[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/pony/ - Pony

Ponies and General Posting
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.849668[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1539989339733.gif (2.89 MB, 365x205, 73:41, Cuckmon.gif) ImgOps Google

Are cucks real or just a meme?

 No.849671

"Being cucked" is a real term for someone whose partner sleeps around.

Cuckolding as a fetish - that is, enjoying seeing your partner have sex with others, with or without a bit of humiliation roleplay aspect thrown in, is real.

The meme is, as usual, taking a word that wouldn't actually be an insult to most of the people it fits and turning it into an insult just to make themselves look oh so normal and smart and sassy for making fun of others.

 No.849672

File: 1539989801744.jpg (722.71 KB, 1200x1148, 300:287, but its just a theory... A….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>849671
So it's all real but also a meme. Got it.

Also using "cuck" as an insult is exactly the kind of thing children do in the playground: Call each other names
We are all children at heart!

 No.849673

>>849672
Welcome to the internet.

It's literally the same fucking sandbox with a mixture of kids that play nice, and other kids that shit in the sand or kick the sand into the other kids' faces for playing with the wrong GI Joes.

They just trick themselves into thinking they're being adult because they've learned how to type since then.

 No.849674

File: 1539990037426.gif (784.82 KB, 178x240, 89:120, Mimi plz no die.gif) ImgOps Google

>>849673
Someone sounds mad here. Anythin you wanna get off your chest?

 No.849675

>>849674
Nothing specific, just general tiredness of people behaving like that online.

 No.849676

File: 1539990230094.png (32.09 KB, 200x200, 1:1, Asleep.png) ImgOps Google

>>849675
Wouldn't be people if we didn't call each other names, you cuck.

 No.849677

>>849676
You might have a point there, dickface.

 No.849683

I'm not sure how I feel about the existence of this thread.

On the one hand I am sick of this meme,

On the other, I get a sort of guilty, smug sort pleasure at the sort of inferiority complex that one telegraphs to others by calling others cucks.

Honestly, it seems like the mindset that would think that "cuck" would be a real insult is informed by a worldview that makes one easily susceptible to con men, and thus "cuck" ends up being deliciously ironic.

 No.849686

File: 1539991201476.jpg (9.67 KB, 180x150, 6:5, sNAIL GIRLS NEVER CHANGE.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>849683
>I am sick of this meme,
I am sick of almost every meme and yet no one ever listens to my complains.

 No.849687

>>849683  what does the insult convey to you?

 No.849698

If i recall there was a story to this about some guy who convince his wife to have an open relationship but what happen was his wife was always getting laid and he wasn't able to convince anyone to lay him so he became bi but none of the guys wanted him ether so he started bad mouthing his wife.

 No.849703

>>849698
Nice to see it had a happy ending.

 No.849707

>>849698  has only himself to blame  :pinkie11:

 No.849713

>>849687

I associate it with people who by into the whole "alphamale" and "betacuck" framework in which they organize other people in the world. "Cuck" implying that one is easily dominated or even pathetically willingly subservient.

It mostly serves the ego of the individual who buys into that. If they need to believe that they are an alpha male to have any sort of sense of emotional security it just indicates that they have a social insecurity that can easily be exploited.

I just find it a kind of ridiculous self serving sort of delusion when in real life it's never the assertive dominate males who really run everything through threat of domination or just pure confidence alone, but rather the empathetic and charismatic people who lead via persuasion, to whom, historically, the "alpha male" has always been subservient.

 No.849717

>>849713  That's not quite how I see it, but your take on it makes sense.

 No.849718

>>849717

So what do you see "cuck" as meaning? Someone who is willingly humilated?

 No.849719

>>849718  or unwillingly, yes

 No.849722

>>849719

So, how is that different from being easily dominated?

 No.849723

>>849722  independent of alpha/beta framework

 No.849724

>>849723

but, that whole alpha/beta framework is ultimately about being dominant or being dominated. It would seem to me that the idea of being easily humilated, willingly or unwillingly, would imply one is dominated and thus doesn't really retain their "alpha" status. Hence the reason "cuck" is often associated with "beta".

 No.849727

>>849724  I think there's more to it.  I see it more as someone of such weak character as to, either willingly or unwillingly, enter into AND THEN ALSO resign themselves to such a humiliating arrangement.  It may be that all cucks are betas, as you say, but I don't think the reverse is true.  Alpha/beta is about dominance.  Cuck is about resignation.  Alphas will never be cucks because they simply won't put up with it.  Some betas will.

 No.849729

File: 1539994278953.png (238.94 KB, 900x774, 50:43, pinkygala2.png) ImgOps Google

>>849668

I like the way the word sounds :pinkie11:

 No.849732

>>849727

That's not really too far from my interpretation of it. Because if one is resigned to a state of humiliation it still ultimately implies they are easily dominated. And if one will not put up with it, that means they are dominant.

What I am saying though, is not that "Alphas" are actually resigning themselves to humiliation, I'm saying that they are more often than not in denial or more often than not, oblivious about how humiliated and dominated they are by con artist manipulating them through their egos. "Your a real man, you don't take shit from anyone, you won't tolerate being humilated, buy my book!" "Wow, you're right, I'm a real man, I'm a true alpha, I will buy your book!"

I'm also implying that the egocentrism through which they interpret other people's actions leads them to see other people as being humiliated and resigned when they might not actually be humiliated at all.

And, I am outright stating that, the kind of worldview one must have to find a word like "cuck" to be insulting, and what the obvious appeal of that world view is, implies a fundamental personal insecurity in those people who would find such a self-satisfying world view appealing.

That's why I take a kind of guilty pleasure in thinking about someone who uses that word as an insult as inadvertently humiliating themselves in their attempts to humiliate others.

 No.849735

File: 1539995172631.png (190.62 KB, 621x1285, 621:1285, pinkyyes.png) ImgOps Google

>>849732

So just because I'm pushy and persnickety doesn't mean I can't be a cuck/be cucked if I want to be?  Cuz I kinda do, just....my way.

 No.849749

File: 1539996349807.gif (1.42 MB, 725x657, 725:657, 1117421__safe_solo_screenc….gif) ImgOps Google

>>849732  I don't think ease has anything to do with it, necessarily.  :dash7:  I don't think not putting up with it automatically makes you an alpha, either.

e.g.  I would consider myself a beta according to that designation, but if I ever found out a girlfriend was openly cheating on me, I'd drop her in an instant.  That's the difference.  strength of character; not dominance.  That's just one example, but this could apply to any number of things.

Therein lies the insult: saying someone is a cuck is saying you don't think they have the strength of character to not be willfully taken advantage of, whether they have been or not.

I'm not sure about the con artist angle.

I don't find the world-view appealing, but I think it can be an accurate descriptor.  e.g. If your girlfriend cheats on you over and over and over because you don't have the nerve to break up with her, then you're just letting her walk all over you.

I'm not sure how that implies an insecurity - in my case, to say that a breach of trust of that magnitude will not be put up with.

 No.849750

>>849749
Pretty sure she's talking about calling people cucks to put them down indicating a deep-seated insecurity.

 No.849751

>>849750  Oh I know, I just don't think it necessarily does.

 No.849754

File: 1539997376498.png (219.89 KB, 1013x1024, 1013:1024, pinkyshrug.png) ImgOps Google

>>849751

I still just like the word.  I don't care if it's supposed to be mean or whatever.  People who use it to be mean aren't to be taken too seriously.

 No.849755

File: 1539997570835.gif (71.37 KB, 216x195, 72:65, chew.gif) ImgOps Google

>>849754  I use it in multiplayer strategy games, when someone is purposefully sucking off a more powerful player for the duration of a game, while gaining nothing from doing so.

 No.849756

File: 1539998065241.png (135.32 KB, 296x474, 148:237, 354.png) ImgOps Google

>Memes can't be real

 No.849757

>>849749

>Therein lies the insult: saying someone is a cuck is saying you don't think they have the strength of character to not be willfully taken advantage of, whether they have been or not.

But that's not how the word is used. It's often used as an insult towards people oftentimes base on little more than what opinions they hold. If it means to imply one doesn't have the strength of character not to be willingly taken advantage of, it implies whomever is using the insult believes the person who holds the opinion they are insult must be holding it because they are being being willingly humiliated, being submissive basically.

And I mean, when I say that it's an insult about being not being dominate, I am not saying it's about actually holding dominance, but about having a dominating character so I don't think our ideas about what it means are all that different.

>I'm not sure about the con artist angle.

I mean "con artist" in the more abstract sense of one who would use your ego to manipulate you. In my experience, far more often than not, people whom I have encountered who might refer to themselves as "Alpha" and who try to assert the strength of character not to be humiliated by anyone for any reason are typically the kind of men who have no spine for humility. The kind of men who make no distinction between being cheated on by a girlfriend and having to apologize for being wrong hurting someone's feelings. Like, the worst part of both situations is having their ego bruised more than any thing else.

And in that case, that intolerance for any humiliation, regardless of any other considerations, just leaves one easy to manipulate if one's ego is satisfied, hence the con artist analogy. People will follow and trust someone who tells them what they want to hear, it's the reason that "the customer is always right", especially if that message is affirmation that they are no one's tool, and that being intolerance of all humility (regardless of all other factors) is not a weakness but actually strength of character.

>I'm not sure how that implies an insecurity - in my case, to say that a breach of trust of that magnitude will not be put up with.

Then what makes being cheated on terrible is not actually about humiliation then is it?

 No.849767

>>849757
>It's often used as an insult towards people oftentimes base on little more than what opinions they hold.
True.  That's not how I use it.

>but about having a dominating character so I don't think our ideas about what it means are all that different.
I'm still not sure that's the same but close enough I suppose.

>I mean "con artist" in the more abstract sense of one who would use your ego to manipulate you.
makes sense.

>And in that case, that intolerance for any humiliation, regardless of any other considerations, just leaves one easy to manipulate if one's ego is satisfied
This sounds like the fringe left/right who just shout at people.

>Then what makes being cheated on terrible is not actually about humiliation then is it?
It's not the worst thing, but it is still a thing, as you (and others) question what flaws made you worthy of being taken advantage of in such a way.

 No.849779

>>849767
>It's not the worst thing, but it is still a thing, as you (and others) question what flaws made you worthy of being taken advantage of in such a way.

My point is to ask what does it say about someone for whom the worst thing about being cheated on is the fact that it might be humiliating.

If I was cheated on, I would break up with my SO for reasons about how I was personally hurt, not for how it makes me look to other people.

That's something I think about when people use "cuck" as an insult, like, what, to them, is the worst part of something that looks like it would be humiliating? Would they be the kind of person who would admire a man who died of stubborness while letting his family starve because "at least he stood up for himself"? I mean, I can't help wonder what one's priorities are if "cuck" is actually something they think is an insult?

 No.849790

>>849668  Cuck-ness has less to do with the humiliation than with the refusal/inability to stand up for oneself.  The refusal/inability is itself humiliating.  That's not to say all humiliation = cuck, but cuck = humiliating.

>Would they be the kind of person who would admire a man who died of stubborness while letting his family starve because "at least he stood up for himself"?
I can't think of an example of this, so I'm not sure how to answer it.

>I mean, I can't help wonder what one's priorities are if "cuck" is actually something they think is an insult?
Being complicit in letting someone else walk all over you should be an insult, yes.

 No.849818

>>849790

>Cuck-ness has less to do with the humiliation than with the refusal/inability to stand up for oneself.  The refusal/inability is itself humiliating.  That's not to say all humiliation = cuck, but cuck = humiliating.

I understand that, but I mean, I think we're going in circles here when I am talking about how people actually use the word and whom they use it to describe. I.e. to frame something about another person and what they are doing as a matter of them "letting themselves be humiliated" whether or not they are actually being humiliated or "walked all over".

Basically, what I am questioning is what prejudices one who uses "cuck" as an insult employs when interpreting the actions or attitudes of others in any given situation. Like what informs their first gut reaction to other people, especially when they use it to insult others for their opinions?

>I can't think of an example of this, so I'm not sure how to answer it.

I could give you one big example in my own life, and it certainly informs a lot of my cynicism of people who admire those who "Stand up for themselves" without any consideration of other factors or a failure to recognize an self-destructive intolerance for humility. But I think I'd have to give myself time to not get really upset and then calm down for a few hours.

>Being complicit in letting someone else walk all over you should be an insult, yes.

I completely disagree. To default to an insult is to be presumptuous about whether or not someone is actually being complicit in being walked all over and being presumptuous about why someone would behave in such a way. I would prefer to default to understand what was going through someones mind if they were willingly complicit or just appearing to be.  

 No.849827

>>849818
>Basically, what I am questioning is what prejudices one who uses "cuck" as an insult employs when interpreting the actions or attitudes of others in any given situation. Like what informs their first gut reaction to other people, especially when they use it to insult others for their opinions?
I don't know.  I've seen people use it the way you describe, so perhaps you're right in your assessment.

>I could give you one big example in my own life
It's ok.

>I completely disagree. To default to an insult is to be presumptuous about whether or not someone is actually being complicit in being walked all over and being presumptuous about why someone would behave in such a way. I would prefer to default to understand what was going through someones mind if they were willingly complicit or just appearing to be.  
Well, that is the difference between cuck as an insult vs actually being a cuck.

 No.849854

There are really people out there who get off to letting other people fuck their significant other and watching. And obviously, there are people out there who like being watched and like fucking a lot of people, so I don't see how it couldn't not be a real thing.

 No.849866

File: 1540004809621.png (239.59 KB, 768x576, 4:3, investigator rick.png) ImgOps Google

It definitely exists, but it's also a meme, so yes and yes to the question  posed in the OP.

It's definitely a fetish for some, but it's more commonly thrown around when people are macho posturing. I think it's also become popularized recently, because it seems to me a lot of anime are incorporating elements of it these days. Hell, i actually find unwillingly cucked female characters in anime extremely endearing for some reason. I try not to dis people's fetishes, but people who want to be cucked just make me sad for them. Idk, humiliation play in general just strikes me as profoundly sad when the person being humiliated is into it, possibly because it's so diametrically opposed to my own fetishes.

 No.849887

>>849866
> Hell, i actually find unwillingly cucked female characters in anime extremely endearing for some reason.
"Cuck" only applies to males.  "NTR" is the generic term.

 No.850037

File: 1540025641758.jpg (77.54 KB, 1000x800, 5:4, DZL1G93UQAA1hCm.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>849668
There's some people in to the lot.
It's mostly a meme, though.

 No.850038

File: 1540025895772.jpg (211.88 KB, 1280x566, 640:283, tumblr_p3o4chBzDz1ufyollo4….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>849713
I think this is more an issue of your standard for "alpha".
I'd consider most leaders to be "alpha", as the main criteria for that is the will to advance.

