down into, but the roles being performed become more and more consistent as I have read more papers on this over the years and it seems the biggest social priority is to fill these roles, merging and dividing them as needed, until everyone in the group has ended up in the place that benefits the group the most regardless of how they identify and there's ideally nothing left unfilled.
Since this is so heavily debated currently with countless different theories on what these roles are, here's the ones I see pop up the most often and how I'd define them and also remember that someone can fill any number of these and there can be more than one of any of these in a group and it will function fine:
- Decision maker, not necessarily the leader, but the guy everyone trusts to make a final decision on anything "big". If they aren't the leader not even the leader will typically act until they make their decision. When groups tend to vote on something openly, everyone will typically follow this person's vote. Think of this person like your pop culture second in command who the leader goes "You think this can be done?" while everyone else is uneasy about things, but then they go "Yeah, yeah we can do it" and everyone goes "yeah, if he says we can we can do it."
- Leader, they don't always make the decisions for the group or even have much influence upon them, but once decisions are made this is the person everyone trusts to help see them carried out. They mostly act in a role of over seeing delegation of responsibilities and slipping in to make the smaller decisions.
- Dispute resolver, the guy who breaks up fights in the group. These aren't even necessarily the most social minded or liked person in the group, just the guy everyone trusts to call everyone else a retard when they are being a retard and quickly decide who is in the wrong. In media they're usually the big guy who shoves the two hot heads apart and tells them to calm down before talking to them individually if needed to figure out what's wrong.
- Planner, the individual who everyone trusts to fuck off with whatever the problem is turning in their head and come back with an idea and cover all the big scope issues preemptively. They aren't necessarily the smartest in the group, just the person who tends to come up with ideas everyone can accept. In media this is usually the fucking nerd who always has an idea and can lay it out to win the battle.
- Mentor, this is the guy who, when someone new gets properly welcomed in, brings the new kid up to speed as fast as they can about how things work. They won't be the most knowledgeable, but they will always be the one who makes sure whatever needs to be taught to everyone else is taught. They'll make sure the foundation of knowledge in the group is shared. In media they are the team mom.
- Protector, the individual who deals with outside problems to the group as a whole. They tend to be the person best suited for identifying potential external issues and threats than the person at stopping them. In media this is the over protective paranoid guy who saw everything coming and was ready for it. In reality they are rarely paranoid individuals.
- Clown, pretty self explanatory as the person who just is good at bringing up the mood of everyone else. They aren't always funny, witty, or even charming. They just happen to be good at bringing up moral. In media this is the comedic relief.
- Bottom bitch, the person who is somehow the butt of every joke, but isn't actually disrespected in a functional group. They tend to have a "younger sibling" dynamic with everyone else. If you're in the group you can piss on them. If you're not in the group and you say shit all then you will get your spin turned into a pretzel by the rest of the group. This is the weirdest role that keeps popping up I find, and the best theory I've seen on why it exists is "we just need someone to kick sometimes".
- Fighter, this is the guy who seems to just naturally fight the group's battles. If they are intellectual battles this guy will be the first to argue with someone outside the group and if they are physical they will step right up to throw the punch. They are commonly viewed as "the attack dog" in media.
- Learner, this is the guy who learns whatever is needed to help the group and then tries to get that information to everyone else. Once again, not the smartest, just the best at finding information or absorbing it quickly enough to start making it useful. In media this is the nerd.
- Organizer, the person who naturally organizes the group on the macro scale before something is done. If you're about to play a video game this is the person who will go "Ok, so I'll handle healing with Jim, Jack and Matt handle DPS, John and Lisa handle tanking, Peter and Sally will be our AoE/CC". They don't handle the in the moment delegation and decisions on who is assigned to what during something not planned out, as that is the leader. In media this is often the second in command who also comes up with the plan.
- Cheerleader, this is the group hype man. They are the person who tries to encourage everyone else the most often. In media this is often some bootlicker to the leader.
- Enforcer, the guy who the group trusts to make the rest of them stay in their place when the pressure is on. This is the only formal hierarchy that seems to repeatedly show up that isn't people just naturally falling into place. They really are just the guy who makes sure whatever the current status quo that needs to be maintained for the time being is, is maintained. They are also the person who will be the quickest to tell a new wanna be "Alpha" to sit the fuck down and know their place when the current alpha has other shit to worry about. They will also be the person who tells everyone else to stick to the plan. They don't always do this through forceful methods, they might just call the people who are acting up out in front of everyone else to apply social pressure to stay in line, they might be the rat who tells on troublemakers when it happens, or they might just be basically the group cop. They really do just naturally keep the dynamic functioning by making sure the pecking order is maintained when it needs to be. In media they are the muscle that enforces the leader's will.
