Discussion with Cracked TAC members

This is just a quick post linking to my discussion with Cracked.com TAC members. I have known for quite some time that Cracked is a site used by TAC manginas to preach femifascist hogwash by expressing dangerously clueless opinions and shaming men (one example being David Wong’s poor articles).

What happened was that a link to Shy Boys IRL film was posted on Cracked forums and one member decided to post a link to my blog. I started arguing with them and it was really unsurprising to see that almost all of them were TAC members.

TAC monsters have closed the thread by now, once again being unable to stand scrutiny. Here’s the link to it, though.

http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/142356/fucking-horrifying-documentary-about-26quot3Blove-shy26quot3B-dudes

It’s sad to see how many TAC members are out there and how much work needs to be done to defeat these monsters. Anyway, if you’re interested more about my experiences and ideas this is essential reading.

Also, I’ve been feeling a better lately and this thread has energized me a lot too. My full comeback is due soon.

Those of you who have been left with your questions unanswered can do either of the following

1. Ask them here

2. Ask them on Cracked via PM, but don’t be sure I’ll go back there so they might be left unanswered.

180 thoughts on “Discussion with Cracked TAC members

  1. I’ve never met anyone so open about the fact that they think they’re entitled to a woman. You’re not. No one is. You will never stand a chance to be in the loving relationship you crave so much until you start treating women like people.

      • Your entire blog is about how you’re entitled to a woman because that would improve (or would have improved) your mental health.* What about the mental health of the thousands of women in desperate situations who, in the parallel reality where your plan would even be considered by a sane government, would end up having sex with guys they don’t like for money?

        GGG- edited the rest of the crap.

  2. Oh GGG. You ARE The Divine Comedian. Anyway, don’t sweat it about not being active lately. I’ve been saying for a week now that I was going to post something other than Tyolka Tuesdays at my place. But I just can’t figure out how to go about it.

  3. GGGF, I hope your discussion on Cracked.com helps you understand a few key points. First, that members of modern culture are utterly worthless and that they are too stupid and closed-minded to be reasoned with. Since democratically elected governments are chosen by these people, your ideas about governments getting girlfriends, or doing anything else useful, are an impractical fantasy. If I have a fantasy, for example that the average IQ was 50 points higher, I am not going to start a website to promote it because I know that it is impossible. Trying to defeat modern culture is also a waste of time. It will self-destruct as all decedent cultures have done in history. What all decent people should do is to turn their back on modern culture and find an alternative, which generally means a religion. A good strong religion can provide for people’s basic needs, including arranging dates. You can see this in action in this movie:

    • Franklin, I can’t use Hulu here but thanks for putting this up. I am currently downloading it from from somewhere. I’ll make a full reply once I see the film.

  4. “Nobody greed with me, so I’m gonna write on my ablooblooblog about how they’re all just this stupid acronym I made up to describe people who don’t agree with me!”

    • I deleted all the screaming in your comment. Anyway, TAC doesn’t mean “people who disagree with me”. I’ve listed at least 18 common characteristics of TAC members in that thread. Go look it up.

      I’ve had people like libertarians or MRAs disagreeing with me. Such people are not from TAC. Hell, even Franklin doesn’t agree with me and he hates liberals about as much as I do.

  5. But if everyone really is stupid other than the five people who agree with you, then how do we have computers and rocketships and stuff?

    • I just said that there are people who disagree with me but aren’t stupid. fschmidt is one of the most intelligent people whose posts I’ve ever read and he disagrees with me.

      Of course, most people who do disagree with me for reasons that actually don’t have anything to do with what I’m saying or because they lack basic empathy likely have liberal arts degrees for which they had to draw pictures with their boyfriend’s semen and write essays on how much they hate men.

    • I use this term (which I usually abbreviate to TAC) to describe people with following characteristics (in short, this will be explained in more detail once I make an article about them)
      1 proclaimed but fake atheism (belief in god is actually replaced by other religious beliefs, like extreme and irrational religion of therapy or feminist myths )
      2 general stupidity (lack of reading comprehension, inability to make or understand arguments)
      3 feminism
      4 misandry
      5 cult of therapy and psychiatry in general
      6 political correctness
      7 batshit vocabulary, invention of new various bizzare new words
      8 use of words differently than their original meaning (examples- threat, rape, harassment all used in exagerrated and incorrect way)
      9 paranoia
      10 hatred of people they see as “privileged” (white people, straight people, males, usually goes along with misandry)
      11 desire for censorship
      12 belief that they are entitled to harass people because they are better and more “enlightened” than they are but tears when they start being harassed themselves- hence why they do things like statcountering, doxxing, rl harrasment etc but cry when they’re subjected to it themselves
      13 absolute lack of empathy or any regard for perceived opponents
      14 condescending attitude
      15 pathologizing of perceived opponents (in connection and used with nr 5)
      16 use of psychiatry to try to silence their opponents (in connection to 5 and 15)
      17 virulent attacks on Christianity while defending and justifying Islam
      18 obsession with other people’s morality while completely ignoring their own heinous acts (doing things in horrible frustration because of monstrous acts by others- terrible, supporting people who harm their children or doxxers- completely ok)
      There are some more.
      Anyway, I call such people TAC.

      • Look in the mirror.

        2 general stupidity (lack of reading comprehension, inability to make or understand arguments)
        7 batshit vocabulary, invention of new various bizzare new words (“incel”)
        8 use of words differently than their original meaning (examples- threat, rape, harassment all used in exagerrated and incorrect way)
        9 paranoia
        10 hatred of people they see as “privileged” (white people, straight people, males, usually goes along with misandry) (you see women as privileged)
        13 absolute lack of empathy or any regard for perceived opponents
        14 condescending attitude
        15 pathologizing of perceived opponents (see all of the above and this entire “TAC” argument)

        Come on, dude, wake up. Women as a group are not out to get you. We don’t have weekly meetings. Oh, and my husband lost his virginity at 24 – he’s

        • 2 general stupidity (lack of reading comprehension, inability to make or understand arguments)

          And it is evidenced by… what? Examples are where? You’re just insulting me without any arguments. Here, I can do that too. You’re a crack addict whore with syphilis. It’s that easy.

          Where are my arguments that TAC members are stupid, you might ask? They’re everywhere I’ve debated them. But it’s not enough that I say that. Everybody who isn’t convinced can debate on me on usual TAC points to see why he will lose or point me to where I lost a debate and why.

          7 batshit vocabulary, invention of new various bizzare new words (“incel”)

          I didn’t invent the word, since you tell me to look in the mirror. It is merely 1. an abbreviation of the term “involuntary celibacy” 2. used for communities of people with a wider array of problems than lack of sex. The word existed before I did.

          8 use of words differently than their original meaning (examples- threat, rape, harassment all used in exagerrated and incorrect way)
          9 paranoia

          Your examples being- what? Here, I can go on. You’re a crack addict whore with syphilis who likes to waste her husband’s money while blowing roadies.

          10 hatred of people they see as “privileged” (white people, straight people, males, usually goes along with misandry) (you see women as privileged)

          I see them as privileged because they are privileged, though that privilege is starting to backfire pretty quickly now. I still don’t hate them while TAC members, especially more extreme ones, usually hate all members of groups they find privileged.

          13 absolute lack of empathy or any regard for perceived opponents

          And wrong again, cunt. I can empathize with TAC members or examine their views, it’s just that they’re toxic and evil.

          Also, what I got from TAC was insults, censorship, death threats, calls to dox me, threats to dox me, attempted doxing and irl harrasment. The only thing among these that they got from me was insults.

          14 condescending attitude

          How many roadies has it been this week?

          15 pathologizing of perceived opponents (see all of the above and this entire “TAC” argument)

          This is true, I believe most of them are mentally ill. Still, I never had the effrontery to diagnose them online like they did in my case.

          Come on, dude, wake up. Women as a group are not out to get you. We don’t have weekly meetings.

          Just 3 roadies? A slow week, you say?

          Oh, and my husband lost his virginity at 24 – he’s

          …probably non-existent and this is a clever way of telling us that

      • Eric, I can make broad, outlandish, scathing generalizations to demonize people whose motivations and viewpoints I don’t fully understand, too.

  6. I think there is some expression about how you’re not supposed to wrestle with a pig because you only get muddy and the pig will still want to fuck his mum

  7. So, like. I read the entire Cracked thread, start to finish, so I know I’m not the only person to voice this opinion, but I’d like to take another swing at it. I think you need to step back for a second and at least TRY to entertain the idea that you might be wrong about, well . . . most of the stuff you say. Just try for me. Humor me. Think critically for a little bit.

    Let’s examine the whole “TAC aren’t people” thing. So, your argument is that people whom you define as TAC aren’t people because they’re unintentionally endangering society and the existence of “decent” people. Amirite? Let’s assume for a second that a) your definition of “decent person” is what we can all generally agree to be a decent human being, and b) that these TAC people actually ARE endangering these decent people. You admit several times that they’re not actually TRYING to kill or harm these people, and it’s just an indirect result of what you believe to be misguided philosophy. How, then, does that make them any less human? How is trying to better the lives of others, yet going about it in the wrong way a thing that makes one less of a person?