Cuck is more than "easily dominated", as well, as it's explicitly about people who are willing to give up their lover for someone else to fuck.
Essentially, the idea is less that they're weaklings, more that they're willing to give what should be theirs.

 No.850040

>>849779
I don't think it's the humiliation that makes cuckoldry something mocked. In fact, I'm fairly certain you can engage in cuckoldry without having to add a humiliation aspect.
Seems to me it's more the willingly giving up something that is yours, so to speak. Something that's supposed to be yours alone.
Cuckolding doesn't necessarily require the person to 'cheat', in the context of secretly sleep with others. It could  be the result of an agreement between you and your SO.

 No.850041

>>850038

>I think this is more an issue of your standard for "alpha"

The terms "alpha" and "beta" are supposed to imply that one is dominant over the other in a hierarchy. I direct allegory to how wolf packs (supposedly) work. The alphas dominate the betas.

But the model that is most common in this narrative or framework is that the alpha males, precisely as you describe, the one's with the will to advance, are the natural leaders ... and what that will to advance typically looks like is asserting dominance over others who would oppose them.

This model of an alpha male is ultimately a fantasy though, as historically, the most effective leaders have been those who lead via a persuasion informed by empathy for those they are leading and willingly submitting to the will of those there are leading when it's most appropriate or needed to maintain the soft power neccesary to lead without need to make symbolic dominance. In many ways, the alpha male narrative serves to frame what is actually the submission to these leaders as an assertion of will by those who are submitting.

>Cuck is more than "easily dominated", as well, as it's explicitly about people who are willing to give up their lover for someone else to fuck.

... which implies they are easily dominated because of their willingness to be humiliated or lack of will to assert themselves against such humiliation.

>Essentially, the idea is less that they're weaklings, more that they're willing to give what should be theirs.

I get what it's supposed to mean, my point in this thread here is what it's supposed to mean versus how it's most often actually used, and thus what that says about people who use it as an insult.

>>850040
>Seems to me it's more the willingly giving up something that is yours, so to speak. Something that's supposed to be yours alone.

Again, I understand what it's supposed to mean and what it's supposed to imply, but how it's used as an insult, and to whom it's used implies a lot about how the person using the insult thinks. Which is why I associate it with whome I associate it with and the framework and prejudices they use to interpret and make sense of other people.

 No.850049

File: 1540039450545.png (898.23 KB, 900x947, 900:947, 1463331933430.png) ImgOps Google

>>850041
Well, that's what I'm getting at. Leaders are, by virtue of being leaders, going to be the top of the hierarchy. Thus, 'alpha'.
>the most effective leaders have been those who lead via a persuasion informed by empathy
How is that relevant to whether or not they topped a hierarchy?
Do you believe that "alphas" can only gain power through threat of force? I'd reiterate that I think this is an incredibly flawed standard for what "alpha" means.
It just doesn't seem to logically flow.
And that's of course assuming you're right that most leaders are not exerting will, but rather using emotional manipulation.

>... which implies they are easily dominated because of their willingness to be humiliated or lack of will to assert themselves against such humiliation.
Perhaps you could make that argument that they're more likely to be easily dominated, but, ultimately, that's irrelevant to the term itself.
You seem to be making the case that "cuck" is used to state others are easily dominated. That's simply not true. One can be submissive without being a cuck, and I'd be inclined to say vise versa.
I ultimately disagree with the premise here, that cuck simply equates to submissive. I don't believe that to be the case.

>I get what it's supposed to mean, my point in this thread here is what it's supposed to mean versus how it's most often actually used, and thus what that says about people who use it as an insult.
Well, I can't read your mind, but, I don't see it being used that way. So, I'd say it's a bit of a moot point.

> Which is why I associate it with whome I associate it with and the framework and prejudices they use to interpret and make sense of other people.
Sure, but, is subjective interpretation based around your own personal feelings, likely not met with any asking what the people mean by it, but rather increasingly unpredictable assumptions of character and intent ultimately a flawed way of looking at things?
Wouldn't it be better to simply think of words as they are defined?
After all, your personal experiences are not necessarily the same as others.  We can see that in this thread. My own experiences evidently greatly differ.

 No.850052

>>850041
I was under impression that the "alpha/beta" model in humans was mostly bogus popsych from the 70s.

 No.850067

File: 1540049775973.jpg (117.75 KB, 680x691, 680:691, Every fetish is great sips….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.850076

File: 1540055183712.png (225.79 KB, 641x600, 641:600, 9.png) ImgOps Google

>>850052
It's kind of weird term. These days there's a popularly accepted analogy to it known as the trait dominance or submissiveness, and it's certainly a measurable and persistent construct that is relatively stable over time. Depending on the amount of dominance a person has, they may act with varying amounts of confidence and may take on various amounts of responsibility or leadership roles, depending on who else is in the group with them.

Moderately dominant personalities will have a tendency to allow more dominant personalities control, but conflicts can also exist, especially if there's a perception that the person trying to take charge is unfair/unjust, an incompetent leader or is doing so for their own benefit.

 No.850087

>>850052
It is. But skeezy people like pick-up artists and incels still latch on to the idea.

 No.850088

>>850087
I thought you were involuntarily celibate, Manley?

 No.850091

>>850088
I am technically involuntarily celibate, in that I have never had sex not out of personal choice but out of the lack of willing partners, but I do not consider myself part of the community of people who call themselves "incels" and I do NOT subscribe to their ideals. I find many of them to be completely repugnant.

 No.850094

>>850091
>"community of incels"

Hmm.

 No.850096

>>850094
You might have heard of them, they've been out there murdering people.

 No.850101

>>850096

Defense counsel:  "my client hasn't been proven the murderer beyond reasonable doubt"

Prosecutor:  "the accused is an incel"

Jury:  "guilty."

 No.850102

>>850101
What? They are actively saying they are incels and that's why they are killing. Someone made an interesting video about it, if you're interested.

 No.850103

>>850102
Who is "they"?  Are you referring to some small subset of incels?

 No.850104

>>850103
"They" in that post specifically meant people part of the incel community who have committed murder.

 No.850105

>>850102
>contrapoints

 No.850106

File: 1540061053989.jpg (48.86 KB, 480x640, 3:4, BEHIND THE MEME.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I ain't reading all of this.

 No.850108

File: 1540061181156.jpg (162.84 KB, 580x547, 580:547, 1432143090059-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850106
Hello there, Iara!

 No.850109

File: 1540061264396.png (407.49 KB, 2000x2000, 1:1, kk21.png) ImgOps Google

>>850108
Give me a short version of this thread.

 No.850110

>>850106
Then why even ask?

>>850105
Ad hominen.

 No.850111

>>850109
>>849854
>There are really people out there who get off to letting other people fuck their significant other and watching. And obviously, there are people out there who like being watched and like fucking a lot of people, so I don't see how it couldn't not be a real thing.

 No.850114

>>850110
I'm not insulting her, just pointing it out, and posting a, what I would consider to be, more neutral option.

 No.850117

>>850109
Mild debate on what the reason for the insult "cuck" is, and what exactly cuckoldry involves. Namely, whether or not you have to be a 'beta' to be a cuck, or otherwise be submissive.

 No.850120

>>850114
You're trying to discredit her opinion not based on what is in the video, but based on some perceived character flaw. It doesn't always mean directly insulting them.

 No.850121

>>850109
People arguing over what "cuck" means, whether it is bad to be a 'cuck' under various definitions, etc.

 No.850123

File: 1540061872635.png (403.67 KB, 600x1015, 120:203, 0cf9defd0c7e9d31c34489dca8….png) ImgOps Google

>>850120
In a manner of speaking. I didn't bother watching the video, after all. So, I'm hardly discrediting her opinion by calling to attention who's said it.
However, I don't necessarily believe it's wrong to suggest that a biased person might be biased.
It's why I presented an alternative, and would recommend people watch both, or if they lack the time to watch a half-hour long video, watch the shorter of the two.

Would you be alright with me posting a video by Richard Spencer for the definition of, say, feminists?
Would it be wrong to say that he might be biased in that regard?

 No.850124

File: 1540061913566.png (148.5 KB, 1000x1047, 1000:1047, Ebon_Topaz_Vector04.png) ImgOps Google

>>850117
>>850121

Well that's simple. A cuck is someone who knowingly lets other men have sex with his wife, and it's the most beta male fetish amongst beta males.

Personally I think it's pathetic, but each to their own I suppose.

 No.850127

>>850124
I'm not so sure I agree.
I think you can be fairly "alpha", that is to say confident and otherwise successful, and still let someone fuck your wife.
It might be something requiring a bit of study, though.
And of course, it depends on what you mean by alpha.

 No.850131

>>850127
>I think you can be fairly "alpha", that is to say confident and otherwise successful, and still let someone fuck your wife.
I guess that's right for someone with right mental condition.

 No.850133

File: 1540062263181.png (47 KB, 563x690, 563:690, Ebon_Topaz_Vector12.png) ImgOps Google

>>850127

No, no. There's pretty much no debate here.

Your wife's body is yours, no ifs or buts about it. If you willingly let other men have sex with her, you're pretty much throwing away any status you might have had as a man.

 No.850135

File: 1540062354550.png (233.77 KB, 1130x854, 565:427, b82bd01cd7ac7254b72602fa27….png) ImgOps Google

>>850133
Unfortunately, things aren't quite so cut and dry these days. Open relationships are more common.
I blame the erosion of the ideal of love. But, maybe that's just because I'm a massive romantic.

 No.850138

File: 1540062508626.png (21.4 KB, 307x340, 307:340, stuff.png) ImgOps Google

>>850121
It IS bad to be a cuck tho. That's why I find the concept of real "cucks" existing so laughable and unlikely to be real.

 No.850143

File: 1540062701569.png (142.07 KB, 1000x1056, 125:132, Ebon_Topaz_Vector06.png) ImgOps Google

>>850135

Well, they're definitely that cut and dry to me. You let other men fuck your wife, you're not a man in my eyes. You're just pathetic.

Any woman worth her salt wouldn't slut it up with other men either, even if her partner would've wanted her to.

>>850138

I'm afraid the cuckolding fetish is very much a real thing. Whether or not it's becoming more common nowadays I couldn't say for sure, but personally I can't help but notice that a lot of young adult men in this day and age tend to be rather effeminate.

 No.850144

File: 1540062934801.jpg (273.88 KB, 700x847, 100:121, 54321694_p8_master1200.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850143
I'd agree overall. You should only do your significant other. It should be about love, not simple primal desires.
Kobolds, of course, don't count.

 No.850145

>>850138
What makes it "bad" if both people get off on it?

 No.850147

File: 1540063210851.jpg (69.64 KB, 910x774, 455:387, KoboldMG.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850144

Kobolds don't care if you have your way with their wife, just don't take their candle.

 No.850150

File: 1540063298381.jpg (309.49 KB, 1000x706, 500:353, 6ea367248ccf0818dd9cfee18b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850147
Those are definitely not kobolds. Those are just rats, pretending to be kobolds.

Anyway; it's more that a dildo isn't cheating, and same for an onahole.

 No.850154

File: 1540063605770.jpg (222.03 KB, 1200x1600, 3:4, 1200px-King_Togwaggle.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850150

I think it becomes an issue when a dildo or an onahole becomes sentient though.

 No.850157

File: 1540063802055.jpg (350.49 KB, 600x779, 600:779, LEWD.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850154
Is it really cheating when they're made from the start for the purpose of pleasing their draconic ally?

 No.850159

File: 1540063895430.png (1.39 MB, 1000x1500, 2:3, EbonTopaz_Zer0TheHeroArt01.png) ImgOps Google


 No.850163

File: 1540064283424.png (337.65 KB, 1240x1748, 310:437, 5.png) ImgOps Google

>>850159
I dunno, man. I'd consider that just another perk of dating an all-powerful wyrm.

 No.850167

File: 1540064509396.png (322.89 KB, 728x965, 728:965, 6jp4DVKg.png) ImgOps Google

>>850163

I mean, I suppose there's no problem if you just date a Kobold or Dragon or whatever without having other women on the side.

Just as long as it passes the Harkness test.

 No.850168

File: 1540064583524.jpg (247.81 KB, 600x990, 20:33, 8751286cb9a8e86355feeb2fdc….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850167
In this case I was thinking a dragon, with of course koboldic followers that're naturally expected to be used for their primary purpose.
But, sure.

 No.850236

>>850123
Ok, I'll grant you that. But then I have to ask you in what ways you think Contrapoints is "biased" on the issue of Incels.

 No.850254

File: 1540070749879.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>850105
>>850123

I've already seen the Contrapoints incels video and thought it was pretty solid, but I'll watch this other one, too, I suppose.

 No.850264

File: 1540071292666.png (372.09 KB, 684x388, 171:97, SUCC.png) ImgOps Google

>>850143
>but personally I can't help but notice that a lot of young adult men in this day and age tend to be rather effeminate.
Hey now, I have been with quite some effeminate men but they would never want me to go sleeping around. Has to be something else that triggers this.

 No.850271

File: 1540071571949.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>850102
>>850105

Alright, well, I've seen both videos.  You can tell they come from different places, but they pretty much hit all the same points.  Contra has more detail in there and whatnot, since the video is over twice as long, but the end result is pretty similar.

 No.850272

>>850102  I'll give this a watch.  Somehow I suspect this is going to put me into a really bad mood.

 No.850273

>>850167
>>850168
I disagree with the Harkness test.  

>Does it have human intelligence?
>Can it communicate with you?
But then what about having sex with sheep?  I mean, unless you're a vegetarian, how you can justify killing a sheep for its meat but not justify having sex with a sheep when the sheep accepts you?

>Is it of sexual maturity for its species?
What about an alien species where it is customary for sexually immature individuals to still engage in sex?  I mean, you could even imagine a species where, after concluding a business deal, it would be considered a grave insult to refuse to have sex with your counterparty's children.

 No.850274

>>850273
The sheep can't "accept" you because it cannot communicate consent to you. Or even understand the concept of consent. That's the issue.

I would tell those aliens that in my culture it is considered abhorrent to have sex with anyone who is not sexually mature and refuse to do so.

 No.850275

File: 1540073317031.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google

>>850274
>The sheep can't "accept" you because it cannot communicate consent to you. Or even understand the concept of consent. That's the issue.

Okay, but it can't consent to being killed and eaten, either.  And likely wouldn't if it could.

 No.850276

File: 1540074478322.gif (995.42 KB, 504x504, 1:1, thinking.gif) ImgOps Google

>>850102  ok, that was a decent video

 No.850287

>>850038

>I think this is more an issue of your standard for "alpha"

The terms "alpha" and "beta" are supposed to imply that one is dominant over the other in a hierarchy. I direct allegory to how wolf packs (supposedly) work. The alphas dominate the betas.

