- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
The "incel" community is just fucking sad to know about. It's like "incels" have no fucking life whatsoever much like the tumblr radfems/SJWs tbh.
Sluthate.com
- Thread starter Arctic
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
Are you fucking kidding me?
I really don't get these guys. Awhile ago before PUA morphed/split off into the clusterfuck it is today, I briefly came across their forums and they seemed kind of reasonable? Maybe I missed a lot but I appreciated seeing guys pointing out a lot of the bullshit PUAs came coming up with even if it primarily for the wrong reasons. What the hell happened?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
A lot of scam artists happened. PUAs, distasteful or not, were always on the borderline here, making their main income from insecure men who had trouble with relationships. At least when I first became aware of this subculture, it was kind of sleazy but more or less mainstream inspirational speaking, with the usual private consultation for more money thing even normal professional pep-talkers do.
But there's an increasing trend for just flat out scam artistry, and PUAs who basically take someone who already lacks self confidence, and knock them down even more to get them willing to cough up absurd sums to the PUA. Basically scammers who victimize fucked up people. Lots more bullshit and old school snake oil like NLP shit thrown in.
So a lot of the wizard rage that used to go exclusively to them-evil-hos-and-bitches-who-won't-go-for-a-nice-guy-like-MEEEEE started slopping over onto the PUAs, who to be perfectly frank actually deserve to be targets of anger.
Julien Blanc would be one of these creeps, who give "advice" that would stand a good chance of getting someone arrested for trying it in public, especially if they're autistic and ugly in the first place.
That makes a lot sense. But it meandered away from discussing scammer PUAs and kind of landed back on those evil hos and bitches right? They rebranded into sluthate and it's not some kind of incel hub from what I understand. Are there legitimate sites to talk about scam PUAs anymore?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I'm not sure. The main one I knew about, puahate.com, shut down in the shitstorm after it came out that Elliot Rodger posted there. Looks like there's a subreddit of the same name, now. No idea how legitimate it was. It's probably a shithole like its progenitor.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
So Elliot Rodger's Whinyfesto is now referred to as "literature"? And I thought it bad enough that "Atlas Shrugged" is considered such.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
I was expecting more Social Darwinist tracts.
Gilmartin's Shyness and Love links being dateless with fucking astrology and past lives. Talking about reputable resource.
Actually, "extroverted" is a bastardisation of "extraverted", which is the technically correct term. Intro and Extra, inward and outward facing.
There was an experiment done where women talked to two twins on different occasions (except it was the same actor of course). On one occasion, he acted like a friendly family-oriented guy. In the other, he presented dark triad traits. Predictably enough, the phrasing changed between the two. "I'm going there with my boyfriend" changed to "I'm going there soon", with the former directed at the niceguy.
Your post is a classic case of just-world fallacy, and exhibiting of hostility in response to views that challenge what you want to believe. When an unwanted view comes along, attempt to shame it with clichés, attack it until it goes away.
This, in a general sense, is why I pay more credence to "extreme" views than I would otherwise. Those who claim to be moderate don't seem to have much capacity for reasoned discussion, and zero tolerance for other's views, so it's hard to believe the most well informed and thought-out position will come from them.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
German researchers find singles who spend their free time helping friends or neighbors are more likely to be in a relationship one year later.
wow it's almost like science is complicated or something
Because you get to cherry pick the ones that confirm your bias?
That's a completely different point to the one I was making. In the study I mentioned, the point was that the women found the "badboys" attractive. Being in a relationship and being found sexually alluring are not equivalent. Psychopaths have, on average, more sexual partners than usual, but of course they aren't too compatible with relationships.
Basic evolutionary psychology: there are two main, perhaps somewhat contradictory elements that determine a man's value as a mate: his traits that determine his own evolutionary success within the environment, and his willingness/ability to nurture the offspring/provide resources for them.
So for the former, we have things such as his looks, his physique (I'm not completely certain on this one if it's something that is seen in context of the environment or not, like if shortness for example is universally unattractive or could be seen as attractive in an environment that prefers it, and to what degree a human's conscious appraisal of the environment could really interact with their attraction), and his behaviour. Dark triads are thought to be advantageous for genetic success. For example, if you cheat on your girlfriend, you spread your genes more than if you don't.
And then we have the typical nurturing traits: faithfulness, low testosterone, etc.