    Even if it were intentional, would they still be less human? I mean, shit. You assaulted your own parents. I know it was in response to some perceived detriment to your mental welfare, but it happened well after whatever your parents may have done (or failed to do) that you think resulted in your being harmed. You can’t even attempt to claim self-defense on that one. You physically assaulted some people without provocation because you were angry at them and held them responsible for things in your life that a) weren’t their responsibility, and b) they couldn’t have fixed in the first place. Isn’t that worse than the things you accuse the TAC of? At least the TAC have some sort of leg to stand on when it comes to defending their views. You just beat some innocent people up because you couldn’t think of a more constructive way to handle your problems at the time.

    And then there’s article 13 on your little list of what makes someone TAC. You say that one of the symptoms of TAC is an “absolute lack of empathy” for “perceived opponents.” Aren’t the TAC your perceived opponents? Doesn’t arguing against their humanity show a blatant disregard for their BEING? Isn’t saying that you wish you could kill them without legal retribution demonstrative of a total and complete lack of empathy for these individuals?

    • I hope GGGF doesn’t mind if I give my answer to this. And since I don’t like acronyms, I will use “Moderns” instead of “TAC”.

      What makes humans distinct from animals is the ability to think, to consider things. Those who refuse to consider other views can’t really be considered fully human, which is why Moderns can’t be considered human.

      And because of the above, Moderns lack empathy. I, and presumably GGGF, have empathy for Moderns, what we lack is sympathy. In other words, because I understand Moderns emotionally, I completely hate them and wish they were dead. On the other hand, Moderns don’t have the slightest understanding of anyone outside of their own narrow worldview.

      • Um,

        Those who refuse to consider other views can’t really be considered fully human, which is why Moderns can’t be considered human.

        Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing to these ‘TACS’ or ‘Moderns’?

        This whole thing has strong vibes of scientology, specifically the ‘Psychology is a lie’ aspect.

        • (Optional),

          1. I consider the views of TAC and defeat them in debate every time. They usually fail to consider mine and once they try a serious debate they get smashed to pieces.

          2. I never said that all of psychology is a lie. I am seeing a psychiatrist myself for depression. What I did say was…
          – that things like personality disorders shouldn’t be taken seriously as they overlap and their diagnoses are usually nowhere near the validity of diagnoses of physical disorders
          – that TAC believe almost any problem can be solved by therapy and refuse to accept that incel is often a purely situational problem (as it is now mostly in my case). TAC make an easy cop put when you tell them that therapy hasn’t helped you – “It’s your fault you because you haven’t tried hard enough!” That reeks of religion.

          3. I’d find Scientology hilarious, if only it weren’t such a dangerous cult that destroyed many lives. I’m not trying to sell ideas like Lord Xenu and I’m a non-theist myself.

    • Think critically for a little bit.

      I always think critically. You’re being condescending to a point of being slightly obnoxious and making me feel kinda dizzy. All before we have even begun.

      Let’s examine the whole “TAC aren’t people” thing. So, your argument is that people whom you define as TAC aren’t people because they’re unintentionally endangering society and the existence of “decent” people. Amirite? Let’s assume for a second that a) your definition of “decent person” is what we can all generally agree to be a decent human being, and b) that these TAC people actually ARE endangering these decent people. You admit several times that they’re not actually TRYING to kill or harm these people, and it’s just an indirect result of what you believe to be misguided philosophy. How, then, does that make them any less human? How is trying to better the lives of others, yet going about it in the wrong way a thing that makes one less of a person?

      Even if it were intentional, would they still be less human?

      TAC do show some characteristics of lacking humanity in general but of course that me claiming that they’re not human is just metaphorical. They are humans, just really dumb and nasty ones.

      I mean, shit. You assaulted your own parents. I know it was in response to some perceived detriment to your mental welfare, but it happened well after whatever your parents may have done (or failed to do) that you think resulted in your being harmed. You can’t even attempt to claim self-defense on that one. You physically assaulted some people without provocation because you were angry at them and held them responsible for things in your life that a) weren’t their responsibility, and b) they couldn’t have fixed in the first place. Isn’t that worse than the things you accuse the TAC of? At least the TAC have some sort of leg to stand on when it comes to defending their views. You just beat some innocent people up because you couldn’t think of a more constructive way to handle your problems at the time.

      1. Regarding my parents (btw I’m not claiming self defense)…. a) my incel wasn’t their legal responsibility, that is true. But incel being unrecognized doesn’t make it any less deadly. They had a strong moral obligation. b) Nonsense. Who’s to say they couldn’t have fixed it? I propoposed two ways in which they could have helped me both on that thread and on my blog. None of them involve my mother sleeping with me.

      2. You’re comparing an emotional reaction due to suffering and ideology of vile fools. How can that be compared?

      3. TAC don’t have a damn leg when it comes to defending their views. Their belief in silly concepts like “patriarchy” or “rape culture” shows they are fools. If they believe that kind of nonsense they’ll believe in other nonsense which is just a bit less silly (like the idea of therapy as a panacea).

      4. My parents weren’t innocent and I didn’t attack them to solve any of my problems. I attacked them half mad and extremely hurt at a time not long after my first girlfriend left me. The one I never had sex with in 8 months.

      And then there’s article 13 on your little list of what makes someone TAC. You say that one of the symptoms of TAC is an “absolute lack of empathy” for “perceived opponents.” Aren’t the TAC your perceived opponents? Doesn’t arguing against their humanity show a blatant disregard for their BEING? Isn’t saying that you wish you could kill them without legal retribution demonstrative of a total and complete lack of empathy for these individuals?

      Please look at my reply to C’mon. I never did the things TAC members did to me.

      Also, I agree with Franklin that hating somebody is not the same as feeling no empathy for them.

      • What makes you the authority on who has won the debates that you have? You don’t consider most people disagreeing with you as proof that you’ve lost a debate, so what would prove that you’ve won? Just your opinion is enough to claim victory? That’s like some disturbing god complex or something. You seem to believe that pointing out minor factual errors that don’t contribute to the larger point means you’ve won. Pro tip: It doesn’t.

        We can look at our history as well as the current state of affairs to prove patriarchy. We can read the statistics about who is in power and who has been in power historically to show that patriarchy is real. We can also look at statistics and document the frequency of rape jokes and victim blaming in the media and our every day lives in order to make a strong case for the concept of rape culture.

        On the other hand, the dangers you attribute to incel are widely undocumented and unprovable at this time. The behavior and mentalities of other incels overwhelmingly suggest that incel does not cause suicide and death, but that underlying issues which are exacerbated due to incel do (no matter how much you want to believe that every incel who disagrees with you is lying about their status). You can point to a handful of people who have blamed their suicides and homicides on incel, but as evidence of a widespread cultural ill, it just doesn’t hold water. There was a man who blamed murder on eating too many twinkies. Everyone who commits horrible acts is looking for an excuse, what makes being incel different from every other excuse on the books? The reason people are so put off by your rants is because you very lucidly discuss your actions as if they’re justified because you’re frustrated. That is not a sane perspective to hold.

        When you call rape culture and patriarchy made up words but claim that incel is not, you look like a hypocrite. The former is part of a study that has been around for over 100 years, the other is a barely known issue being discussed on a few message boards with little to no recognition by scientists and mental health professionals.

        You are that list you wrote about what makes someone a TAC member minus the belief in feminism. Instead of feminism you treat your own opinions like gospel. I’m not going to spend the time telling you how you fit those descriptions point by point because all you will do is tell me that I’m wrong and you will claim to have won the debate based on your own biased opinion as you always do. It’s not worth making that kind of effort. Every problem that you have with the TAC mentality comes across as projection.

        • “What makes you the authority on who has won the debates that you have? You don’t consider most people disagreeing with you as proof that you’ve lost a debate, so what would prove that you’ve won? Just your opinion is enough to claim victory? That’s like some disturbing god complex or something. You seem to believe that pointing out minor factual errors that don’t contribute to the larger point means you’ve won. Pro tip: It doesn’t.”

          You’re right about one thing – there was never an objective third party with perfect knowledge of the subject being discussed third party analyzing the course of a debate and declaring what they believe is a winner. However, since I’m usually much more informed about what’s being discussed, especially when it comes to incel, I’d say I won most of my debates.

          “We can look at our history as well as the current state of affairs to prove patriarchy. We can read the statistics about who is in power and who has been in power historically to show that patriarchy is real. We can also look at statistics and document the frequency of rape jokes and victim blaming in the media and our every day lives in order to make a strong case for the concept of rape culture.”

          The problem with “patriarchy” is that feminists don’t see it for what it actually was. They make it seem worse than it actually was on women.

          Women have never been oppressed as a class in the west & in fact have always been given special provisions, protected & treated as far more precious resources than the men – there is no society which forces its women to go die in war, or do any of the most dangerous jobs in which men die in their thousands every year – men still make up around 94% of all workplace deaths, everywhere in the world today.

