Sluthate.com

[DuskEngine]

I'I'm not even completely sure what they stand for.

I was like "but... isn't the red pill kinda PUA or something? PUA mixed with MRA?"

It...runs the gamut. It seems to be kind of a weird ideological axis that unites MGTOW, Wizards, /pol/, PUAs, incels, and whatever other idiot from that 'side' you could think of.
Again, believe me when I say that I've seen those same arguments you posted essentially word-for-word.

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.

Fair enough. But my point stands.

Depends. Are you using number of partners to determine this, or directly from ratings of attractiveness?

Number of partners.

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.

You have nothing to back that up, and even if you did, saying that it's easy for any woman to get sex is highly unscientific, and even then, you're not answering my point about why disagreeableness (which predicts for the dark triad) is associated with sexual success in women as well as men.

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.

As opposed to the clusterfuck of unprovable circular reasoning that is evopsych

 

[mooooo]

You have nothing to back that up, and even if you did, saying that it's easy for any woman to get sex is highly unscientific, and even then, you're not answering my point about why disagreeableness (which predicts for the dark triad) is associated with sexual success in women as well as men.

There could theoretically be highly physically disabled women who struggle to get sex, but I doubt it.

If you want scientific repeatability, take a picture of any female that isn't hideously deformed, make an online dating profile in any fairly populated area, say that you're looking for sex, and see how many offers you get. It can be verified beyond doubt that women have effectively unlimited access to sex. This isn't even disputed widely. Women are always complaining about guys trying to "get into their pants" not that there are no guys who want in lol.

I already explained why dark triads is then associated with more partners in women. As the study I linked and mentioned explains, dark triads leads one to possess a stronger desire for one night stands compared to relationships. By its definition, dark triads includes risk taking and sensation seeking. If a woman wants one night stands, she'll get as many as she wants.

As opposed to the clusterfuck of unprovable circular reasoning that is evopsych

Saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.

Anyway, you can disagree with what exactly evopsych currently teaches, but it's impossible to reasonably disagree with evopsych itself. If you accept that we evolved, then you also accept that our brain was a part of evolution. Therefore, evolutionary forces shaped our psychology.

My personal stance with regards biology vs culture is that biology defines the foundations of our desires, and culture shapes how they are expressed. As a physiological example, biology instills a need for excretion; society makes us use toilets. If everything was culture, we could teach a dog quantum mechanics because intelligence is evidently so fluid that biology means nothing with regards it.

 

[Durable Mike Malloy]

Attacking character again?

There is a part of this site called "Off Topic." (edit: It may not be available to you yet, as you seem to be a relatively new user. If that is the case, just wait a little bit and it will appear.) In "Off Topic," there is a subforum called "Deep Thoughts." That is where you will find conversations on subjects like biological sex and gender, personal versus public responsibility, evolutionary theory and so on.

This thread, right here, is for making fun of Sluthate and its ridiculous user base.

When you come into this thread and tell everyone about your many degrees, you seem not only desperate for attention, but also profoundly socially unaware.

You may also be unaware that the physicist or engineer who likes to explain evolution to biologists is often a walking punchline and a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

If you would like to interpret this as an attack on your character, please feel free.

 

[Meowthkip]

@mooooo Do you have a girlfriend?

Have you ever touched a boob?

 

[melty]

I'll just leave this here
http://markmanson.net/evolution

It always cracks me up how many non biologists spout this nonsense. It's always physicists, engineers, or my favorite, comp sci majors

 

[Saney]

Who let Marjan out of his box?

 

[melty]

Anyway, you can disagree with what exactly evopsych currently teaches, but it's impossible to reasonably disagree with evopsych itself. If you accept that we evolved, then you also accept that our brain was a part of evolution. Therefore, evolutionary forces shaped our psychology.

Since we are products of evolution, our brain and our psychology is a product of evolution, true. But if our understanding of psychology or our brains isn't rigorous enough to connect to our understanding of evolution then not only do we not have to explain psychology in terms of evolution, we can't explain psychology in terms of evolution and anybody who attempts to pass their understanding of psychology off as "evolutionary" should be resoundingly mocked. Psychology as a field is a pretty big clusterfuck, I barely take any new study I read seriously and even the notorious cases that more or less wrote the textbooks have come under heavy scrutiny in recent years. It really cracks me up that psuedointellectuals latch on to evpsych because it seems a lot more science-y than the notoriously soft science of psychology but they are perfectly willing to use whatever psych studies they happen to like to back up their "hard" science observations. You're not cherrypicking any less than PC liberal SJWs.

