Sluthate.com

[KingGeedorah]

I still think it's dishonest to label psychological experiments as pseudo-science because you disagree with them. And as for OKCupid data, it's probably the largest collection of data of its kind and I think it'd be pretty stupid to totally ignore it. Tinder experiments aren't science, obviously, but they definitely say something. As for "inherently subjective opinions"(probably a reference to beauty being totally subjective, eye of the beholder, etc), that's a completely different debate which I doubt anybody wants to get into. At least you argued, Strat, but I knew very little about this forum before this whole thing, besides reading some threads about Jace, so I didn't know it'd be pointless to try and have a debate. Ambrose is also a legit poster here, at least for spelling out to me this place's M.O.

Yall nerds spend so much time reading data that you'll never get laid.

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

Yall nerds spend so much time reading data that you'll never get laid.

People bash these studies and I think they're interesting and sort of useful even i they're not up to academic levels of rigor.

But this is true if you spend all day thinking about dating and compiling data and especially talking about it on sluthate you'll never get laid. Just being on the site and reading you retards talking hurts my social skills and god forbid my mind wanders back to your nuttiness when a hot girl is talking to me instant anxiety.
There is a small handful of god advice about working out and concentrating on your appearance a little. But it's small enough to fit into one post, there is no reason to hang out there talking to those nutballs.

I don't believe it as literally as some people but there is something to say you're going to be a mixture of the other 5 people you talk to most... there's something to the idea sometimes being a better happier person is as easy as getting away from your worst influences.

 

[Sanic]

I still think it's dishonest to label psychological experiments as pseudo-science because you disagree with them. And as for OKCupid data, it's probably the largest collection of data of its kind and I think it'd be pretty stupid to totally ignore it. Tinder experiments aren't science, obviously, but they definitely say something. As for "inherently subjective opinions"(probably a reference to beauty being totally subjective, eye of the beholder, etc), that's a completely different debate which I doubt anybody wants to get into. At least you argued, Strat, but I knew very little about this forum before this whole thing, besides reading some threads about Jace, so I didn't know it'd be pointless to try and have a debate. Ambrose is also a legit poster here, at least for spelling out to me this place's M.O.

Welcome back, my man. I missed you.

 

[Stratomsk]

I still think it's dishonest to label psychological experiments as pseudo-science because you disagree with them. And as for OKCupid data, it's probably the largest collection of data of its kind and I think it'd be pretty stupid to totally ignore it. Tinder experiments aren't science, obviously, but they definitely say something. As for "inherently subjective opinions"(probably a reference to beauty being totally subjective, eye of the beholder, etc), that's a completely different debate which I doubt anybody wants to get into. At least you argued, Strat, but I knew very little about this forum before this whole thing, besides reading some threads about Jace, so I didn't know it'd be pointless to try and have a debate. Ambrose is also a legit poster here, at least for spelling out to me this place's M.O.

The prevailing impression I get from many users at Sluthate.com is that they believe their dating troubles share a direct relationship with their physical appearance. They're arguments tend towards "Appearance determines personality" or "Looks are very important for meeting people".

Lets throw the online dating experiments out the window. They do not determine how these people function in real life and therefore do not prove anything of notable worth. Anonymity on the internet makes online dating a risk and often the people involved have very little information they can actually use. Imagine a date between two people who are totally blindfolded and are able to only see what the other person tells them. It takes far more effort to actually try to meet people in real life than it does to look at a Tinder account which makes the latter the easier option. It has its drawbacks such as any information the other person may give may also be completely false. That layer of anonymity helps create these situations because it is easy to make yourself look good when behind a computer screen.

That lack of verifiable information shows it self in making decisions based on whoever looks better on the surface level which simply doesn't happen in real life on nearly the same level online dating does. When you are meeting people so much more goes into the conversation that go beyond superficial things that play merely a minor factor in real life.

The way you approach people and make conversations matters far more because it represents what distinguishes you from the rest of the general population. Having what would be considered 'good' facial features(beauty is still a subjective concept) does not automatically mean dating will do itself for you. Real life does not work that way.

The idea that your chin being misshapen or your eyes not being perfectly symmetrical is a blatant cop-out many people at Sluthate.com use because they fear possible rejection in dating and want a perfect solution where there really is none.