          This is not because of hatred of women, or prejudice, but simply the acceptance of the biological reality that women are mostly smaller & weaker than men, & that also all children any society has can only be carried & birthed & (historically) nursed by women, so treating women as badly as every society treats men risks damage to not only the individual women but the survival of the society – & the human race -itself. The female of the species is the evolutionary stop-gap: you only need one bull in a fieldful of cows to replenish the herd in a single summer, whereas a fieldful of bulls & a single cow will still only result in a single calf per year. Women therefore are more valuable to society than men are & behaves accordingly: “women & children first”.

          All feminism is based on ‘patriarchy theory’, the belief that society has been set up by men to benefit only men & that this can be seen by how few women are presidents, prime ministers, MPs, CEOs of corporations, etc.

          But this is due to what has been termed ‘the Apex Fallacy’: all human systems & groups are hierarchical, with many at the bottom & only a handful at the top. The feminists looking up at the small number of men in high status positions concluded this was evidence of male privilege, but never looked down at the huge numbers of men down at the very bottom of society: men for instance are between 80 & 90% of the homeless, & there are a hell of a lot more of them than Hugh Hefners & Donald Trumps.

          Feminists (correctly) observe that when you count up the lifetime earnings of all men & all women, the total in the ‘women’ column is less than that of the ‘men’s’ but (incorrectly) conclude that therefore “women make 70cents for every dollar a man makes doing the same job” etc. This is simply not true, & there have been laws making sure that is illegal for at least 40 years.

          The ‘pay-gap’, where it exists at all, is the result of the different choices & priorities men & women have & make – for instance a married man is much more likely to work longer hours than a single guy with no wife & children to feed, whereas a married woman with kids very often will work less hours, or part-time, or not at all. Again, only women can carry & give birth to children & an enormous number of women take maternity leave from their jobs, many times never returning to work, while men are more likely to continue in their jobs & so gain promotions etc. Women tend to (sensibly) trade off a better life & more time to enjoy it against higher wages & high-stress responsibility/accountability that can only be acquired through single-minded pursuit of career at the expense of everything else. Men work the overwhelming majority of overtime, night shifts, danger work etc, which all pay more than safe, secure day jobs in air-conditioned offices, etc.

          The real disparity is mainly between married women & everyone else: childless, never married women in their twenties now make something like 12% more than men their same age, & it’s been that way for quite some time. But by lumping in the vast number of women who don’t ‘work’ at all, or take maternity leave, or staying home to raise children or work part-time (men work the vast majority of overtime, for instance, whereas women do most part-time jobs, & full-time work of course pays more than part-time), the statistics become seriously skewed, as does society’s impression of the situation.

          Other common feminist complaints such as ‘100 years ago women didn’t even have the vote!’ completely ignore the fact that 100 years ago the majority of men didn’t have the vote either – in the UK, ‘men’ as a class ‘got’ the vote the same year women did: 1918, though I was never taught that at school. The story of women’s suffrage needs to be seen in the context of the hundreds of years of campaigning for the common peoples right to vote & the evolution of human rights in general: the Chartists, the Magna Carta, the French & American revolutions, the antislavery movement, Thomas Paine’s ‘The Rights Of Man’ etc… Feminism rejects all of this historical context in favour of its own unique patriarchal conspiracy theory explanation of how the world has to work.

          “We can also look at statistics and document the frequency of rape jokes and victim blaming in the media and our every day lives in order to make a strong case for the concept of rape culture.”

          Do you have any such statistics/documents? You’re the one claiming that they exist.

          I don’t live in America so I can’t say if this rape culture exists there. However, since feminists are claiming it does I don’t believe it does because pretty much everything feminism says is a lie. I know there’s no rape culture in my country and I don’t think much of Europe is different and that alone means it’s not some problem all of the world’s society has.

          “On the other hand, the dangers you attribute to incel are widely undocumented and unprovable at this time. The behavior and mentalities of other incels overwhelmingly suggest that incel does not cause suicide and death, but that underlying issues which are exacerbated due to incel do (no matter how much you want to believe that every incel who disagrees with you is lying about their status). ”

          1. It is true that it is undocumented and unprovable at this point. However, there are more and more of us. Even 5 years ago everybody was laughing at MRAs and now people recognize them as an influential group. Same will happen here.

          2. You very likely don’t have enough experience with incel communities to talk about their behavior and mentalities.

          3. Something exacerbating underlying issues doesn’t mean that that something isn’t an issue of its own that will go away once you solve the exacerbated issues.

          4. Don’t make shit up. Only people I said are lying about their incel status are haters.

          “You can point to a handful of people who have blamed their suicides and homicides on incel, but as evidence of a widespread cultural ill, it just doesn’t hold water. There was a man who blamed murder on eating too many twinkies. Everyone who commits horrible acts is looking for an excuse, what makes being incel different from every other excuse on the books? ”

          If you are able to compare lack of sex and relationship with eating too much twinkies you’re an imbecile and I really shouldn’t allow you to post here. This is so sickening and insane that… I have no words, really.

          “The reason people are so put off by your rants is because you very lucidly discuss your actions as if they’re justified because you’re frustrated. That is not a sane perspective to hold.”

          I’m more than frustrated. There are other negative emotions I’m feeling. They cause me to do things that people who don’t see these emotions or their causes as real see as bad. But these things are not my choice.

          “When you call rape culture and patriarchy made up words but claim that incel is not, you look like a hypocrite. The former is part of a study that has been around for over 100 years, the other is a barely known issue being discussed on a few message boards with little to no recognition by scientists and mental health professionals.”

          I explained why they’re made up words. A study? Incel is mentioned in some studies too and people still don’t take it seriously. Studies alone don’t mean much. Anyway, I’d like to read that study.

          “You are that list you wrote about what makes someone a TAC member minus the belief in feminism. Instead of feminism you treat your own opinions like gospel. I’m not going to spend the time telling you how you fit those descriptions point by point because all you will do is tell me that I’m wrong and you will claim to have won the debate based on your own biased opinion as you always do. It’s not worth making that kind of effort. Every problem that you have with the TAC mentality comes across as projection.”

          Of course, you’re an idiot to believe I hold any of TAC traits. For example, if I were in TAC your comments would now be attacked with strawmen, if they would get published at all. If you don’t want to explain why my traits are the same as TAC traits here’s what I’ll do- I will delete that part of your post in next 7 days. That’s what you get for being a dishonest shithead.

  8. Okay, so.

    One: I’d contest your definition of the distinction between humans and animals. Unless you have BEEN a non-human animal, you cannot say for sure how its mind works. You can make inferences, sure, but you can’t say for sure that animals don’t think just because they can’t directly tell you what they’re thinking. Many, many, many species have been shown to have sophisticated problem-solving skills. Just because they haven’t built the same types of societies that we have doesn’t mean they lack any and all capability to comprehend things.

    Two: I’d contest your definition of “empathy.” I’d say that, from what little I’ve seen, what you have is much closer to antipathy than anything else. You may comprehend Moderns, but I don’t think you really UNDERSTAND them, nor do I think you want to. You just seem to want them dead. You know what an empathetic person would do with people they don’t like? Recognize that they’re people, too, and try to use their big boy words like fucking adults. Hey, look at me. I’m doing it right now!

    Three: That’s hyperbole, and it’s disgusting hyperbole at that. If that’s really how you define what makes one human, then people with severe mental retardation or chemical imbalances shouldn’t be considered human, either. People are more than just their critical thinking skills and their capacities to be open-minded. People are more than just their mental states. People are more than just their convictions.

    Four: You’re incredibly hypocritical. You judge people based on your interpretation of their worldview that said worldview doesn’t seek to accept or understand other worldviews . . . and you wish death on them for this. Don’t you see how that’s kind of contradictory and unnecessarily cruel? You’re arguing that we should fight intolerance with violent intolerance.

    Five: This is all extremely dangerous in that some people–GGGF, for example–seem to be extremely quick to cast the “undesirable” label on others. I saw him, in that Cracked thread, label a half dozen, probably more, people as “TAC” based on what little he knows about them (i.e. that they were snarky and condescending towards his kinda whackadoo ideas). In reality, those people are far more than the few lines of text that they posted in those forums, and I highly doubt that, were you or GGGF given time to actually get to know them, you would honestly conclude that the entirety of their beings sit withing the TAC/Modern definition. Human beings aren’t that narrow. Many of us share things in common, but that doesn’t mean we share everything in common. Take me, for example. I read down that list to see what of it I think pertains to me. All I could note as a consistent part of my being was political correctness. I like to try to be politically correct so as not to unintentionally offend or marginalize. Because I care about the feelings of other people. Because I have empathy for them. I know what it’s like to have a few wrong words from a thoughtless individual ruin my day, and I go out of my way to try not to do the same thing to other people. Does that make me TAC? Does that mean that I deserve to die?

    Six: Even if I agreed with everything about what constitutes a TAC/Modern, and why they’re bad, that still doesn’t justify wishing death on another human being. It really fucking doesn’t. You can pretend all you like that you’re superior because you’re more “open minded,” but even if it were true–Which it isn’t. You wish death on people who are different from you, who disagree with you, and who handle situations differently than you do. You may not wish it on ALL people who do this, but certainly a fraction of them because of the ways in which they do this–that doesn’t give you the right to choose who deserves to live. You are not and never will be that much more superior than another human being. No one will.