But the model that is most common in this narrative or framework is that the alpha males, precisely as you describe, the one's with the will to advance, are the natural leaders ... and what that will to advance typically looks like is asserting dominance over others who would oppose them.

This model of an alpha male is ultimately a fantasy though, as historically, the most effective leaders have been those who lead via a persuasion informed by empathy for those they are leading and willingly submitting to the will of those they are leading when it's most appropriate or needed to maintain the soft power necessary to lead without need to employ a symbolic dominance or you coercive threat of violent force. In many ways, the alpha male narrative serves to frame what is actually the submission to these leaders as an assertion of will by those who are submitting.

>Cuck is more than "easily dominated", as well, as it's explicitly about people who are willing to give up their lover for someone else to fuck.

... which implies they are easily dominated because of their willingness to be humiliated or lack of will to assert themselves against such humiliation.

>Essentially, the idea is less that they're weaklings, more that they're willing to give what should be theirs.

I get what it's supposed to mean, my point in this thread here is what it's supposed to mean versus how it's most often actually used, and thus what that says about people who use it as an insult.

>>850040
>Seems to me it's more the willingly giving up something that is yours, so to speak. Something that's supposed to be yours alone.

Again, I understand what it's supposed to mean and what it's supposed to imply, but how it's used as an insult, and to whom it's used implies a lot about how the person using the insult thinks. Which is why I associate it with whome I associate it with and the framework and prejudices they use to interpret and make sense of other people. >>850049
>How is that relevant to whether or not they topped a hierarchy?
Do you believe that "alphas" can only gain power through threat of force? I'd reiterate that I think this is an incredibly flawed standard for what "alpha" means.

You could certainly say that an empathetic leader could exist on top of some sort of hierarchy, in a sense.

But what I was addressing is the model of an "alpha male" as they are described in the rhetoric of those who subscribe to the whole "alpha male" and "beta cuck" framework. i.e. the man who, is not a weakling, asserts his will, doesn't subsume his will to anyone, is basically a like a conqueror.

>And that's of course assuming you're right that most leaders are not exerting will, but rather using emotional manipulation.

Rule by persuasion is not quite the same thing as emotional manipulation, it's basically having soft power by gaining faith and trust of the people that you lead that you have their interest in mind when you make decisions, being empathetic to them, and often subsuming your will.

And I wasn't asserting that most leaders are not asserting some will to be leaders, I said historically the most effective leaders are like this. The one's that use soft power almost exclusively to lead people.

The kind of historical figures that those who view things in terms of "alphamale" and "betacuck" seem to so often to treat as examples of ideal men tend to be those people who are history's great conquerors, people whose soft power really only ever extended far enough to command an army rather than a whole civilization. People who, historically, have made great conquerors but lousy leaders.

>Perhaps you could make that argument that they're more likely to be easily dominated, but, ultimately, that's irrelevant to the term itself.
You seem to be making the case that "cuck" is used to state others are easily dominated. That's simply not true. One can be submissive without being a cuck, and I'd be inclined to say vise versa.

I mean I've been pretty explicit about that this entire thread. I've not been talking about what the term means, but how it's actually used, and how it's actually used by whom uses it, leads me to associate it with who I associate it with.

>Well, I can't read your mind, but, I don't see it being used that way. So, I'd say it's a bit of a moot point.

So you've literally never seen someone use the word "cuck" as an insult towards someone for holding a specific opinion? Or thought about what that implies the person using the insult thinks about the person they try to insult?

>Sure, but, is subjective interpretation based around your own personal feelings, likely not met with any asking what the people mean by it, but rather increasingly unpredictable assumptions of character and intent ultimately a flawed way of looking at things?
>Wouldn't it be better to simply think of words as they are defined?

Words have multiple definitions, hence the reason dictionaries tend to have multiple entries for various words. And words gain or change definition based on how they are used and what they are meant to convey. This is especially true for what is basically a slang word like cuck. This is actually what dictionary editors try to capture when they add definitions to words when they revise the dictionary, to reflect how people actually use words, and what they mean to imply.

I honestly find it incredulous that you would have never seen anyone use the terms "beta" and "cuck" interchangeably or as the word "betacuck". It's pretty common in MGTOW, MRA, red-piller, GamerGater, alt-right, alt-light and other communities connected to the "manosphere" on the web. And it's pretty common to see the two terms so deeply associated in comments on youtube (and in youtube videos), facebook, reddit, 4chan, 8chan, sometimes in the comment threads on certain articles on kotaku, and, of all places, even in user reviews of books on amazon (and in books self-published via amazon) or games on steam.

That degree to which people who use "cuck" interchangeably with "beta" or pair them to together in "betacuck", so very often as an insult of others for their taste or opinions demonstrate how it's actually used.

Also, there are multiple levels of communication, not just directly literal but also figurative and metaphorical. Like when some red-piller or an MRA insults a male feminist by calling him a cuck, they obviously don't mean that he's literally willing to let his girlfriend cheat on him and humiliate him, but they are being figurative, implying that by holding the opinion he does, that he is letting himself be humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general, as if he couldn't possibly hold the opinion he holds for any other reasons.

When this is how it's most often used, is it ultimately unreasonable for me to have the kind of impression (not te same thing as an assumption) that I have of  how someone thinks when they use this word as an insult? Especially in the way people who are in those circles actually use it? Like, to insult someone for their taste or opinion?

 No.850306

>>850276
I liked it because instead of taking the usual route of just shitting on incels. It seeks to understand their world-view without defending it.

 No.850353

>>850287
Is this what is known as a 'textwall'? :aj4:

 No.850394

File: 1540088956266.gif (995.42 KB, 504x504, 1:1, thinking.gif) ImgOps Google

>>850287
>Also, there are multiple levels of communication, not just directly literal but also figurative and metaphorical. Like when some red-piller or an MRA insults a male feminist by calling him a cuck, they obviously don't mean that he's literally willing to let his girlfriend cheat on him and humiliate him, but they are being figurative, implying that by holding the opinion he does, that he is letting himself be humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general, as if he couldn't possibly hold the opinion he holds for any other reasons.
This seems to encapsulate the usage fairly accurately.

>When this is how it's most often used, is it ultimately unreasonable for me to have the kind of impression that I have of how someone thinks when they use this word as an insult?
it's reasonable.
>Especially in the way people who are in those circles actually use it?
but not for this reason.
>Like, to insult someone for their taste or opinion?
This, I don't think is accurate.  Using your example above:
"""
they are being figurative, implying that by holding the opinion he does, that he also holds other opinions in common with those who stereotypically [let themselves be] humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general, as if he couldn't possibly hold the opinion he holds for any other reasons.
"""

 No.850773

File: 1540110150557.jpg (187.39 KB, 800x1115, 160:223, 1445550840541-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850236
Feminist activist, basically.
Or, perhaps I should say "SJW". Either way.

I'd say she's explicitly against incels, whereas Dankula doesn't really have a significant connection to them, essentially.
>>850273
It's a bit of a conversation, by all means.
I'm of the opinion that, with animals, it's a part of the 'circle of life' so to speak. The tiger does not ask consent from the antelope or whatever, right? So, I don't really see the reason for us to, either, when it comes to meat.

If they're sexually immature or otherwise incapable of understanding required for informed consent, it'd still ultimately be wrong, at least by human moral standards, to fuck.
And you'd be safe in saying that alien race is a bunch of weirdo pedophiles.

 No.850776

>>850773
And what's that got to do with the topic of incels?

 No.850777

>>850287
I'm not sure I'd agree there. It's my stance that when people say someone's "alpha as fuck", or whathaveyou, they're usually talking about confidence and will. Not threat of force against others. They're not talking about bullies punching people, they're talking about strugglers who rise to the top.

>... which implies they are easily dominated because of their willingness to be humiliated or lack of will to assert themselves against such humiliation.
I swear I replied to this already, but, not necessarily, I'd say. It doesn't have to be humiliating.

>I get what it's supposed to mean, my point in this thread here is what it's supposed to mean versus how it's most often actually used, and thus what that says about people who use it as an insult.
Well, I disagree it's actually used that way.

>Again, I understand what it's supposed to mean and what it's supposed to imply, but how it's used as an insult, and to whom it's used implies a lot about how the person using the insult thinks.
Okay, but, that's your experience. I'd disagree. The way I see people use it is, as said, willingly giving something of theirs up.

>But what I was addressing is the model of an "alpha male" as they are described in the rhetoric of those who subscribe to the whole "alpha male" and "beta cuck" framework. i.e. the man who, is not a weakling, asserts his will, doesn't subsume his will to anyone, is basically a like a conqueror.
That does not require you to act unempatheticly, or uncompasionately.

>Rule by persuasion is not quite the same thing as emotional manipulation, it's basically having soft power by gaining faith and trust of the people that you lead that you have their interest in mind when you make decisions, being empathetic to them, and often subsuming your will.
You can gain faith and trust of people without subsuming your will, though. And, I'd make the case that, especially as a leader, this requires a strong will more than it does a weak will.

>And I wasn't asserting that most leaders are not asserting some will to be leaders, I said historically the most effective leaders are like this. The one's that use soft power almost exclusively to lead people.
Says who?
I, quite bluntly, don't believe you.
Most leaders throughout history I've seen that've been effective have had massive strength of will. They were able to convince others to their side in order to change the world, get people to follow them through their character, and cling to their ideals or hopes or dreams.

>I mean I've been pretty explicit about that this entire thread. I've not been talking about what the term means, but how it's actually used, and how it's actually used by whom uses it, leads me to associate it with who I associate it with.
Okay. Again, that's useless, as I will simply say "that's wrong, you're wrong, it isn't used that way", and the conversation is ruined because individual interpretation and assumptions change understanding.

>Words have multiple definitions, hence the reason dictionaries tend to have multiple entries for various words.
I'm not suggesting they don't.
I'm suggesting that your interpretation is wrong.

> honestly find it incredulous that you would have never seen anyone use the terms "beta" and "cuck" interchangeably or as the word "betacuck".
Never seen "beta" and "cuck" be used interchangeably. Betacuck is a word I've heard before, but, only from retards who I wouldn't consider enough of a majority to actually change words meanings. Those are typically from the illiterate retards online who can never seem to type coherently. I'd not really give them much consideration, myself.
> It's pretty common in MGTOW, MRA, red-piller, GamerGater, alt-right, alt-light and other communities connected to the "manosphere" on the web.
I've floated around these groups for a quite long while, and I've not seen it.
Are you sure this isn't coming second-hand?

>That degree to which people who use "cuck" interchangeably with "beta" or pair them to together in "betacuck", so very often as an insult of others for their taste or opinions demonstrate how it's actually used.
To you. Again, your personal interpretation does not match my own. I've not seen this. I've seen it be used as its standard definition. Not how you are using it.

>Like when some red-piller or an MRA insults a male feminist by calling him a cuck, they obviously don't mean that he's literally willing to let his girlfriend cheat on him and humiliate him, but they are being figurative, implying that by holding the opinion he does, that he is letting himself be humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general, as if he couldn't possibly hold the opinion he holds for any other reasons.
So, you're a mindreader now, then?
I'd've suggested that the reason he's saying that, as I have said countless times throughout the thread, is because the person's willing to give up what should be his.

>When this is how it's most often use
It isn't.
>is it ultimately unreasonable for me to have the kind of impression (not te same thing as an assumption) that I have of  how someone thinks when they use this word as an insult?
Are you God?
Can you read minds?
If no, then, yes, it is unreasonable to make assumptions about people like this, at least from my perspective as this simply does not seem to be how the term is used.

 No.850778

>>850776
I just explained that.
At least try to read the whole post before you reply.

 No.850779

>>850778
Hmm, I guess I skipped that part because it looked like it was addressed to someone else. I apologize, but I'd REALLY like it if you quit assuming the worst about my intentions every time we talk.

But anyway, you assessment that she's against incels is wrong. She does not take sides in the video, and even sympathizes with incels on some levels, despite not agreeing with their world-views. I don't want to assume you didn't watch her video, but I suspect you didn't and made assumptions about her stance based on the fact that's she's a feminist and not on what she actually said.

 No.850780

File: 1540112227575.jpg (154.63 KB, 1023x719, 1023:719, 2f5211deccebd275a925a4c4fd….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850779
I'm speaking of the line
>"I'd say she's explicitly against incels, whereas Dankula doesn't really have a significant connection to them, essentially. "

I said I didn't. Though that's more because it's a good 30 minute video on a subject I already know enough about and don't really care for, from someone who's voice, to be quite honest, annoys me. If I was in the car I might give it a listen, though.
Still, I stand by my suggestion that a feminist is not the best source for a breakdown on incels, as they are, of course, enemies when you break down to it.
If she managed to keep her own personal biases out, I'm impressed. I'd still say Dankula's video is better, though.

 No.850781

>>850780
Feminists aren't the enemies of incels. Incels consider feminists their enemy because their ideology is hateful of women.

But you haven't watched the video, so we can't really discuss the topic. We'd only end up talking past each other.

 No.850782

File: 1540112455245.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google

>>850773
>I'd say she's explicitly against incels, whereas Dankula doesn't really have a significant connection to them, essentially.

I've gotta say that's kinda the opposite of what I saw when watching those two videos.

 No.850783

File: 1540112516763.png (150.01 KB, 528x610, 264:305, 23245543564.png) ImgOps Google

>>850782
Because you actually watched them instead of making assumptions based on someone being a feminist and not liking their voice...

 No.850784

File: 1540112531980.jpg (365.17 KB, 1125x1328, 1125:1328, 1445550840541-0.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850781
I've seen quite a number of feminists pointing to incels and saying "see? See? This is why we need feminism! Evil womanhaters everywhere!".
But, aight.
Like I said, maybe she kept her bias down in this case.

 No.850785

>>850784
But incels ARE woman-haters. Why is it bad for feminists to point at incels as examples of woman-haters, when that's what incels are and they are vocally so?

 No.850788

>>850785
Because a microscopic portion of society is not representative of the whole.

 No.850789

>>850788
Saying feminism needs to exist because woman-haters exist isn't saying all of society hates women, though.

 No.850791

>>850789
Sure, but using it as an excuse against critics of feminism who believe you're actively pushing policies and practices that are ultimately sexist in nature, is pretty dumb.

 No.850792

>>850791
Well, that sentiment that a microscopic portion of a community does not represent the whole goes both ways. We can't write off feminism as a concept because a vocal minority ways wacky things.

 No.850794

>>850792
True. But I'm not convinced it's as small a minority as you think. Though, that might be more because so very few feminists actually will argue the points with you, preferring to instead label you as an evil bigot.

 No.850796

>>850794
Well, I'm sure the feminists would say the exact same thing. Maybe the issue is people talking past each other and labeling each other on both sides.

 No.850798

>>850796
Funny coming from you. But, sure. Though, I find that the people arguing against the feminists very rarely resort to simply labeling their opposition as evil bigots and refusing to talk to them lest they give them a "platform".