 

[ON 190]

And as for OKCupid data, it's probably the largest collection of data of its kind and I think it'd be pretty stupid to totally ignore it.

No one is totally ignoring it, but it's hardly collected in a way that's 100% credible. It's not scientific.

Tinder experiments aren't science, obviously,

Okay, then pass.

As for "inherently subjective opinions"(probably a reference to beauty being totally subjective, eye of the beholder, etc), that's a completely different debate which I doubt anybody wants to get into.

"Anybody" meaning you. The human brain doesn't look at something like "beauty" and reduce it to numbers for immediate scrutiny. Every person goes by past experiences, personal preferences, etc.

Ambrose is also a legit poster here, at least for spelling out to me this place's M.O.

To laugh at people, not argue.

"Then saith @flossman unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will mock the loveshy and the sheep of their flock shall be scattered abroad. Copdog will do the rest"

 

[Ti-99/4A]

Why couldn't they find a nice blind girl to date? Looks would be a 100% non issue for her and blind people need love too.

And for the record I would be quite open to the idea myself if there weren't several severe logistical issues regarding my apartment complex.

 

[JU 199]

Why couldn't they find a nice blind girl to date? Looks would be a 100% non issue for her and blind people need love too.

She couldn't complement them on their chad-like looks. 0/10

 

[Dr. Boe Jangles Esq.]

I still think it's dishonest to label psychological experiments as pseudo-science because you disagree with them. And as for OKCupid data, it's probably the largest collection of data of its kind and I think it'd be pretty stupid to totally ignore it. Tinder experiments aren't science, obviously, but they definitely say something. As for "inherently subjective opinions"(probably a reference to beauty being totally subjective, eye of the beholder, etc), that's a completely different debate which I doubt anybody wants to get into. At least you argued, Strat, but I knew very little about this forum before this whole thing, besides reading some threads about Jace, so I didn't know it'd be pointless to try and have a debate. Ambrose is also a legit poster here, at least for spelling out to me this place's M.O.

I could not agree more with your first assertion. Too often, "pseudoscience" is used to attack relevant psychological data that someone doesn't like, when it should really only be applied to biased, illogical, poorly researched pet theories that fail to hold up to any kind of academic rigor or scrutiny. Your beliefs fall quite firmly into the latter, of course, but good to know we can all agree on something.
As for OkCupid? Well, as a businessman, let me clue you in to a little secret: virtually all data about a product or service presented by a for-profit business is going to be skewed and tinkered with in certain ways. This is because things like OkCupid aren't run by psychologists or scientists, but by marketing and business majors looking to turn a profit. It's why we have peer-reviewed research to begin with: to remove any personal interests or biases from data. As such, I think to blindly accept what you interpret as "data", is a bit naive, because I guarantee you they "present it in an appealing light", or openly bullshit, to translate from Corporatese. You'd be stupid not to, because that's what marketing is: presenting your own interpretation of "facts" to get people to pay for premium services. For someone from a group that claims to be so worldly and wise, you seem shockingly unaware that people fuck with data to get what they want.

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

his is because things like OkCupid aren't run by psychologists or scientists, but by marketing and business majors looking to turn a profit. It's why we have peer-reviewed research to begin with: to remove any personal interests or biases from data. As such, I think to blindly accept what you interpret as "data", is a bit naive, because I guarantee you they "present it in an appealing light", or openly bullshit, to translate from Corporatese.

I don't see the results of the data as something that's going to encourage people to date online, perhaps even the opposite other than maybe someone googling for that kind of data might sign up for the website. I got the impression that they were picking apart the data the best they could in order to improve their match algorithm... they even admitted their conclusion was that despite the thousands of sometimes very personal questions that you could answer to find a good match on the site the best predictor of compatibility was "Do you like horror movies?".

I mentioned earlier that I was stuck somewhere with a laptop and not much else to do for awhile and ended up answering a ton of questions.... after that the site gave me such horrible matches that I completely gave up on it. My liberal politics and attitudes toward sex seemed to match me almost exclusively with "exclusively straight but quadsexual power feminist" tumblr weirdos who are an absolutely horrible match for me. I went on a date she was cool but we both commented that there was something offputting about having sex together (I was not at all surprised to hear she was living as a man and happy with a woman later on) and another one who was not cool and I literally called her a fucking crybaby during our date as she outlined the complex struggles she had as a young chronically unemployed feminist who somehow had a nice apartment in an extremely expensive part of town, very nice clothes, a gym membership, beer and pot cash, a cable/internet package, iphone, a car, and a parking spot.