    I’m trying really, really, really hard not to invoke Godwin’s Law here, but you guys really do make it sound like you’re stepping right in tune with the big H man sometimes. And I’m not saying that to be funny or make myself sound superior or make you look bad. I’m saying it because it’s really fucking true. Some of the stuff you guys have said comes off as Third Reich-ish, and you should be aware of that.

    • One: I agree that animals can think, but at a lower level than humans. To be clear, I personally don’t equate Moderns with animals, I put Moderns below animals. Animals have innocence which Moderns lack.

      Two: There is no conflict between empathy and antipathy. I recognize and understand evil, and I would prefer that it didn’t exist.

      Three: Apparently back to One. I agree that thinking isn’t all, I just tried to keep it simple. Retarded humans are closer to animals, which makes them superior to Moderns who are simply evil.

      Four: In the case of war, it is natural to wish the enemy dead. Even though they aren’t conscious of it, Moderns are waging a war against decency and against decent genes. If Moderns wouldn’t insist on imposing their views on every corner of the world, then I would no longer wish them dead, I would just wish them to leave me alone.

      Five: People who fit neatly into a category can be classified in seconds. For example, how long would it take you to classify an Amish or Hasidic Jew? The mere fact that you can post to this blog in a civilized manner means that you don’t fit neatly as a Modern, even if you are generally Modern. I don’t know if you deserve to die and I am not going to worry about it since I have no plans to kill anyone.

      Six: Wishing someone dead is much different than killing someone. Most normal people hated someone else at sometime in their life enough to wish them dead, but this doesn’t mean that they would kill them. In fact I do not like violence and I oppose the death penalty, which a majority of Americans support. So all of your criticisms of me apply far more to the average American who supports the death penalty, than to me.

      And about your other post about a normal sex life: This is important because it explains the pathetic behavior of Modern man. A normal sex life for a man is sex at least once a week. This isn’t normal in modern culture because modern culture isn’t normal. The amount of sex that the average modern man gets should be considered sexual malnourishment. Such sexually deprived men are subconsciously desperate for sex, and as a result will do everything they can to appeal to women, which of course includes conforming to social norms. So this is why modern men are so pathetic, with so little character, independence of thought and action, and true masculine virtues.

      • Okay, so. I don’t have responses to some of your points because some of them are just differences in opinion (for example, you think some people are lesser than animals or more like animals than people, while I would contend that all people are people. Because they’re people), so please don’t assume that I concede that you are right just because I haven’t responded.

        Four: There is no war. That’s hyperbole again. I don’t know what you’ve been dealing with all your life, but in my experience, the people who were most intolerant of my beliefs were still content to just let me believe them. Once they realized that there was no convincing me to their side, they let me upon my way. There is no massive subconscious conspiracy to undermine your manhood.

        This kind of brings up a different point that I didn’t really address in my previous posts: what you define as a Modern/TAC is not real. Certainly, there are people who engage in behaviors that fit the guidelines of TAC from time to time (there are plenty of feminists out there, to be sure), but that isn’t the telos of their being, and they do not necessarily all engage in these behaviors in the same way. People are not all stereotypes. I, for example, consider myself a feminist, but I don’t go on the internet and flame people about rape culture and misogyny and fuck men, men suck. I try to explain to people why I think that behavior X is detrimental to the wellbeing of individuals in society because, again, I am an adult, and I use my big boy words. That brings me toooooo:

        Five: People only fit neatly into categories if you oversimplify their beings. Amish people and Hasidic Jews aren’t cookie-cutter people. I guarantee you that if you go to Lancaster, PA and talk to some of the Amish, you will find a varying group of people with varying philosophies. Sure, they may share similarities in culture and religion, but that is not the entirety of the fucking human being. Even within those similarities, there are differences. Two people who identify as Hasidics may not necessarily believe the same thing about God, even if the belief in question is outlined explicitly as part of the tenants of Hasidism, because people live different lives that lead them to question things and come to conclusions that vary from those of the people around them. Maybe one of them has been considering converting for a while now. You don’t know. You’re not a wizard.

        My points here are that just because you’ve identified someone as Amish a) does not mean that they are Amish, and b) does not mean that they’ve never used a telephone. Likewise, just because you’ve identified someone as Modern a) does not mean that they are Modern, and b) does not mean that they necessarily incorporate any of the other traits that you ascribe to Modernism into their lives.

        Six: Okay, so you don’t actually wanna kill people. Good. Now, tell me how well wishing them dead has been going for you. Like, really. I’m sure that negativity isn’t conducive to your health, and it doesn’t actually solve the problem of there being people you dislike. How about this: how about you try to reconcile your differences with these people when you meet them. Try to keep an open mind, recognize that not everything is as you assume it is, and try to see if maybe there’s even ANYTHING in their argument that you can abide. If they’re really that crazy, and you can’t manage that, let them go be ignorant pricks elsewhere. Really, I think you guys massively overestimate how much these people you’re waging this “war” against really affect the events of your life.

        Now as far as the sex life stuff is concerned, show me some evidence. Really, I want some conclusive proof that your definition of normalcy in a sex life is really what should be considered normal. Your definition is outside of the general consensus, and, thus, the onus is on you to prove why you are right.

        Also . . . I don’t know how much relationship experience you’ve personally had, but for me, the points in my life where I WAS getting sex once a week or more were some of the most miserable points of my life because I was trapped in toxic relationships with people who were also having a shitty go of life at the time. The problem with my relationships wasn’t that we don’t live in the same world as 500 years ago. Fuck, that would’ve made things worse. I would’ve probably been stuck in that situation for the rest of my life, with kids that I didn’t want, by someone that made me miserable. No amount of “I’m the man and I wear the pants” would’ve solved the issues that we had, and, in fact, that probably would’ve exacerbated matters. I’m doing better now, though, and it’s not to do with the amount of sex I’m having; It’s to do with the fact that I’ve stopped associating myself with people who regularly engage in the kind of emotionally destructive behavior that my previous lovers did.

    • Apocryphal,

      I sincerely doubt I called anybody a TAC member for just being snarky and condescending. They were being that, but also espoused ridiculous TAC ideology. I can show some examples if you’re interested.

      Also, I am pretty sure that I would be ever more convinced that they’re in TAC if I had the chance to meet them sooner enough. Threads like the one I was in reveal TAC members pretty soon. Any discussion on incel does because they always come out of the woodwork, making blatant shaming attempts, twisting your words and proposing therapy as a panacea. I got a pretty good idea of what they were about. I am not saying that every single member was from TAC but there were just a few who weren’t.

      I don’t think that just being politically correct makes you a TAC member. It takes a lot more than that. You don’t need to have just one TAC trait to be a TAC member. That way even I’d be in TAC because there are some TAC traits I share (for example, I am against homophobia and for more welfare- in fact, my entire program is a sort of welfare). Of course that you don’t have to run around calling all women whores and all black people niggers just not to be in TAC. It takes much, much more than that.

      I would generally ignore TAC if all they did was disagreed with me. Even if they just attacked me. However, like Franklin, I became convinced their end game is extermination of all decent people. Now, what I do I mean by decent people? An dictionary definition will suffice. It’s a bit complex to explain why I am convinced that these people are not decent and I am. You would need to discuss me on many issues to understand that.

      As for the H-thing, many TAC members say similar and worse things about their enemies every day. The difference is that they’re the ones who are actually scum. In every war you have two sides, both seeing their cause as good. I am just a side in a war.

  9. Oh, also. GGGF, as far as I’m aware, never answered the question about what he thinks a normal sex life is like. I’m honestly pretty interested to find out. Although a lot of people in the forum post were jerking him around, it’s really, really true that 4 partners in a year is above average for a lot of people. I haven’t had sex since March, and that was a booty call to an ex-girlfriend because I’ve been single since January.

    • You have to understand that there’s more to a normal sex life than just statistical averages (though my sex life was never normal even by that standard).

      Of these 4 women, I slept with one of them once and one of them twice.

      Also, read some of the front pages of the blog. Incel isn’t just a lack of sex life. It also signifies a lack of a romantic relationship.

  10. Oh, oh. Another thing: A large part of the reason that many of those people on the Cracked forum were so quick to be flippant and make jokes at GGGF’s expense is because it’s honestly a lot easier and a lot more personally gratifying to do that than to actually try to reason with someone who is so firmly entrenched in their mindset. It’s not because they’re too stupid to comprehend the grandiosity of what it means to be incel, or too busy worshiping Our Lord Psychiatry, but because actually trying to help this guy understand all the places where his thinking goes wrong is such an arduous, daunting, and rewardless task that they might as well amuse themselves and each other instead.