 No.850800

>>850798
That's literally all I see anti-feminists do. So again, it comes down to the argument of "all I see". Feminists say "All I see are woman haters who label us to dismiss us." And the other side says "All I see are feminazis who label us to dismiss us."

Like... That's the problem. Both sides aren't actually talking. Just doing the very thing they are accusing their opponent of doing.

 No.850804

File: 1540114176518.jpeg (870.6 KB, 719x1024, 719:1024, cuck.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>849668
his wif amis mid swucche thinge:
me hire mai so ofte misbeode,
that heo do wule hire ahene neode.
La, Godd hit wot! heo nah iweld,
tha heo hine makie kukeweld

 No.850805

>>850800
I'd question where you're looking. I've literally not come across once someone saying "we should deplatform feminists". Ever.
Near as I can tell, every 'anti-feminist' is completely open to debate, as they believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas.
Near as I can tell, this whole never debate thing is pretty damn exclusive to them.

 No.850808

>>850805
That might be the result of bias. You're on the anti-feminism side, so of course you're going to see anti-feminists as rational and open to debate and feminists as irrational and oppressive.

I'm literally not taking sides and pointing out that both sides do the same thing, while simultaneously saying the other side is the only one doing it. What you just said, word for word, is exactly what feminists say about anti-feminists. And it's not a matter of one is wrong and one is right. You're both doing it.

 No.850812

>>850808
If you'd provide me an example of anti-feminists actively shutting down debate and harassing venues until they remove the person who's supposed to be speaking, I'd be happy to accept it.

I think the feminists are liars, quite bluntly.
I've literally not seen once where a feminist has been denied a platform or a debate. The closest I got was when someone wouldn't talk to a feminist who literally doxxed the guy. Which I can hardly fault him for, given that doxxing is a pretty damn scummy thing to do: Something that feminists have a very nasty habbit of.

 No.850814

File: 1540114684969.png (784.46 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, -_S6E1.png) ImgOps Google

>>850773  I think her video was better than Dankula's tbh

 No.850816

>>850814
It's entirely possible.
Truth be told, she is one of the better feminists. At the very least, I know she's been on a debate.
Personally, I'd still want a neutral party's opinion, and, I think Dankula does a solid job of it while also keeping things short, to the point, and entertaining.

 No.850819

>>850812
Instantly considered the other side to be "liars" and combative is not really being "completely open to debate". A debate doesn't start with accusations right out the gate. If that's the attitude anti-feminists are taking, then it's not a debate they are looking for. It's a dressing down. A "I was always right and this proves it!" That's not a debate.

 No.850821

File: 1540114914707.gif (56.46 KB, 391x319, 391:319, 210.gif) ImgOps Google

>>850816  I mean, I'm a fan of Dankula, and I saw his video a while ago, and I recall disliking it.  He really missed the mark on this one.

 No.850824

>>850819
I'm saying they're liars because you're sitting here, providing no evidence, for something I've never seen, ever, in my entire life.
I'm happy to debate with people who provide evidence, but, you know what?

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 No.850827

>>850821
Can I ask why you think that?
It was a tad more memey, maybe, but I think he rather summed up their problems quite solidly.
At least, from my personal encounters with them.

 No.850829

>>850824
Goes both ways. Show ME your evidence, then. I know tons of feminists who don't act like you describe. Just because you don't talk to feminists and are shown the  crazies by people with an agenda doesn't mean you're justified in saying they don't exist.

 No.850832

File: 1540115296950.jpeg (810.38 KB, 1000x1500, 2:3, 1117075__safe_solo_clothe….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>850827  I mean, I used to be one - not part of the "community" but an incel nonetheless.  and I think he has no basis for understanding it other than what he's heard secondhand, hence why he mischaracterizes it.  to the point where I actually gave the video a thumbs down because it was so bad.  I almost never do that.  The other one (contrapoints or whatever it's called) actually does a much better job of diving into the psychology of it.

 No.850839

>>850832
But contrapoints is a feminist, so it's automatically bad and wrong.

 No.850842

>>850829
For the deplatforming, let's start with Richard Dawkins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfK5j2zCSbg
For the "ur just an ebil bigot" lot, I'd point to the mirror for you.
There's plenty of other examples of this, of course. People like Steve Shives are renowned for this, given their penchant for blocking literally everyone, and of course calling everyone an evil misogynist bigot.
Now, there is of course going to be a lot of crossover with SJWs on these marks, but, I know that Sargon of Akkad has multiple times had his venues cancel on him, because of backlash and threats they've received. He's even been physically confronted by antifa thugs, in one instance. And, along with Dankula, multiple times college officials have decided to disinvite him after students had organized events.

I've spoken to quite a few feminists, actually. Usually over twitter, admittedly, as that's one of the easier places to find them and not just get ignored. They all seem to run the same tactic. Just call you a bigot, and ignore you.
>>850832
Sure, but, what exactly did you take issue with? What's the specifics that were the issue?

 No.850843

File: 1540115719868.png (256.79 KB, 410x600, 41:60, defeated sigh.png) ImgOps Google


 No.850844

>>850842  I'd have to rewatch it since it's been a while.  I saw it when it first came out.  let me give it another watch and I'll let you know.

 No.850846

>>850844
Sure. I'm mostly curious because it might mean I've got a misunderstanding on what the group's about.

 No.850848

>>850842
Im not a feminist.

 No.850850

>>850848
Fair enough. We'll stick with Steve Shives, then.

 No.850852

>>850850
I didn't ask you for cherrypicked examples of feminists doing bad things. Of course you can do that. Anyone could do it with any group.


You said that the burden of proof was on me to show that they were feminists who dont act the way you described. I'm asking you to do the same for anti-feminist. What anti-feminists are actually open to debate and not just dismissive of the movement as insane bitches?

 No.850856

File: 1540116510075.png (26.72 KB, 344x311, 344:311, 12.png) ImgOps Google

>>850852
You asked me for fucking examples, you ass.
You only asked for evidence, in your post >>850829
And now, you still don't provide any yourself.

I never said the burden of proof was on you to show that feminists don't act the way I describe. I said you needed to prove YOUR claim, that antifeminists were supposedly doing the same shit.

Do you honestly believe that lying to my face about things we can simply scroll up a moment ago to see that you're a fucking liar is in any way, shape, or form productive?
Fuck off, already. If you're not even going to bother listening, and instead are going to make up conversations that never fucking happened, what's the point?
Why bother engaging with me at all?
I'm sure as hell not going to be convinced by a liar who I can see is a liar by simply scrolling up.

 No.850858

File: 1540116672407.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Though at least it's a great example of what is common place of an action with the SJWs.
Call them out on shit, and they'll whine "well, you do it too!" and when you ask them for evidence, instead of providing some, they'll say 'Well, you need to first!". And when you do that, they just say "Well your evidence doesn't count", and it just continues on and on without them ever proving their claims, just forever stringing you along and constantly moving the goalposts.

Heaven forbid you behave honestly.
Someone might actually make a good argument against you!

 No.850859

File: 1540116910383.png (814.12 KB, 4118x3759, 4118:3759, starlight_glimmer_by_ispin….png) ImgOps Google

>>850846  He thinks the main issue is the sex.  It isn't.  Sex is a consequence (or lack thereof).
Rather than doing anything to improve the situation, his entire video is designed to have a good laugh at their expense.
And he has nothing to add to the conversation.

 No.850861

>>850859
Fair enough, I guess. What exactly is the main issue? I thought, given the name, it was the whole being "involuntarily celibate".

I'm not sure he was trying to do more than describe the lot, outside of maybe add his own advice for how to improve one's self. But that's a fairly minor detail.

 No.850868

>>850856
You ALWAYS assume malice and intentional deceit on my part, it makes discussing anything with you a chore.

I didn't "lie to your face". I misunderstood what you were asking for because in >>850824 you said "I'm saying they're liars because you're sitting here, providing no evidence, for something I've never seen, ever, in my entire life."

That said to me you wanted evidence of the thing you've "never seen". Its not an unreadonable assumption to make, but you immediatly jump to "youre lying on purpose!" Without even trying to clarify what you meant.

You simply do not have the temperament to debate properly without getting emotional and making accusations.

 No.850873

>>850861  The "old" name for it back in my day, when the community was really ramping up, was "love-shy".  It's a much more accurate description.  Incels can't or won't make the first move, for any number of reasons, some of which are mentioned in the Dankula video.

My interpretation is that incels are the true Romantics in a Postmodern world.

They don't want sex for sex's sake.  If they did, they could find a prostitute and be done with it.  They could find literally anyone who'd be willing and do the deed.  But no, they want relationships.  They want someone to love and who will love them in return.  not in a one-night-stand way, but in a cliched romance, m'lady sort of way - because they've read one too many books about chivalry and romance hundreds of years ago in middle/high school and seen one too many Disney movies.

And meanwhile, as they can't get a date, and eventually refuse to even try, they can look to social media and see - seemingly everyone else in the world had been invited to the party - except them.

Sex is a signifier - in a world where boys/men brag in high school locker rooms and at frat parties about the girl they just banged - of desirability.  If you can say "I've had sex" then you can signify the fact that you have been validated to others.  But sex itself is not what they want.  Sex is just the end result of the thing they really want.

 No.850875

>>850868
And now you're talking about something completely different, again.
This is why I assume malice.
Because it's that or you've got some major issue following basic context.

You now apply this statement to something else, as you have a nasty habit of doing. That's why I don't have the "temperament". I cannot stand someone dishonestly trying to string items to other things they never related to.

I never said as you claimed in >>850852 that the burden of proof was on you to show that there were feminists who don't act the way I described. That was never, ever, my position. Now, you try to pretend that when I asked for evidence of ANTI-FEMINISTS acting as you described, I was asking for evidence of FEMINISTS NOT acting the way described.

Like, how the fuck is this even in question?
Do you think someone saying "You need to prove that 2+2 is 4" is the same as saying "You need to prove that 4+4 ISN'T 2"?
Because that's where we are at, Manley.

 No.850878

File: 1540118449240.jpg (82.83 KB, 313x294, 313:294, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850868
>>850824
>"I'm saying they're liars [feminists] because you're sitting here, providing no evidence, for something I've never seen, ever, in my entire life."
Referring to post >>850819 where you had said
>"Instantly considered the other side to be "liars" and combative is not really being "completely open to debate". A debate doesn't start with accusations right out the gate. If that's the attitude anti-feminists are taking, then it's not a debate they are looking for. It's a dressing down. A "I was always right and this proves it!" That's not a debate."
Which was in reply to >>850812 where I had said;
>"If you'd provide me an example of anti-feminists actively shutting down debate and harassing venues until they remove the person who's supposed to be speaking, I'd be happy to accept it.
I think the feminists are liars, quite bluntly.
I've literally not seen once where a feminist has been denied a platform or a debate. The closest I got was when someone wouldn't talk to a feminist who literally doxxed the guy. Which I can hardly fault him for, given that doxxing is a pretty damn scummy thing to do: Something that feminists have a very nasty habbit of. "
This was EXPLICITLY in the context of anti-feminists, not feminists. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with as you said in >>850852
>" feminists who dont act the way you described"

To suggest that I was saying that the burden of proof was on you to show that feminists didn't act as I had suggested earlier is nothing short of a lie, and you should know this.
If you don't, I seriously question your cognitive capability.

 No.850879


 No.850880

File: 1540118526827.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>850875
>>850868

Y'all both clearly hate each other and don't think anything comes out of conversing, so why do you keep doing it?  'cause if you just enjoy yelling at each other you should probably do that in private where other people don't have to watch.

 No.850883

>>850873
That I can understand, some. Though, I think they ought to change the name, if that's the case I can definitely see where that'd come from, as I'm a big romantic myself.

 No.850884

>>850880
I thought hed actually listen. If You actually look at the posts he's the only one getting angry

 No.850887

File: 1540118658250.png (93.36 KB, 235x254, 235:254, 6 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>850880
I don't enjoy it, and if you added a blocking function, I'd certainly use it, as there's not much benefit in talking to a liar who frequently labels you as a racist and a bigot.

I'm not very good at ignoring things I'd want to reply to, otherwise, though. And, honestly, when politics aren't involved, me and Manley get along pretty okay, I'd say.
It's just that, whenever they are dragged in, as we can see here, he immediately starts lying to skew the debate to his end.

For what it's worth, I don't hate Manley. I just really, really hate being lied about. And he does that far too often.

 No.850888

>>850884
I don't like liars.
It's a flaw, perhaps. But, I get quite a bit angry when people lie, especially about me.

 No.850889

>>850883  Also, perhaps the most important thing I forgot to mention, is the role of mental illness.  depression, anxiety, any number of other disorders you can think of.  anything that will tank your ability to get up the nerve to seek out a relationship.  so that's the number one thing incels need: help getting over their issues.  not: being put down because they got their teeth knocked out or haven't gone to the gym lately.  and as you fail in your endeavors, it just feeds into itself.  you have to address that first.

 No.850890

>>850883  contrapoints covers this aspect very well.  would recommend you watch her video if you haven't.

 No.850891

>>850888
Then you must like being angry because you always assume someone is lying and refuse to clarify misunderstandings just so you can call them liars.

 No.850892

>>850889
In the case of teethless guy, I think he needs to get some dentures or something.
But, yeah, I can understand the mental illness issue. That is something of a major issue around a lot of groups ,sadly.
>>850890
I'll give it a watch tomorrow. I need something to listen to in the car, anyway.

 No.850893

>>850394
>but not for this reason.

If I saw a big white man with a shaved head wearing a t-shirt and jeans in somewhere like say ... Chicago, with a swastika tattooed on his arm, would it be unreasonable of me to have the impression that he might be a white supremacist or neo-nazi instead of say ... a devote Buddhist monk with a peculiar way of showing it?

>they are being figurative, implying that by holding the opinion he does, that he also holds other opinions in common with those who stereotypically [let themselves be] humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general

Okay so go a little deeper with this, what does that then imply they think is the reason someone might hold an opinion that they do? That's implying that the reason someone who might "also holds other opinions in common with those who stereotypically [let themselves be] humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general" holds whatever opinion that they do is fundamentally because of a weakness of character, i.e. the reason they might let themselves be humiliated or "walked all over" in the first place. It is ultimately implying a reason why a person holds a position they do.

>They're not talking about bullies punching people, they're talking about strugglers who rise to the top.

And yet it's often used to describe people who are little more than bullies or dishonest business men or self-deluded narcissist who are also pretty successful, who "rise to the top". And I am 100% sure people use it to mean exactly the way that you mean. But that inability to even acknowledge or flat out deny that the person they think of as "alpha as fuck" is actually just a bully, or just a narcissist, or just slimy, implies that their model of judging other people's character is really superficial and allows them to frame such things as "alpha characteristics" to the point that that becomes the core of the model in those circles, just what on the surface kinda looks like an alpha.