We see that the things that make men genetically successful are also the things that make them poor at nurturing and being faithful. At least within a primitive context: society traditionally has made it so that promiscuity etc was more difficult.
And yet, it is advantageous for women to procure both these mutually exclusive traits: dark triads, and "niceguy syndrome". In "The Red Queen", by Matt Ridley, he explains it as such: The optimal arrangement is for a woman to first obtain the "sexy" genes from a "badboy", via a one-night-stand type-arrangement. This makes her offspring more liable to genetic success. She then secures an unsexy niceguy for a long term relationship, who invests resources in the children.
As mentioned, society until recently has curtailed this, but it's starting to come back again.
You're only reinforcing my point by predictably choosing to try to attack the person instead of the argument. That's a very common theme here, of course. It's easy to throw around ad homs.
Since you make it personal, I will mention in this case that I do have a Physics degree, so I am quite familiar with science. I also have a Masters in Software Engineering, but I'm not sure if that would really count as science. It's close to "Computer Science", but science is the study of the natural world, whilst computers are a synthetic creation. Then again, Computer Science is often more the study of algorithms etc, which places it more in the same category as Mathematics. I don't think Mathematics is considered a science, since it's more a refinement of human models/tools than something that exists materially within the universe... debatable, I guess.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
Evolutionary psychology.
And a physics degree, too. A physicist with a degree in software engineering has come to tell us all how biology works.
Are you fucking shitting me.
And a physics degree, too. A physicist with a degree in software engineering has come to tell us all how biology works.
Are you fucking shitting me.
Attacking character again?
I had a look, can't find that exact study now. I read it a year or so ago.
Here's a couple of others.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=CE0EB066222712B475167AA26E93ED8B.f03t01
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Dark-Triad-Personality.pdf
The first link talks more about how the traits make a short term mating strategy the preference, rather than specifically about attraction, but we see a correlation with the preference for short term mating strategies and short term mating success, which makes sense.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
I'm no evolutionary psychologist, but I believe it's your scientific expertise, rather than your character, that is being attacked.
If my expertise is lacking, then that is a proxy for saying that my arguments are also lacking. If my arguments are lacking, there is no need to attack my expertise, because my arguments can be attacked instead.
Anyway, when you pick a "side" in a discussion, you've already lost. When you attach views and arguments to people. We'd make a lot more progress to view the seeking of knowledge as a collaborative effort than a competition. When you've assigned yourself a side, you've limited yourself such that your knowledge can't change to suit the best model available at any one time. So, I don't view it as "my argument". It's just "an argument", that I happen to have voiced. It exists externally to me, however, and I'm happy for it to be analyzed critically if it brings greater understanding either way.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
I'm not trying to refute the study you posted because I have no reason to believe it's wrong (but I'm also aware that drawing a conclusion from a single study is weak, especially in the social sciences).
I am, in fact, attacking you. Or rather, your retarded hypothesis that you ctrl+c'd from r/theredpill
I have no inherent opposition to the idea that antisocial behaviour is sexually attractive. In fact, I'm going to throw you a freebie and point out that disagreeableness in the five factor model is linked to number of partners.
Except that this is true with both men and women, which completely throws a wrench in your standard talking point about how woman secretly love being submissive.
And I'm so glad this equips you to explain women to me.
Which totally avoids the issues of falsifiability and lack of observable data that stops leftist social theory from being taken seriously.
I've never been on the redpill. I'm not even completely sure what they stand for. On our forum (not sluthate, one of them came over once and was extremely bigoted and offensive) one time there was a thread that said something along the lines of "PUA is dead! The Red Pill has won" and I was like "but... isn't the red pill kinda PUA or something? PUA mixed with MRA?"
Depends. Are you using number of partners to determine this, or directly from ratings of attractiveness?
The number of partners for women is irrelevant to their attractiveness. It's not hard for any woman to get sex. The number of partners a woman has is only limited by how many partners she wants, not her attractiveness.
Actually, it was in response to your quip that "science is complicated". Now, taking my response to that as if it was to imply I am qualified to "explain women" is a straw man.
I thought, if anything, leftist social theory was the opposite. They start with a set of conclusions they want to draw, and try to find ways to justify it. The left is all about political correctness. They hate the idea of evolutionary psychology, they'd rather that "everything is due to patriarchal culture". That sex differences could have a biological basis is "sexist" and "hateful" and perhaps (amusingly) sometimes "racist" lol.
- Status