    I mean, think about it. A complete stranger comes up to you and says that everything in his life sucks, and he’s been having such a shit time of things since 14, and things would’ve been different if his mom had just bought him that puppy that he wanted, because human beings need to be able to connect emotionally to others, and having a pet would’ve helped him develop and grow into a healthy individual. Yeah, sure, maybe having a pet would’ve helped him, or maybe he has a sever chemical imbalance that makes it nigh impossible for him to form happy, healthy relationships, anyway. We don’t fucking know, and you can’t base the entirety of everything that’s wrong in the life of an individual off of one singular thing like that. Plus, the guy could’ve formed other relationships for sure. Though friendships between people aren’t exactly the same thing, you still get the vast majority of the benefits from them that you would from having a pet. You make connections, you socialize with a being outside of yourself, and you grow. The toxic part of his childhood wasn’t the lack of the puppy, but the fact that he let the lack of puppy grow into a lack of self-esteem predicated on lack of puppy (because other kids have puppies and I don’t, that must mean I’m worth less than other kids, right?), then later turned that lack of self-esteem into self-hatred, and then outward hatred. It’s not his mom’s fault that he internalized the normal lack of a pet as some sort of deficiency in his personhood, and it’s not his mom’s responsibility to make him hate his situation less. She can’t DO anything about that. The only person that can make it suck less is himself. And, for the record, it’s also not the fault of some vast, liberal agenda that he still never got that puppy, because, you know what? He’s an adult now and he can go buy himself a dog any time he wants.

    Now, imagine this guy comes up to you and rambles off about all this. Would you honestly sit down with him and try to sort his life out, or would you chuckle a bit, tell him his life isn’t as bad as he thinks it is, and wander off?

    Oh, and before you start off on me about how I don’t understand what it’s like to be incel and love-shy, and blah, blah, blah, yes. Yes, I fucking do. I’ve been extremely shy my entire life. It’s fucking awful, but I fucking deal with it, and I’ve formed healthy relationships in spite of it because I took it upon myself to be the master of my own fucking destiny and work through my fucking faults like a goddamn adult.

    • Ridicule is a prominent aspect of Modern culture. Go to an Islamic forum or an Orthodox Jewish forum and post an unusual view and you will not be met with ridicule. Ridicule is common in promiscuous cultures where there is intense sexual competition among men and so men are quick to put each other down. You will not find this kind of behavior in healthy cultures.

      • wut. evidence pls.

        Seriously, you can’t honestly tell me that Islamic cultures don’t have ridicule. Like. First of all, that’s overly broad. Second of all, what about the judgement and ridicule placed on a muslim woman who does not wear a veil in public? Like. You can’t tell me that’s not a thing without somehow backing that up.

      • Oh, also, the forums aren’t necessarily representative of Islamic or Orthodox Jewish cultures as wholes. They’re probably more representative of small subsets of those cultures, and they’re probably centralized in specific parts of the world. For example, if you find yourself a forum about UFOs, it’s probably going to be most representative of the experiences of people from English-speaking countries because you probably found an English-speaking forum.

  11. Apocryphal,

    Whether there is a war depends on how you define war. What I do know is that modern culture would result in the extermination of people genetically similar to me, and I consider that war. Of the two best Americans that I knew, one was ridiculed because of his high intelligence and was driven insane, and the other was driven to suicide. The other Americans that I knew all turned out to be backstabbing slime. I now refuse to associate with anyone who considers themselves members of modern culture. Of course “subconscious conspiracy” is a contradiction in terms, but what matters to me is the end result, the extermination of decent people, not the motive.

    Your next few points are arguments against generalizing, all of which is nonsense. Generalizations aren’t meant to be perfect, they are only meant to be true in general. Regardless of how much Amish and Hasidic Jews may vary, I can still reliably identify them at least 95% of the time, and once I know that a person fits into these categories, I make general statements about them which will be true 95% of the time. This is good enough to be useful. I believe that Moderns and Nazis are generally not nice people, so while there may be some exceptionally nice Moderns or Nazis, I would generally prefer to avoid members of these groups.

    I have no more interest in reconciling my differences with Moderns than I would with reconciling my differences with Nazis if I lived in Nazi Germany. I do not believe in reconciling with evil.

    There is no onus on me to prove my opinion on sexual normalcy. You asked for an opinion and you got one. On the other hand, I am sure the data is available if you really want to look into it.

    Your (sad) love life sounds normal for Modernity. The way things worked in the past is that people dated with the intention to get married, and then married someone with whom they were compatible. They then had sex within marriage. This system worked quite well. This is basically my story. I have been married for 22 years. Of course I found my wife by looking abroad in a non-feminist country. Women in feminist countries are sluts and are not suitable as wives.

    I am not an expert on Islamic culture, I can only judge by what I have seen. I know more about Orthodox Jewish culture and ridicule isn’t so common there. Of course there is judgement, every culture has judgement. But judgement in a civilized culture results in telling the person that what they are doing is wrong, not in ridiculing the person.

    Of course I will ignore you comments against generalizations again, because all one can do in life is to generalize from experience. My experience is that I have been ridiculed and banned from every single Modern forum or blog that I have ever posted to, and there are many. On the other hand, I have never been ridiculed or banned from Islamic or Orthodox Jewish forums. I encourage you to post to Islamic and Orthodox Jewish forums so that you can see how civilized people behave.

    • Generalizations can be useful, but they are also extremely dangerous as they can easily be used (in many cases without conscious decision on the part of the generalizer) to cast sweeping judgments on large groups of people. The more inclusive your generalization is, the less accurate it becomes, especially when it comes to ephemeral, immeasurable concepts like personalities, goals, and motivations.

      I think it would be helpful if you came up with an alternative term for what you are referring to as ‘feminist’. Feminists believe in equality for women. If you are truly against feminism, you are against women having rights equal to men. If this is the case, then by all means carry on with your bigotry; if not, try to find an alternative term for accuracy’s sake. There’s a big difference between those people fighting for equality and those people fighting to marginalize others.

      • North Korea calls itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. A country or movement should be defined by what it does, not by how it defines itself. So I don’t care how feminism defines itself, what it actually is is a slut power movement, so this is what I mean by the term.

      • Pagan P, you seem like a decently intelligent person.

        Don’t you think that feminism, despite its dictionary definition, became tainted with actions and opinions of many people calling themselves feminists? Don’t you think it’s an easy cop out to say “all those misandric feminists are not really feminists at all”? Unfortunately, they are. I am an atheist but stopped calling myself that for much less. Some atheists have gone crazy with this Atheism Plus/TAC thing long after feminism started getting a bad name due to some feminists.

        If you’re truly for equality why not call yourself an egalitarian?

        I stopped being en egalitarian some time ago but it’s too complex to go into that now.

  12. Did my comment somehow violate the rules? Please let me know, as I am interested in open discussion. My comment regarded the dangers of sweeping generalization as well as finding a way to differentiate between those who want equality for women and those who are trying to marginalize others in the supposed name of feminism. Thanks.

  13. Franklin:

    In your analogy, North Korea’s government is busy being terrible, but you insist upon denigrating all democracies, republics, and populist movements because they call themselves the DPRK. North Korea is not representative of those ideals, so it’s important to distinguish North Korea’s awfulness from what democracy truly is. So with feminism: those who seek to gain power by marginalizing others are not truly feminists.

    That being said, if your contention is that all feminists–including those who strive for equality–are advocating ‘slut power’, you’re going to have to explain what that means, because I honestly have no idea, nor am I particularly bothered by the concept of empowered sluts (though that is another can of worms).

      • That paper was largely unsubstantiated opinion and historical commentary from an educated man who possesses deep-seated biases, specifically his cultural and religious conviction in a preconceived moral standard that he expects others to live up to. The author himself admits to a politically conservative bias, and the article is published on a site called “actbiblically.org”, a site dedicated to championing the Abrahamic Bible as a moral compass, a theme the author refers to several times in his text. Personal beliefs aside, one cannot expect others to willingly accept religious scripture as a source of moral standard, especially given the wide variety of religions, ideologies, and sacred texts that exist today.

        In short, despite all appearances, that paper was far from academic. I’m sorry; I don’t mean to be rude, but I’d much rather hear what you think in your own words.

      • “actbiblically.org” is my site, so most of what you read there are my words. The article I linked to isn’t by me. As for “deep-seated biases”, your comment is hilarious because no one has more deep-seated biases than Moderns do.

  14. GGGF, please ban rammspieler from your blog, just as he would ban anyone from his forum that said something like this about him. rammspieler well typifies everything wrong with Modern culture.

    • Sorry, I won’t do that. He hasn’t broken any rules yet. Btw it’s no longer his forum and he kept you on it while it was so don’t be unfair. Once you cry for censorship of those you disagree with you become like TAC or what you call Moderns are. There are more than enough malicious people banned from this blog every day.

      • GGGF, it’s sad that you too don’t understand the nature of free speech. America really pioneered the idea of free speech and at the same time it had laws against defamation. The point is that free speech means the free expression of ideas, not the freedom to tell lies for character assassination. rammspieler’s post is a textbook example of defamation, lies told to harm my character while not making one single comment about any of the ideas that I posted here. As for his forum, I never publicly posted anything against him there like what he posted here against me, and you can be sure that if I did, he would have banned me as he banned many other people for making milder statements against him that were actually true. I am not going to continue posting to this blog as long as rammspieler is here.

        • Franklin, I understand what you are saying. But wouldn’t it be easier if you just explained why Ramm is wrong? From what I understand, you believe that those American women who oppose prostitution as relief for incel deserve to be raped, not all Western women?