 

[A-№1]

Stuff. Blah blah cads and dads blah blah blah.

Once again: This is a thread for laughing at bitter incel lolcows, not being them.

Or debating them.

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.

Sorry. I've known too many people with "physics degrees" or who are computer "scientists" to give that claim any weight whatsoever. Unless you're going to post a CV or some real credentials, making claims like that will only make people take you less seriously, not more. Just saying.

 

[melty]

Re. Dark Triad - they are successful pretty much everywhere in life, not just in relationships. They routinely make it to leadership positions in corporate America and the government and pretty much have, even before women were really part of the workforce. They leech off of same-sex friends and their own families. It's not a gender or relationship specific thing, that's just RPers reframing concepts to get people to subscribe to their insane worldview, they practically have a formula for it

Edit: it looks like moooo signed up last month, and his first order of business and the only thing he's done since is spew his idiotic beliefs in a thread more or less dedicated to mocking them

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

Attacking character again?

This is not a place to even pretend to have a serious debate about anything. Attacking character is on topic as long as it's not a-log. You have super fucking autistic degrees and sometimes talk like rainman just a little. Sluthate is a silly place full of angry people.

@mooooo Do you have a girlfriend?

Have you ever touched a boob?

Most boobs in physics and software engineering are on men.

 

[AnOminous]

It really cracks me up that psuedointellectuals latch on to evpsych because it seems a lot more science-y than the notoriously soft science of psychology but they are perfectly willing to use whatever psych studies they happen to like to back up their "hard" science observations. You're not cherrypicking any less than PC liberal SJWs.

Evo psych has basically the same problem as Freudianism. It's great for explaining pretty much anything that already happened, and downright lousy for making testable predictions. Like psychology eventually moved on from its Freudian roots, I imagine we'll see some kind of useful evolutionarily-based psychology at some time. That time is not now, though.

 

[Durable Mike Malloy]

So Elliot Rodger's Whinyfesto is now referred to as "literature"? And I thought it bad enough that "Atlas Shrugged" is considered such.

So, I went ahead and read all the incel literature - I have a weakness for manifestos and do not value my time.

Otto Weininger argues that feminine women are literally telepathic, and their so-called "thoughts" and "feelings" are actually hypnotic states induced by psychically powerful male minds. Some women have male minds and can think their own thoughts; you can recognize these women because they are ugly. Those were not metaphors; he believed this to be scientific fact. And boy howdy, wait until you get to the part at the end about the Jews!

Gilmartin claims to provide a balanced perspective on the causal antecedents of male shyness; according to him, this personality trait stems from a combination of nature, nurture, and occult forces. He provides little actionable advice, and much of that advice seems useless, harmful, or batshit insane. He encourages his readers to actively shun potential avenues for personal betterment.

Esther Vilar's pamphlet is a reactionary rant that contains few facts and gets most of those wrong. For example, she claims that women are incapable of abstract thought and happy to spend hours washing dishes; men do them a disservice by inventing labor-saving devices such as the automatic dishwasher. Never mind that the dishwasher was invented by Josephine Cochran of Shelbyville, Illinois. No citations, no research, no persuasive arguments.

Set aside the fact that Rodger actually killed people, and "My Twisted World" might actually be the best entry on this list.

 

[Accipiter]

Aw man, I remember reading about that "Government gets Girlfriends" guy a while back and just...dude.

Also this gem from the "incel" page:

Females can not be incel. Women's problem isn't that they can't get a boyfriend, but that they can't get the boyfriend being spoiled by society due to their gender has led them to believe they're entitled to: tall, dark, handsome alpha males.

The guy I'm interested in is overweight and broke. I wonder what these basement goblins' diagnosis is for me :v

 

[Saney]

Aw man, I remember reading about that "Government gets Girlfriends" guy a while back and just...dude.

Also this gem from the "incel" page:



The guy I'm interested in is overweight and broke. I wonder what these basement goblins' diagnosis is for me :v

That's Marjan, he has two threads here. Very funny guy, completely insane and as smart as a sack of rocks.

 

[A-№1]

So, I went ahead and read all the incel literature

…so we don't have to¹. That's some valuable public service you're doing there. Thanks for taking one for the team.