>I swear I replied to this already, but, not necessarily, I'd say. It doesn't have to be humiliating.

And your reply was kind of baffling, like it doesn't acknowledge basic logical implications. It honestly baffles me that you can't understand this. Some one who willingly lets someone take what is there's is being humiliated, because others consider it pathetic.

>Well, I disagree it's actually used that way.
>Okay, but, that's your experience. I'd disagree. The way I see people use it is, as said, willingly giving something of theirs up.

At this point, I am not surprised, if you can't see logically implied meanings in words others use.

>That does not require you to act unempatheticly, or uncompasionately.

I don't disagre there. I'm talking about the model of what an alpha males looks like to those circles i.e. Like I mentioned earlier, the really superficial model where it boils down to just symbolic shows of will and where shows of empathy and compassion are seen as submission. The superficial model upon which they tend to judge other people.

>You can gain faith and trust of people without subsuming your will, though.

True, but you can't sustain it if the thing you need to do to provide for those people or to avoid bringing about their destruction in some way is to do something that might make you look weak or submissive. Sometimes it's far better to show to people you lead that you have the wisdom and humility to know when asserting your will would would only lead to making everything worse. Sometimes you need to be willing to surrender in those circumstances when not surrendering means, figuratively, leading everyone off a cliff.

Of course, my point wasn't about what actually makes an effective leader but this popular myth of an Alpha male as a sort of "never-surrender" conqueror that forms a key part of the framework through which manosphere types seem to interpret the world they live in.

>Says who?
>I, quite bluntly, don't believe you.

You can't have hard power without soft power. You can't gain, or maintain soft power through sheer show of will alone. Those leaders who have a "no-surrender' sort of attitude to everyone have a tendency to be divisive, responding to conflict by setting sides against each other by refusing to submit to any one side that might have some reason to oppose their will, and often cite rebellion.

>Never seen "beta" and "cuck" be used interchangeably. Betacuck is a word I've heard before, but, only from retards who I wouldn't consider enough of a majority to actually change words meanings. Those are typically from the illiterate retards online who can never seem to type coherently. I'd not really give them much consideration, myself.

Well, this sounds like an explanation then. If you don't consider them, does that imply you don't pay attention to them? Then if your not paying attention to them, are you actually seeing the way the words are actually being used?

>I've floated around these groups for a quite long while, and I've not seen it.
>Are you sure this isn't coming second-hand?

I'm pretty sure this isn't coming second hand cause this is coming directly from the way I have seen these manosphere types use it on YouTube videos and comments, and on Reddit, and on Facebook, and on 4chan, and on Ponychan, and even here a handful of times. I guess perhaps you weren't paying attention to that?

>So, you're a mindreader now, then?
>Are you God?
>Can you read minds?

I mean, you do understand the differences between an impression, an assumption and a judgement right?

>I'd've suggested that the reason he's saying that, as I have said countless times throughout the thread, is because the person's willing to give up what should be his.
>If no, then, yes, it is unreasonable to make assumptions about people like this, at least from my perspective as this simply does not seem to be how the term is used.

And my point was that in using that as an insult, it implies something about the framework he's using to make that insult. In some framework, it makes sense to interpret others opinions as that person being willing to give up what should be their's, so if it makes sense in that framework, then someone who uses that insult must be using that framework to make that assessment. So it's not unreasonable to have the impression that someone who seems to use this slang as an insult is someone who views things through that framework. It's not mind reading, it's just logic.

 No.850894

File: 1540118963259.png (86.94 KB, 245x333, 245:333, 11 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>850891
I broke it down in >>850878

I really don't see how you could misunderstand "I want evidence for anti-feminists deplatforming people" as "I demand evidence for feminists not deplatforming people".

Well, okay, there are a few. But, I don't like assuming those in people. I did, admittedly, have this problem with Lost Pony in the past, though, so maybe I should just outright ask it, as impolite as it might seem; Do you have a mental issue that'd influence these sorts of misunderstandings?

 No.850895

File: 1540118971124.png (24.12 KB, 254x249, 254:249, Please.png) ImgOps Google

>>850884
>>850891

This is maybe true, but you can still walk away from the conversation and then it doesn't happen.  Instead you're sort of prodding him with stuff like that.

>>850887
>>850888

Noted, but if discussions like this are going to go on they have to remain civil, beyond even the normal rules for the site.  We don't want to shut down discussion entirely, for sure, but in this case it's already devolved into personal attacks.

 No.850896

File: 1540119242159.png (310.51 KB, 583x433, 583:433, 10 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>850895
Then I'd recommend you bring up the filter issue, again.
It's rather difficult to do so on one's own, after all. Ignoring posts isn't an easy thing, especially when things seem to float along easy enough when politics aren't involved.
Sometimes, worse, it even flows in to the lot following a fairly mundane conversation. See the maid thread, for example. When it comes into the lot from mundane conversation with little warning, it's even harder to ignore.
Like I said; It isn't like I enjoy this sort of thing. It's directly stressful. I don't go online hoping to get angry. That'd be dumb.
Shoot, before this, I was trying to watch the new Goblin Slayer.
Stuff just sometimes kicks into high gear, unfortunately.

 No.850897

>>850893
>If I saw a big white man with a shaved head wearing a t-shirt and jeans in somewhere like say ... Chicago, with a swastika tattooed on his arm, would it be unreasonable of me to have the impression that he might be a white supremacist or neo-nazi instead of say ... a devote Buddhist monk with a peculiar way of showing it?
What I was disagreeing with, is ascribing the way they use it to the way other people use it.  You can't just say Group A uses one definition therefore Group B must necessarily use the same definition.  Hence, it's reasonable to assume Group A uses Group A's definition.  It is not reasonable to assume Group B uses Group A's definition.

>Okay so go a little deeper with this, what does that then imply they think is the reason someone might hold an opinion that they do? That's implying that the reason someone who might "also holds other opinions in common with those who stereotypically [let themselves be] humiliated or dominated by a woman or women in general" holds whatever opinion that they do is fundamentally because of a weakness of character, i.e. the reason they might let themselves be humiliated or "walked all over" in the first place. It is ultimately implying a reason why a person holds a position they do.
correct.

The rest of that should not have been directed at me.  :fluf2:

 No.850898

File: 1540119930571.png (363.8 KB, 1280x1024, 5:4, 40911 - artist echowolf800….png) ImgOps Google

>>850875
>>850868
I think you should both take a break.

Manley, it may have been unkind, but Noonim is reasonably frustrated here. You've had no shortage of links and references in the past. That's all he's asking for here. He even provided some of his own.

Noonim, if you feel you're not getting anywhere, it's best to walk away before you get too heated. Remember, the moment you lose your temper, you've lost, no matter who is right. If you don't have your temper in check, you're not thinking clearly.

 No.850899

File: 1540120028246.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>850898
I guess so.
It's certainly something I've been needing to work on.

 No.850906

>>850897
>What I was disagreeing with, is ascribing the way they use it to the way other people use it.  You can't just say Group A uses one definition therefore Group B must necessarily use the same definition.  Hence, it's reasonable to assume Group A uses Group A's definition.  It is not reasonable to assume Group B uses Group A's definition.

But is it unreasonable to have the impression or to assume that if a person is doing or expressing something in the way that people in group A might, that they might be in group A? Or if they are using a signal that they might be in group A if, in the context, group A would be the one they are most likely to be affiliated with?

I mean, the whole point of my neo-nazi example was to point out that even if the swastika is an ancient sun symbol that was adopted by Hindus and most prominently by certain sects of Mahayana Buddhist, a white person in America with a shaved head who dresses like an average person with a tattoo of the symbol on their arm is most likely not signaling that they are a Buddhist, despite what the "original meaning" of the symbol is.

>correct

Alright then, so what does that imply about how the person who would use such an insult think about and interpret the opinions of other people such that they would see it as being like letting other people walk all over you? Would it not be reasonable then to have some impression about the way one thinks if they would think of another's opinions in that way?

 No.850909

>>850899  most of that text wall up above was intended for you, btw.
>>850906
>I mean, the whole point of my neo-nazi example was to point out that even if the swastika is an ancient sun symbol that was adopted by Hindus and most prominently by certain sects of Mahayana Buddhist, a white person in America with a shaved head who dresses like an average person with a tattoo of the symbol on their arm is most likely not signaling that they are a Buddhist, despite what the "original meaning" of the symbol is.
That's true.  I don't think that's a fitting example.  It's like arguing the definition of "racism", which as I'm sure as you're aware, people refuse to agree on.  and then saying that because group A uses "racism" one way, that must be what group B means as well.  You'll never know what they mean until you ask.
>Alright then, so what does that imply about how the person who would use such an insult think about and interpret the opinions of other people such that they would see it as being like letting other people walk all over you? Would it not be reasonable then to have some impression about the way one thinks if they would think of another's opinions in that way?
Sure.  Your impression may be wrong, but you can absolutely have an impression.

Good night, for realz this time.

 No.850910

>>850906
What about a pale man with piercings and an unkempt beard with a communist tattoo?
What group would he belong to?

 No.850911

>>850909
Oh, was it? I guess I'll have a look.,

 No.850914

File: 1540122597528.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>850893
Unfortunately the bulk of these replies seem to just boil down to "That's your opinion based on your own subjective interpretation and assumptions of other people. I disagree".
I don't even know how to reply to the bulk of it, as I simply believe you to be wrong when you describe people and their intentions.
It's quite a long post for me to just reply with that, but, honestly, that's all I am left with.
There's a few items I can reply to, but, I'm not really sure the point, as I fear they'll just be countered with you reiterating your point as though it is a fact.
I do not believe it is a fact, sadly.

 No.851055

>>850898
Yeah, but what does he want links and evidence for? Every time I try to get a clear answer for that, he just gets angry snd accused me of lying or moving the goalpost. He does not have the temperment to actually discuss this, otherwise he would just say "No, I want evidence of this, not this." But he automatically assumed malice on my part, the very thing he's arguing but his side doesn't do. Im still not sure if he wants evidence of feminists who are open to debate, or of anti-feminists who dismiss feminist's opinions.

How can I give him evidence if i dont knwo what im trying to prove and hes more interested in flipping his shit than telling me? Hes the only one shouting and telling people to "fuck off", making assumptions on their motives. I haven't done that once in this thread.

 No.851077

File: 1540147779236.jpg (94.51 KB, 618x516, 103:86, chocolate-bunny-king.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>850274
>The sheep can't "accept" you because it cannot communicate consent to you. Or even understand the concept of consent. That's the issue.
Well doesn't the same thing apply to sheep having sex with other sheep?

>I would tell those aliens that in my culture it is considered abhorrent to have sex with anyone who is not sexually mature and refuse to do so.
But the reason why having sex with underage humans is abhorrent is that it damages them psychologically and/or physically.  By hypothesis, the same is not true for the aliens.

 No.851104

File: 1540150862721.png (1.63 MB, 2000x2000, 1:1, 132725576181.png) ImgOps Google

>>850812
>If you'd provide me an example of anti-feminists actively shutting down debate and harassing venues until they remove the person who's supposed to be speaking, I'd be happy to accept it.
>anti-feminists actively shutting down debate and harassing venues until they remove the person who's supposed to be speaking
>>850856
>I never said the burden of proof was on you to show that feminists don't act the way I describe. I said you needed to prove YOUR claim, that antifeminists were supposedly doing the same shit.
>prove YOUR claim, that antifeminists were supposedly doing the same shit.
>>850875
>That was never, ever, my position. Now, you try to pretend that when I asked for evidence of ANTI-FEMINISTS acting as you described, I was asking for evidence of FEMINISTS NOT acting the way described.
>ANTI-FEMINISTS acting as you described
>>850894
>I really don't see how you could misunderstand "I want evidence for anti-feminists deplatforming people" as "I demand evidence for feminists not deplatforming people".
>I want evidence for anti-feminists deplatforming people

>>851055
it seems pretty straightforward to me. He seems to want evidence of anti-feminists refusing to debate with people, and pointing fingers instead of debating.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Noonim.

 No.852257

After taking time to think about this I'm just going to re-state my original premis:

If someone claims that feminists always try to label and stereotype the opposition so that they can dismiss them, they are failing to realize that labeling and stereotyping the opposition to dismiss them is something both feminists and anti-feminists are guilty of. And by even saying that, that person is guilty of trying to label and dismiss feminists as a whole, and is guilty of the same act.

This is the ONLY thing I was trying to argue.

Noonim started asking me for specific examples of anti-feminist "deplatforming" feminists. Which is a classic example of a strawman argument. An argument like mine, but different and easier to defeat (or dismiss, as he tried to do). I'm sure I could find examples of anti-feminists "deplatforming" feminists, especially those anti-feminists that engage in harassment campaigns against feminist speakers... if that's what I was arguing. It wasn't. I was only arguing my original statement. If someone claims that feminists always try to label and stereotype the opposition so that they can dismiss them, they are failing to realize that labeling and stereotyping the opposition to dismiss them is something both feminists and anti-feminists are guilty of. And by even saying that, that person is guilty of trying to label and dismiss feminists as a whole, and is guilty of the same act. And any attempt to try and move the goalpost or strawman my point is not actually engaging in the debate. Noonim does not seem to be interested in my actual original premise. Only proving that what he already believes is right. Which is highly hypocritical in this case.

 No.852316

>>852257
>Noonim started asking me for specific examples of anti-feminist "deplatforming" feminists. Which is a classic example of a strawman argument.
Well what exactly do you and Noonim mean by "deplatforming"?  Does "labeling and stereotyping [them] to dismiss them" count as "deplatforming"?

 No.852327

>>852316
I feel as thought by "deplatforming" he meant specifically "to bar someone from voicing their opinions publicly", not just dismissing their opinion.

But to avoid being called a "liar" again, I will let him define what he meant and apologize if this is not an accurate assessment.

P.S. Why are you lurking around old threads and Necromancing them?

 No.852397

File: 1540351554437.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>852327

The anon probably left the tab open this whole time, something I do pretty commonly, and then just posted in response to you without realizing you didn't bump it.

 No.856299

>>852327
the platforming is typically when you explicitly remove people from a platform, purely because of what they might say.

An example of deplatforming would be a harassment campaign directed towards a venue owner, because they try to host somebody that others disagree with. Something that feminists have done numerous times, and something that, near as I can tell, does not ever happen by anti-feminists.

 No.856301

>>851104
This guy has actually got my entire position pretty well down pat. This is what I was arguing. Then we made a claim that I did not believe represented reality, and I responded.

 No.856316

File: 1540859762726.jpg (85.5 KB, 581x844, 581:844, fox.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Have we decided whether or not something can be both real and a meme, yet?