- Contrarian, this is the group's naysayer and argumentative prick. That friend who don't know why you keep around because he's always arguing, but that's because he just likes to argue. The person who is always devils advocate because there needs to always be a dissenting opinion to ensure that the group can dismiss it before going with the original plan, but sometimes they provide a new perspective that is actually beneficial to have in the group and does affect the decision making. In media they are usually the "lancer" archetype.
- Advisor, the person who is always asked for advice on everything. They are trusted to give an opinion, but not always listened to. This is the role that people step in and out of the most, because usually it is related to the specific individual knowledge of an individual and the immediate situation. In media this is the right handman.
- Tactician, this is the person who comes up with the details of the bigger plans. The planner might lay out all the broad strokes, but this is the person who looks at the missing details and fills them in or who deals with the sudden unexpected issues when the plan fails and things need to be pulled back on course while the planner adjusts the large scale. Not always the smartest person, but they will have the eye for details needed and be quick to figure out how to handle those details. In media this is usually merged with the planner to make them look smarter.
- Scheduler, this is the person who naturally just seems to be able to get everyone together at the right time and right place to make things happen. They are the one who rounds up the boys and sets the location and time to meet.
- Diplomat, basically what it says on the tin. The guy who talks for the group with people outside the group to make things go over smoothly. Not the most social individual in the group, but the one most capable of communicating what needs to be communicated in the right way. Someone people naturally trust to speak on their behalf. In media this is also often referred to as "the face".
I personally agree with the theory that we're just naturally inclined to fill whatever the actual roles are with whatever we have on hand in a giving social unit, and the number of positions is dynamic as are the "duties" of those positions. We seem to, as a species, just want to make our way towards ensuring we form a functional unit and will resize, divide, and combine our groups until we have a functional unit. Our instincts don't seem to make some of us "Leaders" and others "Followers" where we all naturally fall into our correct places and "Leaders" naturally fight when they run into other "Leaders" until the more dominant "Leader" wins. That isn't the dynamic humans are evolved for. Instead we seemed to be evolved to dynamically adjust for social groups so as to ensure either our own offspring or those of our somewhat near relatives are cared for. On some instinctual level we seem to understand it isn't aways about our specific branch of the tree that needs to be preserved, but the tree as a whole and as such we are inclined to cooperate to ensure we can get some amount of resources to the reproductive units of our lineage even if we aren't being reproductive ourselves.
It's why homosexuals seem to always go off and help their nieces and nephews unless there is some family conflict preventing such. It is why polyamory fails far more often the moment there's children being had and the pair bonds get strained as the resource allotment starts to serve one lineage more than others, yet when you have non-reproductive polyamorous relationships just funneling resources towards the off-spring of each other's relatives you suddenly see a lot less issues. It is also why we seem to see people with siblings or cousins they are close with finding it far less distressing to not have children than those without. We instinctively want to maintain the tree more than we want to maintain our branch of it. "It doesn't matter if I have no children so long as my sister has does. And if she doesn't then at least my cousin will." Personal reproduction isn't the end goal of all humans, but ensuring our larger family does successfully reproduce is.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
When I was a young person we resisted being labeled, because we saw ourselves as complex beings who couldn't be pigeonholed into little boxes. And because nuance exists, and because we saw the world not as black and white but as endless shades of grey.
That's all gone now. Today the kids love to not only give themselves labels but make them integral parts of their identity. And you can forget about nuance--they inhabit a world where J.K. Rowling is exactly equal to Hitler and they all live in fear of being canceled themselves and shoved into the "evil" box by their peers alongside the other monsters. In temperament and judgment they remind me of no one so much as the right-wing conservatives I used to argue with on Usenet in the 1990s, atomically confident in their own Manichean view that the world was an apocalyptic struggle between the forces of good and evil and that notions of complexity and nuance were for saps who didn't have the courage to take a stand.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
This may be even too off-topic for the Kevin thread, but remember Geek Codes? (archive) And everything that came after, the Furry Code, Goth Code, etc.