I wonder what these basement goblins' diagnosis is for me :v

They would call you a slut² and they would hate you for it. Obviously. They don't call themselves sluthate.com for nothing.
__
¹ Seriously, there was no way in hell I was actually going to click on any of those links.
² Of course it would take them several pages and would probably include references to Jung, Nietzsche, Huxley, Nostradamus, and so on. Really if these shmucks spent half as much time trying to get women as they spend complaining about women…

 

[SU 390]

…so we don't have to¹. That's some valuable public service you're doing there. Thanks for taking one for the team.


They would call you a slut² and they would hate you for it. Obviously. They don't call themselves sluthate.com for nothing.
__
¹ Seriously, there was no way in hell I was actually going to click on any of those links.
² Of course it would take them several pages and would probably include references to Jung, Nietzsche, Huxley, Nostradamus, and so on. Really if these shmucks spent half as much time trying to get women as they spend complaining about women…

How do you do footnotes on here?

So, I went ahead and read all the incel literature - I have a weakness for manifestos and do not value my time.

Otto Weininger argues that feminine women are literally telepathic, and their so-called "thoughts" and "feelings" are actually hypnotic states induced by psychically powerful male minds. Some women have male minds and can think their own thoughts; you can recognize these women because they are ugly. Those were not metaphors; he believed this to be scientific fact. And boy howdy, wait until you get to the part at the end about the Jews!

Gilmartin claims to provide a balanced perspective on the causal antecedents of male shyness; according to him, this personality trait stems from a combination of nature, nurture, and occult forces. He provides little actionable advice, and much of that advice seems useless, harmful, or batshit insane. He encourages his readers to actively shun potential avenues for personal betterment.

Esther Vilar's pamphlet is a reactionary rant that contains few facts and gets most of those wrong. For example, she claims that women are incapable of abstract thought and happy to spend hours washing dishes; men do them a disservice by inventing labor-saving devices such as the automatic dishwasher. Never mind that the dishwasher was invented by Josephine Cochran of Shelbyville, Illinois. No citations, no research, no persuasive arguments.

Set aside the fact that Rodger actually killed people, and "My Twisted World" might actually be the best entry on this list.

I rated this post for feels because you saved me and everyone else from reading that shit. You are a brave soul.

Aw man, I remember reading about that "Government gets Girlfriends" guy a while back and just...dude.

Also this gem from the "incel" page:



The guy I'm interested in is overweight and broke. I wonder what these basement goblins' diagnosis is for me :v

They'll think that you'll cheat on the guy if you manage to get into a relationship with him, with an alpha that has a 10 inch penis.

Or that you finally lowered your standards because you couldn't find a hot alpha to suit your selfish, picky, reptilian, hivemind brain, hypergamous needs and wants.

That was exhausting to type. I think this is why I don't frequent the LS forums anymore.

 

[mooooo]

I may have to do a triple post here if I want to keep things organised lol

There is a part of this site called "Off Topic." (edit: It may not be available to you yet, as you seem to be a relatively new user. If that is the case, just wait a little bit and it will appear.) In "Off Topic," there is a subforum called "Deep Thoughts." That is where you will find conversations on subjects like biological sex and gender, personal versus public responsibility, evolutionary theory and so on.

This thread, right here, is for making fun of Sluthate and its ridiculous user base.

When you come into this thread and tell everyone about your many degrees, you seem not only desperate for attention, but also profoundly socially unaware.

That would be valid if I just offered the information for no point, but instead it was a response to a statement making assertions about my understanding of science, and thus it was relevant and warranted.

You may also be unaware that the physicist or engineer who likes to explain evolution to biologists is often a walking punchline and a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Again, it's irrelevant to just say how my knowledge is lacking. If my knowledge is lacking, my arguments are flawed, and these biologists will no doubt easily point these flaws out.

If you would like to interpret this as an attack on your character, please feel free.

It's not about attacking my character, it's about trying to use assertions about my character as substitutions for arguments in a discussion. I don't even really have anything against character attacks. Sometimes my posts follow the format <attack argument> <draw conclusions about character>. What I dislike is <draw conclusions about character> <use conclusions to dismiss argument>. The latter is ad hom, the former isn't.

 

[SU 390]

View attachment 13453

Off topic, I rated this winner, because I love how this has become a meme for a while now.

 

[mooooo]

@mooooo Do you have a girlfriend?

Have you ever touched a boob?

I'm married.

 

[Meowthkip]

I'm married.

Does your wife know about the shit you say online?