Not sure about going back the past hundred or so posts.

 No.856334

looking back at that thread, basically, my entire argument was that feminists do not want to actually argue, and will give countless excuses to not argue. Manley seems to believe, in correctly, that anti-feminists do the exact same. I disagree, and I never saw any proof that he could offer of the contrary. He made a claim, and could not back it up. He cannot provide a single example of that happening.

 No.856392

>>856316
Just go back to Grindr. Get laid yet?

>>856301
Still waiting on permission to post that screencap.

 No.856396

>>856392
>Just go back to Grindr. Get laid yet?
What the fuck?  How in your mind did you think that that was an appropriate reply to >>856316 ?

 No.856409

>>856396
Seems like violation of Rule 0.

Is that my autism or is it a valid interpretation?

 No.856411

File: 1540864180020.png (212.71 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 1342651303.plumblossom_pin….png) ImgOps Google

>>856316
There's nothing in the last 100 posts about the topic, PseudoFox.

Just a lot of derailing squabble.

How you doing?

 No.856414

>>856409
>Seems like violation of Rule 0.
I agree.  But I'm still disinclined to report, for this reason: >>>/canterlot/1970

 No.856423

>>856414
I believe i was extremely vocal against the inherent injustice of statutory mandatory sentencing.

Especially when its inclusion in the options was a purely knee-jerk overreaction to what is fundamentally a deficiency in mod warnings posted in thread.  I'm not saying the mods are slacking, just who would actually want to have to sift through the back and forth textwalls for no pay anyway, yuck.

Still, i think Mr Manley should be warned for his mean-spirited and completely uncalled for gaybash jab on PsuedoFox who i've never seen be anything but sweet and polite and the kind of person who shouldn't be expected to put up with that around here.

 No.856425

>>856423
Hmm, maybe I should report, but also request that: the user only be given a warning not a ban on the grounds of http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/1913.html#1970

 No.856428

>>856409
It's not an insult. I honestly do hope he's successful on the dating app.

>>856396
He was talking about about using Grindr the other day. I hope he does get laid.

 No.856462

File: 1540871120273.png (167.97 KB, 917x748, 917:748, convo.png) ImgOps Google

>>856301
Got permission to post the screen cap of our private conversation where >>851104 and I discuss that we both did not notice you set up a strawman about "deplatforming" against my argument over JUST "labeling and dismissing".

 No.856591

>>856462
So Rainstream did not independently re-analyze the thread, and instead merely said that it would be strawman based on your characterization of it.  But your characterization was wrong.

 No.856778

>>856591
In what way?

 No.856791

>>856778
>In what way?
Rainstream did not independently re-analyze the thread in any way whatsoever.

 No.856799

>>856791
I think it's pretty obvious that's not what he was asking

 No.856801

>>856791
No, in what way was my characterization wrong.

 No.856810

File: 1540924616859.jpg (173.56 KB, 1600x1260, 80:63, galapoint1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>856591
>>856462 doesn't show anything that supports Manley's statement that Rain acknowledges any strawmanning by Noonim, only that she agrees with the definition of what strawmanning is.  It also shows Manley being a pest with his fixation on arguing with Nooms and if i can cool down on that crap, i don't see why he shouldn't be able to as well.

>>856778
Manley why would you abuse your friendship with Rain to always look for help arguing with others?  If you value it, you should focus on being a better friend to her.  Not seeking an ally in arguments that don't matter.

I struggled with this too.  I'm not coming off from some high-and-mighty righteous position, but as someone who experienced what you're going through.  For your own emotional survival i suggest you care less about being right/winning and focus on supporting your friends and letting things go.

Whatever your point with Nooms just doesn't matter, and you are fixated on it, willing to throw everything you have into the fire.  Why do you care?  Re-examine your priorities because for me, that is where the problem was.  I should have cared more about my friends and less about being right, and im feeling much better now.

 No.856811

>>856593
Why bring up her race at all? That's pretty much the equivalent of "I'm not racist, but..." Also, which post is that supposed to be a response to?

>>856585
Well, feminists would argue that there are people out there calling themselves feminists who go against the principles of feminism. And I don't see you taking the same kind of care to separate those extremists from them as you do for the anti-feminism side.

All movements eventually have extremists, but part of being a good person is realizing that and not making excuses for one group while lumping the opposition together. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all feminists are man-hating wackos, and not all anti-feminists are nazis. My whole original point was trying to explain this concept to you. The feminists who deplatform people shouldn't be included, if we are taking "defining terms" to that end.

 No.856814

>>856810
"I admit, from the outside looking in I missed it."  can't be anything else but an admission that she sees the strawmanning after it was pointed out.

And I only brought it up with Rainstream because she HAD missed it in >>851104

I think it's fair to be upset over an argument where a friend did not see all sides of it. NOT to be that upset because someone thinks a cartoon pony is older than you do.

 No.856847

File: 1540925756301.png (99.94 KB, 295x377, 295:377, unhappy1.png) ImgOps Google

>>856814
Ha, i admit i didnt see the line at the very bottom.

However, did you even notice the portion above where Rain is busy helping someone through a crisis?

It's not rational to be so upset with what is clear a misunderstanding over definitions of terms and still squabble for dozens of posts after that has been realized.

It IS rational to be upset with the continuing use of illogical assumptions like linear time and grade school cutie marks to keep trying to characterize children (fictional or otherwise) as sexual objects especially when it's being done specifically to poke at me and others who don't like it.

Deny it all you want but, anyone with hours to burn going back over yesterday's (and every) discussion had here about CMC's age can clearly see it and i'm pretty sick of it.

I'm taking a break now.

 No.856854

>>856847
I brought it up BECAUSE Rainstream has missed the strawmanning in >>851104. And has hurt my feelings because of the misunderstanding. That part of the conversation was between me and her and wasn't included in the screencap.

You don't need to try and arm-chair psychiatry from a tiny snippet of a bigger conversation.

 No.856869

File: 1540926244843.png (258.29 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20181030-145726.png) ImgOps Google

>>856799
>>856801
>No, in what way was my characterization wrong.
Read again the part of this thread where Noonim starts talking about the evil practice of 'deplatforming'.  No reasonable person could claim that he is strawmanning you.  At most, he is going off on a tangent to the conversation that you wanted to have.

 No.856876

>>856869
You DO realize that me and Noonim have already discussed this, right? Are you trying to stir up shit?

 No.856879

>>856811
>Also, which post is that supposed to be a response to?
Probably http://ponyville.us/pony/res/854335.html#856455

 No.856883

>>856854
Hurt your feelings by missing the nonexistent strawmanning.

Isn't all this antifeminism deplatforming talk in direct violation of your political ban?

Isn't the whole argument of the CMCs being old enough to fuck in direct violation of the new rules?

Isn't accusing me of armchair psychiatry for pointing out the obvious abuse of another person the evidence of which you just posted a direct attack on me personally?

Isn't calling me irrational for being offended at this let's-fuck-grade-school-ponies talk a complete emotional attack on me?

You know what, i'm leaving ponyville until someone at least warns you about these things because i'm now shaking in rage when i'm supposed to be leaving for work so i can pay my bills.  If this is nothing but a platform for you to break the rules so you can do this kind of thing to people then it's not a supportive environment for autistic pony person like me.  I can't take this shit.

 No.856885

>>856811
>Why bring up her race at all?
Because some people *cough cough* automatically assume that criticism of that Star Wars movie is based on racism/sexism/etc, so the poster apparently wanted to expressly disclaim that.

 No.856897

File: 1540927573443.png (363.8 KB, 1280x1024, 5:4, 40911 - artist echowolf800….png) ImgOps Google

>>856883
missing that he felt Noonim was not attacking his original point was not what hurt his feelings. That is simply what led to a misunderstanding, which led to hurt feelings. The particulars are personal.

I'm sorry the rest of this has gotten you so upset. Please be well. Good luck at work.

 No.856906

>>856883
>i'm now shaking in rage
Jeez!  It's only Manley.  Why do you allow him to have this power over you?  If you tried to engage a parrot in a logical argument, would you get angry when the parrot just squawks nonsense at you?

 No.856912

>>856885
Yeah, but he could have just said "I didn't like your performance" instead of bringing up she's Asian at all. It shows that he thinks an actor being Asian CAN affect a performance, just did not in this instance.

>>856883
The strawman wasn't non-existant. We just both initially missed it.

And again, while I've tried to get a more definitive stance on the nature of "politics", as far as I can tell I'm only barred from discussing the US government and it's officials. Feminism is not related to the government so I don't know why it would be banned. Several mods have seen this discussion on feminism and have not said anything about it falling under the ban, so I'm going to continue to assume it's allowed.

I never said anything about wanting to fuck the CMC. You keep assuming that, and it's kind of upsetting.

I don't think it's attack on you. "Armchair psychiatry" is a real concept. But if it upsets you, you can ask me not to use that phrase and I will stop.

Again, I never said anything about sexual relations with the CMC. And it's not supposed to be an attack on you. I think you get irrationally upset over things you should not, and I have no control over that.

You can leave if you want, but I'm honestly not sure why you're getting this upset. I do not want to upset you and I really REALLY wish you would not get so upset it risks your personal life because of things said on an image board.

>>856906
Comparing me to a parrot IS a violation of the rules, however.  

 No.856923

>>856912
>I never said anything about wanting to fuck the CMC. You keep assuming that, and it's kind of upsetting.
You posted an image of a pokemon cat creature with a facial expression indicating sexual desire and a suggestion that the CMCs are 16, the age of consent in a majority of the United States.

 No.856924

File: 1540928836955.png (410.12 KB, 602x761, 602:761, 1441572718770.png) ImgOps Google

Alright, everyone calm down. Things are getting a bit heated, so let's just try to stay respectful. That means no name calling or underhanded insults to try to provoke each other. I hope we can all engage in civil discussion without focusing too heavily on "winning" or trying to drive off people who disagree.

 No.856929

File: 1540929009520.png (123.08 KB, 314x282, 157:141, 1456738140926.png) ImgOps Google

>>856923
This picture? I don't think it necessarily indicates sexual desire. It could also convey smugness, to a degree.

Also, I would not talk openly about wanting to fuck people half my age. Regardless of the legality of it in some locations, large age gaps are considered taboo by most.

 No.856933

>>856929
> I don't think it necessarily indicates sexual desire.
From the context of being from a pornographic manga, it does.

 No.856934

File: 1540929233612.png (150.01 KB, 528x610, 264:305, 23245543564.png) ImgOps Google

>>856933
How do you know it's from porn, Hmm?

Also doesn't address my other point.

 No.856966

>>856811
That's fine. If there's people who directly go against the principles of feminism, then I see no reason for them to associate with those people.

>The feminists who deplatform people shouldn't be included, if we are taking "defining terms" to that end.
My problem is, this issue is ultimately systematic in the feminist movement, and really the left or SJW lot in general.
This is something that commonly happens, and it doesn't seem to be by a fringe or anything like that. It seems to simply be standard practice.
That, and of course, I still don't consider nazis, racial collectivists, to be something that should be included with individualist libertarians. It's a direct conflict of principles. With feminism, from what I have seen, it isn't the principles in conflict when it comes to the people who're deplatforming, censoring, or otherwise bullying others.

 No.856968

>>856814
Still think Rain's wrong, and simply misinformed probably because he's a friend of yours.
I never strawmanned or moved the goalpost, like I said.

My money's on Rain changing his position because you asked him to, and not wanting conflict with a friend.

 No.856969

File: 1540931172224.jpg (376.25 KB, 1142x2000, 571:1000, 2SP00ky.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>856869
Thanks, anon
>>856876
Just because we've talked about it doesn't mean you're right. You're still seeing things that do not exist, having conversations that never have happened. I had complained about that in the original thread.

 No.856970

>>856897
He can feel however he likes.
Doesn't make it true.
He felt earlier that I was asking him to prove that anti feminists didn't deplatform people. Didn't make it true.

 No.856971

>>856966
Yeah, but that's a problem of viewpoint. One could argue that they see no distinction between what the extremists and the majority of anti-feminists do either. You could argue that they are "standard practice" too, and at that point, you'd only be arguing personal viewpoints instead of anything that could be measured objectively. There are people who would argue that deplatforming and bullying very much goes against the principles of feminism. The issue here is offering exceptions to one side you're not offering to the other because of persona bias.

>>856968
Ask her yourself. I don't see that in the screencap I posted, and that seems to be a bit paranoid, honestly. Rainstream and I disagree all the time, and she never agrees with me just for the sake of our friendship. In fact, it's put our friendship in jeopardy on more than one occasion, so I know your assumption is unsubstantiated.

>>856969
What "conversations never happened"? I'm just telling that Anon that you and I discussed this issue, not that you agreed with me. The anon does not need to get involved in that discussion.

 No.856973

>>856912
Problem is, people like her, and I'm fairly sure her specifically, have used the "I'm hated because I'm Asian" defense. So, people're going to obviously make mention of that.
It's still not racist, either way, so I don't see why you're pointing it out.

 No.856975

File: 1540931578467.jpg (16.04 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 1435374165409-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>856971
Except that I literally am, as stated. Because I wouldn't consider nazis a part of feminism.

That's what this thread and the replies I've made is for. I'm convinced that it's just an avoidance for an issue, as like I said, and the anon backed me up on, I never strawmanned.

You routinely make up things. Great example'd be the whole thinking I had asked you to prove anti-feminists didn't deplatform people.
I also broke it down ages ago in my original post on that thread.
The anon can get involved if he wants. You are not the arbiter of who can and cannot get involved. If someone wants to comment, they can. This is a public platform. If you do not like that, you can leave.

 No.856978

>>856973
Because she is getting racist harassment.
It's not a "defense", it's a statement of facts. And again, the fact that he even brings up her race shows that he thinks an actor being Asian CAN affect a performance, just did not in this instance.

>>856975
Why do you keep saying "I wouldn't consider nazis part of feminism"? That's not what I'm claiming. Nazis are an anti-feminist group. I'm saying that some of the people you DO consider feminist shouldn't be considered feminist, using the same logic you use for anti-feminists. Not specifically nazis.

>>856975
> I had asked you to prove anti-feminists didn't deplatform people
See, you keep using this as an example of me "making things up", as in being intentionaly deceitful, when I thought you and I had reached an agreement that I was simply mistaken about what you wanted. Which is not the same thing. If that's the case, you need to directly state "I don't believe you made a mistake, I think you're intentionally lying". Which I thought you said you wouldn't automatically assume anymore.

 No.856981

>>856978
>"making things up", as in being intentionaly deceitful,
Nah, a person can make things up accidentally or as a result of mental conditions without being deceitful.