          As for the Holocaust, I don’t remember you saying that Hitler did the right thing by exterminating the Jews but that there’s a parallel between immorality of Jews before the Babylonian conquest and their participation in what you see as immoral culture of the Weimar Republic, which preceded Hitler’s coming to power?

          If I got both of these right (and there’s a probability that I havent’t) you are correct that Ramm is spreading lies about you. I will edit his post if this is correct.

          The fact is, if I do that I might as well edit anybody who makes a false statement about somebody and that would require a lot of work. Wouldn’t it just be easier and better for anybody who is interested in your attitudes that you explain why Ramm is wrong? It doesn’t have to be a long post. Just something that a reader might see and say “Oh, fschmidt corrected Ramm’s lies”.

          I can edit his post if that’s the issue but I won’t ban him and if you are adamant about leaving as long as he posts here, no matter what his content is, I am afraid that, when it comes to this blog, this is as far as we go. Which would be a shame, because there aren’t many people as intelligent as you and I certainly consider you more intelligent than him.

      • No it wouldn’t be easier to just explain why Ramm is wrong. It is easier just not to post. I enjoy discussing ideas. I don’t enjoy defending my character against liars, so why should I do it?

        My comments about American women are about ten years old and taken out of context. At that time, I gave a long explanation of why women who both dress provocatively and oppose prostitution deserve to be raped. This is no longer my position. My current position is simply that all members of modern culture, regardless of sex, don’t deserve to be alive.

        What you said about the Holocaust is correct.

        Regarding Ramm and similar slime, my suggestion is that you make it your policy not to tolerate defamation and that you delete all defamatory posts including Ramm’s. If Ramm wants to contribute to a discussion of ideas, that’s fine. But I would rather spend my time making money than defending my character here, so if you leave Ramm’s post, I won’t spend time here.

        • Ok, I edited Ramm’s post and am now forbidding him to make any more lies about you. Ramm, it would be better if you just leave Franklin alone.

    • No thanks, frat boy. As for the other comments, I’ve been busy last 2 days. I will try to reply to as many of them as possible tonight.

  15. That’s twice now you’ve dodged my question. Again, I’m not trying to be rude, just have a discussion.

    I don’t see think that one man’s deep-seated biases are hilarious because other people (who may disagree with him) also have deep-seated biases. Lots of people have prejudices, but it isn’t really a laughing matter, nor is it justification for other peoples’ prejudices.

    • You know what’s hilarious though? Trying to have a serious discussion in the comments of a blog written by a man who spends his life crying because his mom didn’t get him laid

      • I’m leaving this but you’re banned now for trying to troll with another nickname and the same IP. Goodybe.

  16. I was asking you to explain what ‘slut power’ means if it is your belief that such is a central tenet of the feminist movement.

    • Tenet? Before I answer, please tell me what you believe are the central tenets of the government of North Korea? I ask because I think tenets are irrelevant, actions are what matter. If your question is how feminism supports slut power, I could easily answer that.

  17. Late to the party, but I have a question if anybody is still hanging around.
    Do people really think they can cure GGGF or Franklin? While there was a fair bit of ridicule, there seemed to be a genuine belief on the Cracked forums that all GGGF needed was some kind of breakthrough.
    It’s simply not going to happen. It’s like when you meet someone who believes in the Young Earth theory. No matter how much evidence to the contrary you show them, you’ll never come to an agreement when they look your evidence in the face and refuse to see it.
    Is it just a bit of intellectual curiosity in the discussion, or do you really find their views scary?

    • The sole fact you’re equating their TAC bullshit with scientific evidence against Young Earth theory shows what kind of a dumbass you are.

      Both Franklin and I don’t believe in nonsense like Young Earth theory.

      People like those Cracked mods call those who don’t believe in nonsense like patriarchy or rape culture, concepts about as dumb as Young Earth theory trolls and idiots.

      But, yeah, nice try, condescending fuck.

        • I understand what an analogy is. The fact is, analogy can also be completely ridiculous and his is. He’s comparing ramblings of some hipster liberals to scientific method and intelligent men like Franklin and myself to those who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. All predicated on his ass.

  18. OK, Franklin, go right ahead, but make sure you actually explain what the hell ‘slut power’ is supposed to be before you launch into how feminism supports it.

    • Obviously slut power is power for sluts. I don’t see what is confusing about this.

      Consider sluts in a state of nature. In this condition, sluts will have a difficult time finding a husband because normal healthy men prefer chaste women as wives, for good reason. When sluts have children, presumably out of wedlock, they will have trouble supporting them. They will either struggle in poverty with a part-time job or turn to prostitution (which is the most useful thing a slut can do with her life). In a state of nature, men will not be forced to support sluts. And in fact this is how much of the non-feminist world works, though the feminist plague is still spreading around the world and will continue to do so until Modern societies become bankrupt (which is gradually happening, thank God).

      Now consider a slut in a feminist society. She has little competition from chaste women since women are encouraged to become sluts. In the worst feminist societies, prostitution is illegal to eliminate sexual competition, so that men are so sexually desperate that they are willing to date and marry sluts just for sex. So sluts can easily marry. When they get bored of their husband or he just interferes too much in her slut lifestyle, she gets a divorce and uses the coercive power of the feminist state to enslave the poor former husband to support her for life. Even if she doesn’t get married and has children out of wedlock, she can still use the feminist state to force the father to support her and her bastard children. Women get all kinds of assistance from the government in a feminist society. And feminist societies force men to hire women. Feminist societies are optimized for sluts. There isn’t one single thing that feminists actively support that doesn’t primarily benefit sluts.

      In a free society sluts are not supported, so women have an incentive to be chaste and men are not enslaved at women’s expense. In a feminist society, political power is used to support sluts. Decent men suffer the most. Decent women also suffer. And the most immoral men benefit from having a large pool of sluts for sex.

      • The last paragraph should read:

        In a free society sluts are not supported, so women have an incentive to be chaste and men are not enslaved to serve women. In a feminist society, political power is used to support sluts. Decent men suffer the most. Decent women also suffer. And the most immoral men benefit from having a large pool of sluts for sex.

        (Unfortunately this blog doesn’t allow comments to be edited.)

  19. I suppose the issue was that I didn’t really understand what you meant by ‘slut’ because the way you use it is pretty much interchangeable with ‘women’, but I think I’ve figured it out: you disapprove of the behavior of women who don’t adhere to your strict moral code, so you’re calling them names. This allows you to address an incredibly large and diverse group of people with a simple pejorative, which consequently leads you to dismiss them (and their myriad thoughts, feelings, and desires) out of hand.

    Morality is subjective, not absolute, so I guess we’re just going to have to go with an ‘agree to disagree’ here.

      • Both the terms “slut” and “promiscuous” are relative terms that vary from person to person. Until the dictionary definition includes a hard and fast number of partners, all citing the dictionary does in this case is leave it up to each individual to make a judgment call.

  20. In fairness to me, I was trying to be civil. I’m sorry that your patience has worn so thin that you feel the need to resort to condescension and ad hominem attacks. I thought my (repeated) request was very clear: I did not ask you define the word slut, but to explain to me what precisely you meant by the phrase “slut power”. Since you appear unwilling or unable to do so, I suppose I shall have to try my best to parse it together on my own.

    Firstly, that definition of ‘slut’ leaves a tremendous amount of wiggle room (‘promiscuous’ is itself an entirely subjective word), and I as said before, you seem to be in the habit of using the term ‘slut’ interchangeably with the word ‘women’. However, it was more the “power” part that I was really having trouble nailing down, because you could be referring to an empowering movement for sexual equality, or a movement that aims to create an imbalance of power with women in control of human sexuality. I’m inclined to assume that you mean the latter, because I can’t comprehend why anyone would get themselves all in a dither over the former.

    However, confusion again arises because you equate the feminist movement to your so-called “slut power” movement. You appear to be conflating feminism with certain radical elements of the sexual revolution. While feminism and the sexual revolution are linked historically, it would be a mistake to believe that their values are inextricably intertwined. Feminism is about guaranteeing women the same rights, protections, and opportunities that are afforded to men. I believe that all people are created equal; therefore, I am a feminist.

  21. woo, the legend lives on in the comment section
    btw what the various hells a TAC? I keep misreading it TAS, which is a crappy deathcore band I listen to

    • *hells is a TAC
      sorry, I’m trying my hardest to the maximum number of fucks possible, but it’s late and I can’t do the edits, my b

  22. “Read the comments… attentively”
    imma fraid that’d be asking too much of me right now, or really anyone else
    for now let me just say I’m so amped that this is still happening, and can’t wait for more

  23. My head has exploded from reading through this.
    It is causing me actual physical pain to see people continuing to argue with Franklin and GGGF when it has been made very clear that they will never, ever understand any point of view but their own.

    • As opposed to the engligthened, tolerant people like those at Cracked who believe in both scientific method and fairly tales like “the patriarchy”? You know, those that just locked the thread when they couldn’t indoctrinate me?

      • See? It’s like repeatedly bashing your face against a solid brick wall, except with less progress and more of a headache.