Anyhow I got better matches after I cleared all the data from my account... maybe it's just matching me with the other rejects who have a hard time dating In any case okc seems to have tried their best to figure out what makes people compatible and failed. I'm sure if they felt the data would be beneficial to a competitor they would have kept it secret.

 

[Simplicity111]

I somehow don't think it would be fair to call them 'waves'. That gives them far too much credit. It more along the lines of random unorganized flying monkey raids of varying involved classes that are rarely capable of rational thought and screech at the top of their lungs the same rehashed nonsense over and over again.

The classes:

The Shitslinger (uncommon) - This class is characterized by shitposting. All of the shitposting and everything included. Often resorts to personal attacks and poorly written arguments and off-topic nonsense. Notable examples: @umad , @AIDS , @MysteryMan (in the beginning)

The Pseudo-logician (somewhat rare) - This class is characterized by an approach to what would assume to be logical thought on the surface. However, this is flawed when evidence on the importance of physical appearance is done with biased dating website experiments and various other pseudo-science in order to prove inherently subjective opinions. Notable examples: @DiamondInTheRough , 'the boss' , 'cat' , and @Amud.

The Virgin Sexualizer (very common) - This class is the forefront of Sluthate's forces of darkness. It is characterized by a longing to approach women as sexual objects but the apprehension to act on those desires. They instead blame their problems on Chad Thunderdick who does not exist and wish to be like him no matter the financial cost. Notable individuals: @sephon , @MysteryMan , and pretty much everyone else on Sluthate.

The Heel-Face (unbelievably rare) - This class is characterized by somebody with the general principles Sluthate stands for but rejects due to outside factors. This is such a rare individual that only legends speak of single digit numbers of this class for centuries at a time. Most recent example in a very long time is @Shidoshi.

The Dweller (uncommon) - This class is characterized by the worst the website has to offer. Pedophiles, conspiracy theorists, and hackers which have a tendency to keep to themselves on Sluthate. Notable examples: @OmegaKV , 'mrz' , and @Emil King.

@rat is probably a class of his own: The Insane.

The Insane (beyond rare) - A WORSE version of the shitslinger, this class says WHATEVER comes to mind and doesn't notice or care if it breaks their reputation. Handle with care. Notable examples: @rat .

 

[BriarHeart]

Once again, today's Oglaf is both SFW and relevant to the sloothaterz and their view of women:

Spoiler

 

[trip2themoon]

I just read the list of double standards. This one confused me: " A Plain Jane receives more likes of a selfie pic on facebook, more free drinks and presents, more invites to parties, more socially preferential treatment, more approaches by the opposite sex, more friends and social support, in just 1 day... compared to the Average Joe receives over the course of 10 years."

True or not, I don't see how it's a double standard and that's not the only one in the list where I couldn't spot the double standard. It was more like a load of cry-baby shit. I've been attacked by a girlfriend and called a pussy by her for not hitting her back. Shit happens, move on and stop crying about it. I doubt the writer of the list has ever even been close enough to a girl to be hit by her.

 

[AP 297]

(excuse doublepost)

Update from sluthate

http://sluthate.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74181

Another website has mocked sluthate's worship of the germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/...525-as-a-legitimate-slayer-and-an-incel-hero/

Now, sluthate isn't having that

Btw this has really brought the crazy out of them

(can't screenshot at the moment)

djfranktank- "I ALWAYS laugh my ass off when a website quotes our post.

When you are on the site they don't seem that funny and are practically normal post that everyone makes on here but when taken out of context and highlighted these post sound so hilarious

"

-----------------------------

heilsa- hahaha lmao. free publicity.

------------------------------

gobman3000- Fuck man, never got quoted.

Why do all these femcunts always abide by the just world fallacy and ignore cause and effect?

----------------------------

Tyger's Mom- Have sympathy for them as they do not know of what they speak.