 No.856983

File: 1540932631427.png (99.21 KB, 600x600, 1:1, e3f0d5c38cb9aea057c1cef978….png) ImgOps Google

>>856978
Sure, maybe, but people like yourself also link regular criticism to the fact that she's a woman and Asian.
> And again, the fact that he even brings up her race shows that he thinks an actor being Asian CAN affect a performance,
No. Not at all. That's an absurd assumption to make.

Sure, but what we are claiming is that Nazis are a part of the classical liberals. They aren't. The problem is, you're still tied down to my mistaken terminology, because this group I was thinking of doesn't really have a name. I'm thinking people like Sargon of Akkad, Count Dankula, Bearing, SFO, Razorfist, and so on. Not people like Richard Spencer. Not racial collectivists, individualists.

Okay, so, instead of "making things up", I'll just leave it as that you are constantly and extremely confused in our conversations, you have an extremely hard time following along, and sometimes, you mistake major items that never happened.
Either way, it'd still really boil down to "making things up", honestly. It's just that you don't do it out of malice, you do it out of incompetence. But, if you take issue with that word, it's whatever.

 No.856984

>>856934
>Also doesn't address my other point.

>>856929
>Also, I would not talk openly about wanting to fuck people half my age.
Well is that why you only subtly alluded to it rather than openly talking about it?

 No.856985

>>856984
I didn't really see it that way, myself. IT just looked like a bit of smug prickishness.

 No.856986

>>856985
Well that likely because you didn't know that it came from porn.  Knowing that it is from porn, does that affect your interpretation?

 No.856987

File: 1540932921293.png (118.12 KB, 423x353, 423:353, 21124124.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>856986
I dunno, man, porn images make the best reaction images.

 No.856988

>>856987
What type of Pokemon is that?

 No.856990

File: 1540933051680.png (73.53 KB, 377x304, 377:304, 1446004661718.png) ImgOps Google

>>856988
Decidueye

 No.856999

>>856981
I still contest that "being mistaken" and "making things up" are two different things. "Making things up" is a conscious choice.

>>856983
No, not "maybe", She does. A lot of it in fact. I'm sure there are people out there who disliked her performance not based on her race or sex... still isn't a good reason to harass an actor. And yeah, some "regular criticisms" might get mixed up in the racist comments. But bringing up race at all isn't a way you make that distinction.

No, I'm not tied down to your mistaken terminology. You contest that "nazis are a part of the 'classical liberals'". I'm saying that if YOU can say that Richard Spencer is not included in what you defined as "anti-feminist", then you could also argue that someone who preaches violence against men is not included as "feminist" by the same logic.

You're constantly look for reasons to call me stupid, so I don't care if you want to look at it that way. But yes, it's because I have a hard time following what you're asking for or looking for in our conversations. What benefit would it give me to "make things up" and argue something we aren't discussing if all it does is make you flip the fuck out and start cursing at me. Think about it, I have no reason to do that. But you always assume malice anyway, when it makes no logical sense.

 No.857000

>>856984
>>856986
This is dumb. I never said anything about fucking the CMC. End of story. I didn't.

 No.857003

>>857000
>I never said anything about fucking the CMC.
That's technically true.

 No.857004

File: 1540933779520.jpg (151.71 KB, 500x486, 250:243, ika's skeleton.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>856999
Like I said, I'd love to see any examples of this. Most of what I've seen seems to be people who really just hated her role, her character, and her acting. Mostly the movie, and they want a place to vent.

Maybe. It depends on their principles. The problem is, if they are working within the principles of the feminist movement, then they are a part of the feminist organization.
I'm happy to say that Richard Spencer isn't a feminist, though.

Well, it's not about benefit. As discussed earlier, I think you've genuinely got some issues that may be worth checking out. For myself, it'll just mean I give you a tad more space and understanding, when you do make up stuff, rather than assuming malice.

 No.857010

>>857004
Her instagram has been removed, so I'd have to go digging for anyone who took screen caps of it. Just for the record, you are asking for ANY proof she was harassed on the grounds of her race or sex? Are you saying you don't believe she ever was, or that you want proof of quantity. Because one example would be enough to prove the former, but how many would be needed to convince you of the latter?

Also, wanting "a place to vent" does not excuse harassing someone who did a thing you don't like. Racially or otherwise.

I never said Richard Spencer was a feminist... He espouses anti-feminist views. The problem is, when dealing with "principles", you can always change what the constitute. I COULD say "wishing violence against men goes against the principles of feminism" and all you'd have to say is "No it doesn't. All the feminists I know do." Do you not see the issue here? Someone could just as easily say "all the anti-feminists I know are like Richard Spencer."

In order for this to work, the "principles" of Feminism and Anti-Feminism have to be clearly defined and they aren't. They are subjective, sometimes on a person-to-person basis. So excluding some people from either group on the basis of principles is impossible.

 No.857015

File: 1540934533786.jpg (58.29 KB, 534x486, 89:81, 1420743701742.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>857010
I'd prefer a decent catalogue to say that this was a major issue, or otherwise rampant.
If this sort of thing had happened, you'd normally see an archive or similar with a collected lot.
Like I said, I can't believe her at face value, because people've faked harassment before. Again, see Briana Wu.

I didn't say it did. My contention is with the claim that it was racially motivated, and not because the movie was shit.

And richard spencer espouses anti-liberalist views.
You'd have to explain how the principles of feminism contradict hating men. At the moment, given how modern feminism seems to be adopting an oppressor/oppressed outlook, it seems consistent.

In the case of separating Richard Spencer from what I was meaning when i had originally said mistakenly "Antifeminist", it's quite simple:
Richard Spencer is a racial collectivist authoritarian.
The classical liberal types are individualists, who value liberty.
They are directly contradictory. It'd be like calling a capitalist a communist.

 No.857017

File: 1540935053016.jpg (268.18 KB, 1024x774, 512:387, masqA_zpsdo3f9nbn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>856934
because you said so.

>>856906
it's not manley i'm agry at, it's myself.  I am allowed to come in an hour early and get paid for it, but during that hour I wasted my time away trying to be helpful and getting slapped down with insults for it.  Each day I come in early, I make the same amount a nice meal costs and so it's kind of like missing a meal to get myself insulted because I'm too fucking stupid to just watch from the sidelines and shake my head.

On the upside, you and Rain were very nice to me, also I managed to resist name-calling and being too much of a little bitch about things so, that was good.  Maybe I just shouldn't be looking in at the disaster areas in the mornings.


edit:  oh yes and please don't compare my parrots to illogical arguers.  They are very sweet and straightforward and always make good sense.

 No.857018

>>857015
How many is "decent catalogue"? 5? 20? 100? I really don't feel like having to explain to you that people still get harassed online because of their race. Denying such is kind of... a shitty thing to do. It's too close to denying racism is a thing for me to indulge in. You;ll have to find some edgy white kids if you want to have the "racism and sexism aren't real, anyone who claims it is lying" debate.

I'm not a feminist, so I could not accurately do that. I've had the principles of explained to me, that feminism is an equality movement and that violence against men by women is not a form of equality, but I'm far from an expert on the "principles of feminism" You'd have to talk to someone who considers themselves a feminist for that debate. But even without that knowledge, I can still attest you are being hypocritical and affording anti-feminists more leeway and exceptions than you are feminists. Probably out of bias against feminism.

What does their views on individualism have to do with their views on feminism? it's entirely possible for them to disagree on that and still hold the exact same views on feminism. Just the same way a capitalist and a communist can agree on which Friday the 13th is the best movie.  

 No.857021

>>857018
for myself, 50 would probably be plenty. People usually catalog these types of things when they happen. You usually can get quite a extensive list.
I am not denying that people get harassed because of their race. My contention is that it is a rampant issue. I do not believe that the majority of the harassment she had received was because she was a woman or because she was Asian. That is my issue. I am sure there is a minority of assholes on the internet, and they will harass random people over their race, I just don't believe it was a common item, or the majority of the harassment she had received.

like I said you seem to be still hung up over the label anti-feminist. That was a mistake to use initially. I am happy to admit that it was a mistake to use, however, please understand, at the moment, I am talking about people like the liberalists, and other individualist egalitarians.
In the same way that you would not call a feminist a Nazi or a fascist, it would make no sense to call and individual list a Nazi or a fascist. It is not hypocritical to say so

like I said, you are still stuck on the anti-feminist label. I already stated that that was a mistake to use. It was not what I meant when I said anti-feminist, I use that term mistakenly because it is one commonly associated with the type I was speaking of, largely because they don't really have their own name. Liberalist is one that is coming up, however, it is not one that has been universally accepted, unfortunately.
Regardless, as I said, individualists and collectivists are automatically at odds.

 No.857030

>>857021
It's completely unrealistic to say that "Unless you show me 50 instances of her getting harassed by racist, she's automatically lying." What if she only got 40 in a row before she deleted her instagram. Why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to the harassers and not the person being harassed?

Also, why does it have to be a "rampant issue", to be worthy of discussion. Are you saying that if it doesn't happen enough times (which again, YOU can always arbitrarily quantify) then it's not a problem? What's stopping you from saying "Unless it happens 100 billion times it's not an issue" then? Again, why give the attackers the benefit of the doubt instead of those being attacked?

You are the one trying to make a distinction between "anti-feminist". When I said "anti-feminist", I mean "people who espouse anti-feminist views". Including people like Sargon. Sargon and Richard Spencer hold similar views... when it comes to feminism. So why are they in separate categories in relation to feminist? You want to categorize them that way, and I'm saying that if you do, then feminism itself also gets to categorize the people who hold pro-feminist views.

 No.857039

>>857030
I mean, if I had the fourty, I could at least say it's likely. Problem is I have absolutely nothing currently .
The only example so far wasn't racist, and didn't even appear to be harassment

because you should always presume innocence, and like I said, with the example of Brianna Wu, harassment has been faked in the past. I cannot take these people at face value because they lied in the past. no, when it comes to condemning your group, I generally don't do it anyway, because like I said, you should alwaus presume innocence before Guilt.

I already said saying anti-feminist was a mistake. You are not listening to me. I understand that this is not your fault, that it's saying issue of the way you understand things, you have a hard time following basic conversation, but, again, I already said it was a mistake. I shouldn't have said anti-feminist. I already said this, multiple times now. If you cannot get past this point, we cannot have a conversation. A conversation has to be a two-way street, and right now, you are ignoring me.

 No.857043

>>857017
>edit:  oh yes and please don't compare my parrots to illogical arguers.
You have parrots?

 No.857046

>>857039
Actually, you have one. >>856451 two if you count the vandalization of Wookiepedia. >>856454.

You aren't "presmuing innocence" for Kelly Marie Tran. You're accusing her of faking her allegations because you have one other example of someone (allegedly) faking allegations. Which, if you're going to demand proof from me, I could do the same to you. Prove Brianna "faked" it. But Kelly is stating that she was harassed. To deny it is to accuse her of lying. You are still awarding the benefit of the doubt to the abusers and not to the victim.

Forget that "anti-feminist" is being used.Please address this point here:   Sargon and Richard Spencer hold similar views... when it comes to feminism. So why are they in separate categories in relation to feminist? You want to categorize them that way, and I'm saying that if you do, then feminism itself also gets to categorize the people who hold pro-feminist views. Can you address this without being condescending?

 No.857049

>>857043
>>857046
>Kelly is stating that she was harassed. To deny it is to accuse her of lying.
Nope.  She could be just be confused about whether certain interactions are actually harassment or not.

 No.857050

File: 1540937817382.jpg (393.07 KB, 1844x1724, 461:431, 20181022_223556-1-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>857043
I can't imagine not having parrots.

 No.857051

>>857049
True, but unlikely. Also consider several news articles covered the story and agreed with her assessment that it WAS harassment. I've already linked to two of them, but a quick google search reveals many more.

 No.857053

>>857050
birb! 🐦

 No.857055

>>857051
Do yuo like birbs, Manley?

 No.857056

>>857055
I don't dislike them.

 No.857058

>>857056
Yuo are neutral, like the Swiss?

 No.857059

🧀

 No.857061

I leik birbs, they are kyoot. But I wouldnt pet them.  They might bite me!

 No.857062

>>857046
fair enough. Looks like there is one, then. I wouldn't really count vandalism, as usually that's more just trolling.

it isn't that I think she's lying automatically. It's just that I can't just take her word for it and condemn a large group, as these things have been lied about in the past. It's the same reason I could not just simply take the word of a rape victim, and say that somebody should be thrown in jail or not get a job for example.
As far as the Brianna Wu what, just Google it. It is something proven. People have gotten evidence all of it, it was a rather hilarious Fiasco for a while.

they do not actually hold similar views when it comes to feminism. That's because Richard Spencer is a collectivist identitarian, much like feminists are, which means that his objecting to feminism is on the grounds that they are working against his side. Or Sargon of akkad, as in individualist, his objections to feminism are on the grounds that it is collectivist and identitarian.
in any case, you are arguing a point that I never argued. It's not something that I care to argue. It's not something I made a case for. Again, I understand that it's not your fault, it's just how you understand things in the world, and how information gets mixed up in your brain, but, I never said that, I never argue that. I made a mistake saying anti-feminist when I meant these sorts of classical liberal types, as I did not think of the old right when I said that. Like I said, that was a mistake. I already said I was wrong about that. You seem to be unable to understand that. You seem to be actively ignoring that.

 No.857063

>>857051
also consider that the news is often incredibly biased, and just simply listens and believes.

 No.857066

File: 1540939022656.jpg (667.34 KB, 2156x2319, 2156:2319, 20181021_232643-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>857053
Ever-growing herd of parakeets, got a new all yellow one, need an updated pic, has almost all its feathers now.

 No.857068

>>857066
Heh, that looks a bit like a tiny dinosaur but with fluff.

 No.857069

>>857062
The rape victim is a different case, because you are accusing someone of a crime. It's important not to convict people of a crime they did not commit if real jail-time is on the line. However, Tran saying "I was harassed" is not a direct accusation against one person, so there is no danger of someone getting accused of something they did not do. It's just her stating that she was harassed online, which we know is true from the one example.

We aren't talking about what motivates their views. Just the views they hold. It's like saying if one person like Reeses Cups because they like the chocolate, and one likes Reeses cups because they like the peanut butter, only one of them REALLY likes Reeses Cups. No, they both do. Just for different reasons.

What are you claiming you "never argued"? We are NOT using the word "anti-feminist" right now. YOU are the one actively ignoring me and then being condescending about it when what I'm saying is pretty clear.

Richard Spencer: Doesn't like feminism.
Sargon: Doesn't like feminism.

These are two people who don't like feminism. They share the similar views on feminism and that's why they dislike it.
They are part of the same group in relation to their dislike of feminism. They can be parts of other groups that don't equate to each other. Nazis, fans of oatmeal, etc. But they are still united in their views against feminism. The reasoning they come to those conclusions about feminism are irrelevant. This is what I am arguing.