        • Have you made any points of your own except to tell others not to debate Franklin and me? Why don’t you make some real points instead of just telling people how it’s useless to debate some people while making none of your own points.

          But I am naive, of course. You’re too dumb for that.

      • “See? It’s like repeatedly bashing your face against a solid brick wall, except with less progress and more of a headache.”

        I agree. For low-intelligence Moderns who are incapable of understanding other ideas, I highly recommend that they stick to repeatedly bashing their face against a solid brick wall instead of posting here.

  24. “Why don’t you make some real points instead of just telling people how it’s useless to debate some people while making none of your own points.”

    Because it is utterly useless to try and “debate” you two, if my previous posts are somehow not clear on that. The fact that you can’t even understand that simple one point is actually hilarious.

    • So you have no arguments of your own but you just came here to tell everybody how we’re stupid and nobody should talk to us?

  25. I don’t actually think I’m going to convince anybody of anything; the points of view here are so radically opposed that neither side is capable of even taking the other seriously. The reason I find this pursuit worthwhile is that it forces me to think critically about those beliefs and convictions that I have taken for granted for years, which gives me a better understanding of and appreciation for them. Plus, I’m genuinely (morbidly?) curious about why and how people can believe this sort of thing. I’m not really doing this for their benefit; I’m doing it for mine, but if anyone else gets something positive and worthwhile out of it too, well that’s just bully for all of us, I say.

    • You never replied to my post on calling yourself a feminist.

      Also, it is usually a TAC trait to want to convince somebody of something or change his mind. My goal on Cracked or in the comments section here was never to change anybody’s minds at all but have a discussion and debate intelligent people, if such were to appear.

      • Ah, I didn’t see it, sorry.

        The reason I call myself a feminist is because I believe that there is a disparity between the rights and opportunities afforded to men and those afforded to women, most especially in less developed regions of the world, but still to a certain degree in first-world countries as well, the US being no exception. I am also an egalitarian, as feminism is an egalitarian movement. Egalitarians are, by definition, feminists.

        I refuse to abandon that term for the same reason that Christians don’t abandon that name in order to distance themselves from the KKK–or, to bring back Franklin’s analogy from earlier, why democratic nations don’t find a new word to describe their governments merely because the totalitarian North Korean regime purports to be the DPRK. A radical group should not have any bearing on how we understand the meaning of the broader movement.

        • Ah, I didn’t see it, sorry.

          The reason I call myself a feminist is because I believe that there is a disparity between the rights and opportunities afforded to men and those afforded to women, most especially in less developed regions of the world, but still to a certain degree in first-world countries as well, the US being no exception. I am also an egalitarian, as feminism is an egalitarian movement. Egalitarians are, by definition, feminists.

          I refuse to abandon that term for the same reason that Christians don’t abandon that name in order to distance themselves from the KKK–or, to bring back Franklin’s analogy from earlier, why democratic nations don’t find a new word to describe their governments merely because the totalitarian North Korean regime purports to be the DPRK. A radical group should not have any bearing on how we understand the meaning of the broader movement.

          Ok, thanks. I understand now.

          I believe you’re wrong about most of modern feminism being about equality and I think you should open your eyes to why more and more people, even many women, are abandoning the term. Christians being in KKK or countries calling themselves democracies but North Korea are rare. Misandric, intolerant feminists are not.

      • Pagan Pantheon, what about the disparity in sexual opportunity between men and women, meaning that it is much easier for women to have sex than for men? Do you believe that women should be forced to have sex with incel men to remedy this disparity? If not, how can you say that you are for equality?

      • How can you attribute wanting to convince somebody of something to being in TAC when you use ad homenims and question people’s humanity when they disagree with you? Someone who didn’t care to convince other people would not resort to such emotional reactions. Don’t you see how those methods alienate people from your message and make you seem illogical?

        Upon reading pages and pages of exchanges between yourself and those you disagree with, I’ve noticed that simply disagreeing with you or getting some superfluous detail wrong is grounds to dismiss someone’s intelligence. It seems as though there is no possibility to ever have an intelligent debate with you despite your claim of seeking it. Intelligence is only attributed to the few who agree.

        • Bones, I don’t remember listing a TAC trait “They don’t agree with GGG”. I’ve had people like libertarians, MRAs or conservatives, aka groups that TAC members despise, disagreeing with me. However, those groups disagreed with me in a civil tone and with arguments. TAC members disagreed with me by attacking strawmen and insulting me.

          I am usually rude to people who are rude to me. Such people almost always exhibit astounding lack of intelligence and reading comprehension as well. That’s why I get rude. It’s not about disagreeing with me.

    • GGGF and I are all too familiar with the Modern viewpoint, so it is unlikely that we will learn anything new. We are also smart enough to know that we aren’t going to change anyone’s mind. The real benefit of public posts like these is for those who already feel somewhat like GGGF and I do but are too intimidated by Moderns to speak up. In effect, GGF and I are anti-Moderns coming out of the closet.

      Pagan Pantheon, if you really want to expand your horizons, I can provide you with a reading list.

      • I am sex-positive, so I believe that sex is a normal and healthy human activity and that people should be free to explore their sexuality in whatever ways they desire, short of violating another’s rights. I also believe that sexual relationships should only ever happen between freely consenting participants.

        If in such a situation women have more sexual opportunities than men (I don’t believe this is the case, but let’s just say it is for the sake of argument), then egalitarianism has still reached its goal. I do not believe that people have a fundamental right to interpersonal relationships. Likewise, I do not believe that there is a fundamental duty to ensure that another person’s interpersonal needs, sexual or otherwise, are met. These are endeavors that people can (and often do) voluntarily undertake, but not one than can be mandated.

      • Why is economics different than sex? Why shouldn’t economic relationships only ever happen between freely consenting participants? This would mean that men shouldn’t be forced to hire women, or to pay them alimony, etc.

      • “Pagan Pantheon, what about the disparity in sexual opportunity between men and women, meaning that it is much easier for women to have sex than for men? Do you believe that women should be forced to have sex with incel men to remedy this disparity? If not, how can you say that you are for equality?”

        Why should it be easy for men to get sex with women if you believe that being a slut is immoral? How can you denounce sluts (male and female) in one reply and then act as though a lack of access to sex is a travesty in another? Lack of sexual access logically follows a lack of sexually promiscuity in the society. It is much more likely for a woman to have sex with some “beta males” from time to time if she’s not worried about each sexual act being judged.

        And no man is being forced to have sex with women, therefore forcing women to have sex with men is creating inequality. There is too much wrong with the paragraph you just wrote to even begin.

        • Bones, I’ll try to reply for Franklin, if you don’t mind.

          In a sexually promiscuous society women usually sleep with low quality men, aka assholes. Thus decent men are left without anything while assholes virtually have harems. Men are forced to become assholes and thus the quality of men declines.

          In a monogamous society each man gets one woman and men who aren’t assholes actually have more sex than in a promiscuous society.

  26. “GGGF and I are all too familiar with the Modern viewpoint”

    Really, now? And what exactly would the”Modern Viewpoint” be?
    It is my contention that you do not at all understand the viewpoints of the people that you call “Moderns”, so I am curious.

    • Red, I look at the comments here. I made a list of about 18 common TAC/Modern traits.

      I’d like to include three more

      19) intellectual dishonesty
      20) denial of any nature that doesn’t fit the agenda- like gender differences and emotional/sexual needs (many TAC members are insane enough to believe that you could replace a wife by using friends for emotional needs and prostitutes for sex)
      21) attempted indoctrination and demonization/pathologization of the subject upon its failure

    • “And what exactly would the ”Modern Viewpoint” be?”

      This is funny question, like asking what is air. Modernity is so ubiquitous that it is more meaningful to ask what isn’t Modern. That would include Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and the Amish. Of course most of history wasn’t Modern either. The modern viewpoint is simply what virtually everyone in the modern world believes.

      • Ok, fair enough; but that isn’t exactly what I meant. A better phrasing for that question might be: “What is your understanding of the Modern viewpoint?”

        How do Moderns see the world, and why do you think they do the things that they do? You claimed to be familiar with their viewpoint earlier, so I assume you have an accurate understanding of it.

  27. “Why is economics different than sex?”

    Because one is a personal relationship and the other isn’t.

    I agree that a man should not have to hire a woman if he doesn’t want to. However, I also believe that he does not have the right to refuse her a job, or alter the terms of her employment, due to her gender.

    • Actually I don’t think casual sex counts as a personal relationship. Do you consider sex with a prostitute to be a personal relationship?

      Now regarding hiring, I am a programmer and have hired many programmers in my career. The way I did this was to post a difficult programming problem on the company website and invite those who solve it in for an interview. But the problem was difficult enough that no women had the intelligence to solve it, so I never had to interview women. Corporate lawyers were always warning me that this would result in trouble and the company would be liable for discrimination for not hiring women programmers. This is what feminism leads to.

      • Casual sex is a personal relationship. It may not necessitate a meaningful emotional connection, but it is personal (as opposed to professional, consumer/provider. etc).