Who wasn't of likemind as the trolls prior to discovering Looks Law, 80/20 Law, the debilitating fake-online MM profiles, OKCupid women saying open to dating other types of men but only actually replying to Chads, outright prejudice against men based on their height, women expecting their significant other to earn a higher income despite professing equal pay for women, etc.............etc...............etc............................

----------------------------

Patriarch- Just take a look at this comment. If this doesnt redpill you, i dont know what will:



So you are supposed to sacrifice yourself so some shitcunt and her Chads can live while some other shitcunt posts your story on facebook and says what a nice guy you were before getting railed by Chad another time.

-----------------------------------
alienfranco-



It's funny how they say that a beta uprising or incel revolution will never happen because incels would sooner be "locked up" by the government before they would commit mass murder. Normals are a bunch of statist violent brutes as you can see.

Cops ain't shit. Incels may be a small group (they are a much larger group than these fucks would like to admit though. Many of these idiots in the comments section are virgins or beta cucks themselves. But won't admit it to themselves). But society also has to worry about the niggers, spics and muslims too. Cops think they are all tough with a badge and a gun. But they're not so tough when a pack of 3 BBC tie them up, gangsta fuck his wife and force the cop to watch.

--------------------------------------
Flawed Mentat-

LOL what a fat disgusting subhuman, he's fucked. Someone photoshop a baseball cap on that fat head and he'd look like Michael Moore's twin brother.

Wonder how whiteknighting and playing justice warrior is working out for him.

Wonder who his oneitis is, the slut he hopes will one day take notice of him if he belches enough of the correct sounds and noises.

Archived it for you!

https://archive.today/ZElgk

 

[ON 190]

Archived it for you!

https://archive.today/ZElgk

I bet 20 minutes until they claim this is all false false FALSE!!!!

 

[AP 297]

I bet 20 minutes until they claim this is all false false FALSE!!!!

I archived all the pages where they mention me and the horror about Gandy not being good looking. I want to keep that for my portfolio!

 

[Ca Ira]

Why couldn't they find a nice blind girl to date?

I'd actually love to hear a sluthater's response to this.

 

[Meowthkip]

I just read the list of double standards. This one confused me: " A Plain Jane receives more likes of a selfie pic on facebook, more free drinks and presents, more invites to parties, more socially preferential treatment, more approaches by the opposite sex, more friends and social support, in just 1 day... compared to the Average Joe receives over the course of 10 years."

I've gotten free stuff from people before but like, every day? Nobody gets free shit from people every day. Come on now. Those are special occasions.

Maybe if you guys worked on being polite and pleasant people might give you a bagel or a slice of pizza for free just 'cause they like you.

 

[Positron]

Why couldn't they find a nice blind girl to date?

Blind girls have standards too.
And sluthaters are too narcissistic to adapt to the needs of a blind person.

 

[Simplicity111]

Blind girls have standards too.
And sluthaters are too narcissistic to adapt to the needs of a blind person.

While the Sluthaters tried to improve upon their looks 24/7, when they meet a very nice blind girl, they have to realize all their effort was in vein, hence ruining their lives by having them waste thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgery earlier.

 

[Dr. Boe Jangles Esq.]

I've gotten free stuff from people before but like, every day? Nobody gets free shit from people every day. Come on now. Those are special occasions.

Maybe if you guys worked on being polite and pleasant people might give you a bagel or a slice of pizza for free just 'cause they like you.

I'm a goofy chubby dude. By Sluthate standards, I should be drowning in self pity and loneliness. Yet, I seem perpetually surrounded by delightful people, and have nothing to complain about romantically. My only real thing to offer is that I love, more than anything else, to try and make people laugh. I think it's the greatest thing you can do for a person. I think being funny and trying to brighten up people's lives is the noblest of endeavors, because who doesn't love to laugh?
However, seeing as things like "personality" don't exist, I guess that must make me Chad Thundercock.
You may bow now, Sluthaters.

Blind girls have standards too.
And sluthaters are too narcissistic to adapt to the needs of a blind person.

A blind girl, in many ways, would be even more difficult for them than regular women. If looks aren't in the equation, the only thing left is what's on the inside. And on the inside, Sluthaters are narcissistic, bitter, mean-spirited little goblins.