All this striving for more and more niche sexual identities, and they're just remaking the wheel. Except now it's less clear, because they're making entire new flags for every little schism, and not taking an existing identity flag and cantoning it, or adding a difference.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
To reinforce my earlier point, there has probably been much more insightful, knowledgeable and informative material on this page of the Kevin thread than in his whole Twitter history.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2019
Yeah, I think most of his "sexuality" nowadays is just him reposting porn he would have gooned to back when he had a dick. Now that I think about it, Kevin probably would have preferred being a gooner to being trans if he had heard about it first... lol, sucks to suck. Also, the "little" fetish is just him wanting to be taken care of because he is too damn lazy to do anything for himself. I doubt it's a fetish as much as it is him genuinely believing he deserves special treatment.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2023
It's fucking hilarious how they were all hyping bluesky as this Twitter killer when it's literally just a bunch of retards going "you won't believe what somebody told me about fae" (using actual fairy neopronouns for someone they're accusing of being a govt agent provocateur)
It's basically just ljdrama if you held it in an infant school with no teachers and also taught them a bunch of no-no words
I think you could actually write a pretty decent guide to succeeding in anything that just consisted of "ask a bunch of trannies what to do, and do the opposite"
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2023
Penny also has no balls so unless he's got a stock of Viagra and testosterone on hand he's not raping anyone either
It's probably why he was so obsessed with his operator larp while Chad Paul was busy using his working cock to fuck kindness. (I also love how for all their hate for JK Rowling they use euphemisms like SA'd the same way the characters in the books avoid saying Voldemort. Except this time it's because "sexually assaulted" is the same as the use of "sex worker", in that someone stroked their face and winked, or they sold pics on only fans but they want the street cred for being a street walker or rape victim. It's like someone saying they "walked out on the pitch for their team at the cup final" when they were the fucking mascot)
Reminds me of that Simpsons episode "I get to live on a ranch with all my guns fighting evil terfs! Can you say that?"
"No I just live a normal life and have sex and friends"
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2020
I know we're taking "SA" with a massive boulder of salt and Mxtress Pennyworth is not exactly the paragon of masculinity he larps as but even dickless trannies can be rapists. He absolutely would be capable of violating someone else in a sexual way even if he had perma limp dick, and orchi (testes removal) doesn't necessitate ED, though to be fair it often will in men who are on estrogen and have gotten their nuts hacked. I hate even to write this but Penny could still theoretically be capable of an erection and "performing" in that way despite an orchi and being on E for so long, especially so if he's worked at maintaining that ability (I will let you guess how that is done).
Granted it doesn't seem much sex of any kind was going on at the tranch, but it's a non-zero possibility they did it to some poor unawares visitor, let alone another troon who would in all honestly probably garner some euphoria/satisfaction from being sooo validated to be uwu too weak to resist and end up SA'd like a real womenz oh em gee. (In fairness, Penny is also pretty beefy from the photos we've seen of him. Can't speak to TCS, but he's build like a damn fridge. If any tranny of the main triad polycule whatever were to force himself on another man it'd be him. Jen is a skeletroon with noodle arms and a Lovecraftian horror between his legs, and Kev is lolfat and wouldn't expend the effort even if he wasn't equipped with a closed-up amhole.)
It's much more likely that TCS just got some no-no kink boundary crossed as others have speculated, but the guy who lives his life pretending to be a tough, badass tacticool military
...Then again, TCS isn't exactly the most reliable narrator of all time, either. So perhaps a bit of column A, a bit of column B. The fact that Kev isn't denying the accusations and Shiteater Jen dfe'd makes me think there is more to the SA theory than just "Penny chokeslammed another troon without his consent".
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
They're constructing their individual personality out of picking groups to belong to rather than being themselves and seeing what groups that puts them in. Many of these people are complete ciphers, they literally adopt other things then repeat it back as their entire personality. That's how we can make jokes about how they're all the same because they basically are. They want belonging but they also want individualization to where they're considered the best of the group. But they want all of this with essentially no effort. Social media is perfect for this because you don't have to do anything, your life is irrelevant, the LARP is all that matters. But this also makes you replaceable because you don't bring anything to the table the next person can't. That's why they're always "so tired" and feel like they constantly have to perform because they do, that's the only way to "belong" because the group will just go on without you. Kevin logs on and is disappointed in the engagement he's gotten and so has to perform but since it's not unique there's diminishing returns except with the increasingly sized niche. And because it's about identifying into the group that becomes a ratchet effect that prevents Kevin from the size of the following he desires leading to the disappointment and need to perform harder to the smaller niches.
Think about the central aspect of troonery, it's a fundamental discomfort with the fact that other people think they belong to a group. They want control over this, they want to force other people to see them as part of a different group. At no time do they consider that this shouldn't matter, instead they escalate it to the most important thing possible about themselves. But it's never about just being themselves and finding themselves in that group, instead it's a deliberate and forceful demand to be included in it. Even though it's pretty much irrelevant and has no bearing on who they are, which is why they're so unconcerned about adhering to group norms at the same time they loudly demand they be accepted as part of the group. It's trying to acquire status by attaching themselves to groups, not acquiring group status by who they are.