If you disagree, then by definition you should also support the idea that Someone who supports violence against men and someone who does not are separate in regards to being feminist. I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

 No.857081

>>857069
Fluff is nice, do you agree? 😸

 No.857085

>>857081
I like cats and they are fluffy, so sure.

 No.857087

File: 1540940109606.png (252.6 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>857069
You don't have to be convicted for it to be an issue. See Kavanaugh.
Anyway; you were the one who used it as an example, so obviously you're condemning a group using it as justification. It isn't like we randomly pulled this lot out of nowhere for kicks.

I'm afraid I've lost my place for the next Reese's lot. Don't know what it's in reply to.

If we aren't using the word anti-feminists, why do you keep bringing it up? Why do you keep acting as though not wanting to include Nazis with classical liberals is an issue?
If you were supposedly being clear, I'm afraid you aren't clear enough, as now I have no idea what you're going on about. It's like the "prove anti-feminists aren't deplatforming people" lot all over again.

>They share the similar views on feminism and that's why they dislike it.
Again, objectively false.
>They are part of the same group in relation to their dislike of feminism
If you're saying they're both anti-feminists, then, yes. I already said I messed up there and should not have used that phrase. Again, you seem to be unable to follow. I've explicitly stated that this was a mistake I've made multiple times now. You are actively ignoring me. I am trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you weren't doing it intentionally, but, given that I've said this so many times now, it's really starting to get quite difficult to do.

I've actually already said, multiple times now, that I don't disagree. You just really don't seem capable of listening to what I say. It's rather strange. That's why I said ages ago that you seem to have conversations in your head that other peoples are not even involved with. You make assumptions about people, that completely go contrary to what they stated. You ignore arguments, and make up your own. It's incredibly odd, but, I'm convinced, or rather I'm choosing to believe, that you aren't doing it intentionally.

 No.857093

>>857087
>See Kavanaugh
He got away with it? That's a political issue, you know I can't discuss those. Use another example.

 No.857094

>>857093
He didn't "get away with it", any more than when an innocent person "gets away with murder" because the court ruled in his favor.
Regardless, I'm using it only as an example of someone who's life and livelihood was attacked for something completely unproven.

 No.857097

>>857094
You think Kavanaugh was innocent? Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man.

Just... what the fuck?

 No.857098

>>857094
Do yuo like fluff, Noonim?  Or only scales?

 No.857100

File: 1540941198515.jpg (208.52 KB, 1200x975, 16:13, ae29f4_5879400.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>857097
Right so you're in direct opposition to the presumption of innocence. That's cool. Just means I'm not going to agree with you on the condemnation of any group, lacking evidence, as I consider the presumption of innocence to be a prime standard of a just system.

>>857098
I like many things, fluff included

 No.857102

>>857097  2 other men literally came forward and said it was them, but yeah, let's just keep saying it was Kavanaugh because that's convenient to our politics.  :dash3:

 No.857103

>>857100
>>857102

That's a shit move to say incorrect things just because you know I can't counter them. Do it again, and I'll report you for trying to bait me.  

 No.857105

>>857103  Nothing I said was incorrect.

 No.857107

>>857103
He's just correcting the record.  You don't get to claim that he baiting you.

 No.857109

>>857107
It's bating to say something he knows I can't counter in an attempt to get me to break my ban. It's classic example of baiting.

 No.857110

>>857103
I didn't say anything incorrect. Make your report, I 100% stand by my statements.

 No.857111

>>857109
Not what I'm doing, and if you keep slandering me like that, I'll report you.

 No.857112

>>857109
Nope.  Your punishment is that you must ignore it and refrain from talking politics.  You are already skating dangerously close to the line.  If you fail, that is your own fault.

 No.857113

>>857105
They were, but you know I not allowed to show how. You're just saying it so you can appear correct with no counterargument.

 No.857114

>>857112
"baiting" is against the rules. Trying to get someone else to break the rules.

 No.857115


 No.857116

>>857114
>Trying to get someone else to break the rules.
But thats not his intent.  He is just countering your claims, a.perfectly valid thing to do.  

 No.857118

>>857115
I still can't counter-argue, so that doesn't negate you saying it so you can appear correct with no counterargument.

 No.857119

>>857118  just because you refuse to argue against it doesn't mean it's wrong  :shy3:

 No.857120

>>857116
Knowing that I can't counter back, so he can appear to be right because he has no opposition. It's dishonest.

 No.857121

>>857119
I'm not "refusing" to. I am barred from doing so.

 No.857122

>>857121  sounds like a personal problem.  still doesn't mean it's wrong.  :pinkie9:

 No.857123

>>857118
There are others in this thrad besides you.  Someone else might if they think it false.

 No.857125

>>857114
lying about other people making claims that they are doing something that is against the rules, I am fairly certain, is also against the rules. I believe me and the boat both did not intend to do that.

it isn't fair that you get to use your van as a cudgel to bully others into agreeing with you or leaving off statements that you make that are incorrect. It is unfortunate that you were banned in this regard, however, we have absolutely no obligation to cater to you for it. If you really want to give a counter, fine. Go post something to Facebook or Eastman or Twitter or read it, anywhere you like. You can even post an image of your statements on Imgur. Let's don't accuse us of doing something that we've not done, just because you automatically assume the absolute worst in people.

I am serious when I say that I will report you if you keep doing that sort of thing. It's a gross of slandering. I do not appreciate such a tax on my personal character, and I will not tolerate them. They do rather heavily offend me.

 No.857126

>>857123
People know not to take this side of an argument because the mods will just ban you as they did me. It's created a really nasty enviroment on this site.

>>857122
It might be a personal problem, but your'e still only doing it because you KNOW I can't counter-argue and it's a good way to appear right without having to be right.

 No.857127

>>857126
>ut your'e still only doing it because you KNOW I can't counter-argue
That's a load of BS.

 No.857129

>>857126  I posted it in response to your misinformation.  It's pretty cut and dry.  Your notion that you just get to be right by default because no one can challenge you is absurd.  :fluf2:

 No.857130

>>857127
It's clearly the case. He knows I can't counter-argue, and you can't lose an argument when you have no opponent.

 No.857131

>>857126
if you can't make a counter argument, you should have never have stated anything on the subject. You should have just ignored it. You can't make slanderous accusations of other people just because of your own inability to control your emotions. That's your problem, not ours.

 No.857132

>>857130
okay, now you're just repeating the same item. I'm just going to go ahead and report you, and we'll see how the mods deal with it.

 No.857133

>>857129
It's the exact opposite. EVERYONE gets to challenge me and I can't defend myself. A fact you took advantage of to appear correct.

>>857131
You brought it up. Probably for this very reason.

 No.857135

>>857133
I brought it up as a great example of somebody getting massive attacks, people calling for him to not get a job, all for something that was not proven.
it was a great example of my case for why it's still wrong even if it isn't a literal court of law.

I did not say that in order to get you banned. If I wanted to do that, I could have just waited for this type of moment, and reported you for the constant slanderous accusations you label against me.

 No.857136

>>857135
You brought it up because you KNOW I can't counter it, so it was a good way to appear correct with no opposition.

Why else would you choose a political example? There are dozens of other non-political examples you could have used. A quick google of the "me too" movement would have given you that. You chose the political one to appear like you were winning because I can't defend.

 No.857137

>>857133  I'm not 100% sure of the terms of your probation or whatever, but if you're making political statements, then you can expect to be challenged on them.  If you don't want to be challenged on them, then don't make political statements.
>appear correct.
Being correct does tend to make one appear to be correct.  :dash7:

 No.857138

>>857137
I didn't make a political statement. Noonim did.

You took it as an opporutinity to make a statement with no counter-argument. You only appear correct because there's no one to oppose it.

 No.857139

>>857138  What opposition can you possibly have besides "I don't like Kavanaugh"?  The people who were responsible came forward, so any attempt to pin it to Kavanaugh at this point is just baseless political posturing.  :derp1:

 No.857141

>>857139
I have tons. Can't share it. And you're pressing of the issue only proves you're not after a real discussion on it. Only one-sided statements no one is allowed to counter.

 No.857142

>>857136
Like I said, that was not my intention. What you're saying is simply false, and I do not appreciate such accusations.

I chose it as an example because it is one of the easiest largest examples to currently. if you know another example where an innocent person was wrongfully attacked, then, by all means, feel free to use it in its place.

 No.857143

Guys, just drop it. This isn't worth it, also I'm trying to read and the reports are making my phone bloop at me a bunch.

 No.857145

>>857138
All I did was use his case as an example. You're the one who decided to condemn me for it, and now that people respond, you bully them.

 No.857147

>>857143
can you at least tell men lie to stop slandering me? This is a direct personal attack, and one that I take incredibly seriously. It's not one I appreciate, and I do not want this or thing to continue.

I can make a site bread, if you prefer.

 No.857148

>>857141
Except that you made your own one side statements before you decide to be silent on the subject. He decided to condemn me for supporting Cavanaugh, and then accuse me of trying to get you banned when I responded.

 No.857149

>>857148
You brought up a political point on purpose to try and get me in trouble. If you'd just admit that we could move on.

 No.857150

>>857149
I didn't do that, that is not what my position is.

Thorax, are you going to do something about this, or what? I thought this type of behavior is directly against the rules.

 No.857151

>>857120
>calling people dishonest
Ironic.

 No.857152

>>857151
He was being dishonest.

For someone who says they are trying to get along with me, you have a read bad habit of jumping in when people gang up on me.

 No.857154

>>857150
I'm not a mod, I don't really enforce rules, cept in raid situations. Sorry dude. I can just meditate or lock the thread really.

>>857149
Manley, don't be so quick to assume. Noonim isn't really that devious of a person. I don't think he cares or thinks twice about your ban or how he could use it against you. Why assume you know his motivations?

 No.857155

>>857154
Alright. Can you let someone know the issue, to address it when they can? I wouldn't care significantly if the thread is locked so long as the issue is addressed.

 No.857156

>>857154
Because he assumes mine. He thinks I'm things I'm not. He thinks I'm a dishonest person. He thinks that I lie, and that I try to upset him on purpose. I have to assume that when he interacts with me, that's what he sees. So why wouldn't he do the same back to me? Why hold back against a bad guy?

 No.857158

>>857126
Are you saying your political ban is because of political bias of the mods, rather than because you enjoy arguing with everyone all the time and they made a concerted effort to set guidelines to prevent you from being banned entirely?

 No.857160

>>857156
I've decided to stop doing that, but, I want to say, I started because you were doing it to me.

 No.857161

>>857152
The irony is that you get upset when nooms calls you a liar but you're quick to accuse others without provocation.

You called for sources for something someone said, and Boat supplied one.  That makes him "dishonest"?

"Getting along" with you is hard when your attacking everyone all the time is always right at the top of the front page.

 No.857163

>>857156
By the way, this is shitty justification given that you do it to other people who are not me.
That Anon comes to mind, again.
You said he was doing what you're accusing me of doing now. And, I'm fairly sure you were saying the same to boat a moment ago.

 No.857164

>>857158
Not necessarily political bias, but more... indifference, I guess? The mods don't care if dangerous and/or incorrect political views get spread. It doesn't matter which side wins to them, so long as the fighting stops. And since I was one of the most vocal people on my side, they decided to shoot me down instead of addressing the things I was fighting against. But in doing so, they made the opposition look like they were in the right.

>>857161
I didn't call for sources on anything. I literally cannot call for that. He's dishonest because he knows I can't counter-argue, so he's using that as a way to appear right by having no opposition.

 No.857165

>>857164
So, you're also assuming the worst of ⛵?
Doesn't that suggest your defense  >>857156 is untrue?

 No.857166

>>857155
Maybe I'll lock it in a minute if things don't calm down and wait for a mod to review it. The reports are going into mod chat and alerting everyone and I assume that means nobody but me is available right now. So, you'd have to wait for someone not to be busy.

>>857156
Take the high road dude. I mean, even if he didn't like you or thought you were a bad guy, that doesn't mean he has to play dirty with you. When you assume people's motivations you are taking away the ability to actually communicate effectively with them. You'd like to actually get your information across to him, right? That's not gonna happen if you make accusations like this.

>>857158
>>857161
Please don't complicate this more right now dude.

 No.857167

>>857166
>You'd like to actually get your information across to him

I actually can't. Because of the political ban. I suspect that's why he chose the the example he did. To shut down the conversation while appearing to be right. If he was really after a debate or exchange of ideas, he would have picked an example I could discuss.

 No.857168

>>857166
Fair enough. Just as long as it gets addressed.

He does the same to other people, though. As in this thread, in regards to boat, and in a prior thread, in regards to an Anon.
The whole "he was mean first" naturally doesn't pan out

 No.857169

>>857167
I didn't give it much consideration, honestly, as you seem to pick and choose what the ban applies to anyway. I would have thought feminism would be inherently political, for instance.

 No.857170

File: 1540944144391.png (37.53 KB, 199x113, 199:113, 1447700242945.png) ImgOps Google

Alright. This is getting out of hand. I'm locking this thread until we can decide how best to respond.

 No.857171

File: 1540944186732.png (227.7 KB, 1024x763, 1024:763, So many tasks for so littl….png) ImgOps Google

I'm working through it. But considering I just woke up, you'll need to give it a few minutes as I go through everything.

 No.857172

>>857167
I haven't read the thread at all, but I promise you noonim didn't specifically use an example just to trap you. That isn't the kind of guy he is. Like I said, he probably doesn't even think or care about your politics ban. He's just making the arguments that make sense to him.

 No.857859

File: 1541033681778.png (149.21 KB, 304x321, 304:321, where's page two.png) ImgOps Google

>>857141
>>857148
After extensive review, we have determined that the two of you are more concerned with proving that the other is morally invalid than you are with discussing the topic at hand. As such we will not be unlocking this thread for further discussion. Debate and discussion should not take hours long detours attempting to discredit your opponent, nor should the idea of an opponent be able to be brought into play. If either of you allows yourself to engage in this sort of behavior again, both parties involved will receive bans, the severity of which will be determined based on perceived behavior. I expect you both to conduct yourselves more civilly and rationally in the future. This thread is now permanently locked.

 No.861965

File: 1541477192475.jpg (7.52 KB, 249x202, 249:202, sadscoots.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I would like to offer an apology to Noonim, for the harsh wording of my previous post. It was the opinion of the majority of the staff that the focus of the discussion had become that of winning an argument, which we felt was encouraging harsh words. While I still feel this is true, it was a bit overzealous of me, to word the post as I did, and it was unfair to overlook the effort Noonim had made to adhere to our official requests toward his behavior.

I will not alter the post already made, as I feel it would be dishonest to change words already said. However, I also believe that despite the public apology made by Moony on /canterlot/ I still owe this apology to Noonim personally, as I was the mod who made the official post above. Please accept my apology for my oversight and false accusations.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]