        Regarding your hiring story: by your account, you have never disqualified a candidate due to their gender. Congratulations! Now, did your company ever get in legal trouble for discrimination? Presumably not, or you would have said so to strengthen your argument. What you encountered were the baseless fears of a corporate lawyer in a litigious society who wants to put as little effort into his steady paycheck as possible.

        However, I still think you should carefully examine your personal feelings regarding women. You are all too eager to dismiss women as intellectually and morally inferior to men. They’re not. I’m fully aware this will in no way convince you (haters gonna hate), but there it is anyway.

      • Hello Franklin,

        I’m a little fuzzy on the concept of Moderns (and what is going on with the words liberal and feminist, too). One of the papers you linked to by Delvin from 2006 states that the sexual revolution started around the sixties. Is that where you start the Modern period? Personally, I’d rewind it back to 1900 but I can work with whatever.

        Also, the Delvin paper seems to take a rather dismissive attitude to rape. Just so you know my personal bias, I was sexually abused: molested, and raped twice (at different ages/men). I’m a genuine sexual abuse survivor – not some statistical number that can be dealt with by a bunch of hand waving. Obviously, that does lead to bias and my experiences are empircal rather than statistical which brings it’s own form of issues. I think in this case it might improve the discussion because I’m not some abstract concept. I can tell you how much it hurt. I can also assert that, at least in one case, sexual deprivation was not the motive of the rape nor was it some confusion about intent as that was made abundantly clear.

        With regard to my personal outlook, I think I wouldn’t fit your conception of modern since I consider myself quite old fashioned – being mostly influenced by my late Grandmother who was born in 1918. I’m also in a stable, loving marriage – it will be 22 years this December. So, I have approximately the same marital length as you do. We, my husband and I, are definately NOT incel.

        I’m also a programmer. I’m a bit tempted to know what types of problems you presented but now is not a good time because I’m in the middle of moving to another state (the packers come Monday) and I will be much too busy to have the bandwidth to contemplate difficult coding questions. We are moving for my husband’s job and I am jobless – but I have a good lead into a tech position at the company who he is working for. I’m grossly overqualified for the job, but where we’re moving is not exactly a hot bed for IT – but I’ve told the recruiter to make it plain that they can afford me – I can be had for cheap since I want to get out of the house and any extra income is nice.

        To summarize: I’d like to know approximately what you consider to be the beginning of the modern period.

        I’d like to know your views on rape. The Delvin paper seemed to suggest that rape, as a crime, no longer existed since chastity is no longer imbued with the high value of days past. You’ve mentioned that you did not write that paper so I don’t know where you stand on that issue.

        I’d also like to comment about modernism. I’m not sure how easy it would be to divorce actual modernism from modern cultures. For an easy example consider:

        I grew up in a time when there were broad swathes of time that you simply could not be reached. No cell phones (remember pay phones?), no texts, no broadly used email, no people talking frantically into the air (bluetooth) and people seemed to get along just fine. Now, so much of communication takes place all the time. All. The. Time. No time is sacred these days. For pity’s sake, I caught someone texting in the middle of a eulogy. I also lament the broad loss of basic manners in people. And, I have some real concerns about how children are being socialized in Western Culture (I’m in the US). So, I suspect that we probably share some ideas and diverge quite sharply on others.

        Best regards,
        hateCaptchas

      • hatecaptchas, first let me congratulate you on your marriage. Anyone who has managed to keep a stable marriage in today’s world is doing something right.

        If I had to pick a starting date for the modern period, it would be 1920. But of course there is continuous change.

        Regarding rape, I have zero sympathy for women who dress provocatively or lead men on and are then raped. I do consider the rape of a conservative woman to be a serious crime.

        Regarding sacred time, I urge you to consider keeping the Sabbath which I discuss at length on my website. On the Sabbath, turn off your cellphone.

        Regarding programmers, I wouldn’t hesitate to hire a woman, or a chimpanzee, if they were the best qualified for the job. If you are interested in the types of problems I used, you can ask me when you have time and I can post an example.

  28. First, let me begin by saying- it sucks to want something and not have it, be it a relationship or otherwise. It really, truly does.

    Some things that I have not seen posted here yet-

    1. As much as people would love to say things are equal, fact of the matter is, when it comes to sex, it is not. Turning on a man is not the same as turning on a woman. Generally speaking, it takes more time for a woman to be turned on than a man, which means more work for a man trying to get her into bed. That being said, if the average woman just wants to get some with no thought to a relationship- that’s a question of standards. I am fully aware that I could probably pick up a guy within an hour if all I cared about was sex (and if I weren’t married).

    2. One thing that bothers me is that it is a culturally pervasive notion that a woman with multiple partners is a slut, and a man that has multiple partners is a “player” or not labelled at all. I’ve seen this notion played out to the extreme on a TV show called “My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding”- where the women are expected to be virgins before marriage but the men can sleep with pretty much anything that will stop moving long enough for them to do so.

    • Just a Couple of Points:
      Most women are sexually frigid and utterly indifferent to their choices of men. This is part of the problem. Sex for most women is nothing but ego-validation; they aren’t interested in the least about a deeper relationship. Most women too aren’t overly concerned with being thought a slut, as far as I can tell. They couldn’t care less what men think of them.

      Just as an aside, the whole ‘player’ thing among men is wildly exaggerated, often by males with low-esteem. The only men I know who really have multiple sex partners are violent or dysfunctional scumbags—and that’s less from their own efforts than the fact that women throw themselves at such men uncontrollably.

      • Whoa, what? I really hope you’re just trolling, man.
        >Most women are sexually frigid . . .
        Awfully broad generalization there. I really have not seen this to be the case in my life, and in the only cases I can think of where it MAY have been true, “prude” applies better than “frigid.”
        > . . . and utterly indifferent to their choices of men.
        Also an awfully broad generalization. This is really just . . . so far off-base. I really cannot think of a girl that I’ve ever been friends with who has ever been looking for anything less than a real, personal relationship. I realize that this certainly can’t be the case for all women, but it’s certainly been true for many of the ones I’ve met. Hell, I was talking to a girl earlier TODAY about this guy she’s hooked up with a few times, who she’s hoping is going to ask her out for for reals soon.
        >Sex for most women is nothing but ego-validation; they aren’t interested in the least about a deeper relationship.
        Again, that’s just . . . not true. Like. First of all, sex is physically pleasurable for women. Women /do/ have orgasms. That shit feels good. Second of all, people tend to like to be physically intimate with other people that they have strong emotional attachments to.

        Like, really. My ex-girlfriend used to regularly wake me up in the middle of the night by literally humping my leg. She had a really high sex drive and wanted me to, you know, do something about it because that shit feels good and because she liked having that form of contact with me. Eventually, as our relationship went on, I got somewhat depressed (for unrelated reasons), and MY sex drive decreased. It got to the point that I wasn’t capable of taking proper care of her needs, so I gave her my blessing to find other partners if she felt the need to. She did once, and it was really fucking traumatic for her. She didn’t like the guy, and she wasn’t at all interested in him. She spent an hour or so crying in bed with me when she got home.

        >Most women too aren’t overly concerned with being thought a slut, as far as I can tell. They couldn’t care less what men think of them.
        Some women care about being thought of as sluts. It really depends on who you’re talking to. I know some girls who tend to be (in my opinion, overly) concerned with the opinions of others, and who would certainly hate to be thought of as sluts. Those same girls, though, actually fear this judgement the most from people they call their friends, though, not just random men. The logic (at least in the cases of the people I know) is that being commonly associated with a pejorative means that people won’t like them and they’ll be alone.

        My point here (and really my point in my previous posts, too) is that people are complex organisms, and you can’t really use such broad generalizations as the basis for an argument. It’s also especially absurd to talk about the psychology of women so broadly and definitively if you aren’t even a woman, yourself. That’s part of why I try to keep my counterpoints relative to my personal experience. I realize that not all people are like the people I know, but if the people I know are different than the people you describe, that certainly means that things aren’t as cut-and-dry as you assert.

      • Apocryphal:
        Uh-huh. Check out what the Ameroskanks have to say about themselves…

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/fashion/12bisex.html?_r=0

        “For heterosexual women, looking at a naked man on the beach is about as sexually exciting as looking at landscapes…Dr. Chivers’ work is among a growing body of scientific evidence that places female sexuality along a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality.”

        “Women don’t seem to differentiate between genders in their sexual responses, at least heterosexual women don’t (Nota Bene)…Dr. Chivers and her colleagues found women slightly but significantly aroused by footage of Bonobo chimpanzees mating. Men showed no such response.”

        Yeah….they really like men, huh?

    • Franklin,

      Well thank you and congratulations to you, as well. Happily, we still enjoy each others company and are in love with each other. This has been a stressful time – his last company let him go late June and now we’re moving to a different state for his new job and hopefully one for me, also. I’m his wife and I’ve supported him unequivocally through this period. I know he feels/felt bad. But, he also got up every day and treated it as a work day in getting a new job.

      One of the impressions that i get these days is that people give up too easily. Obviously, if you’ve been together 21 years there have been times when you loved them through not being in love with them and were in love with them when they weren’t acting very loveable. I think I mentioned that most of my ‘relationship’ training was from my late Grandmother who was born in 1918 and continued to dispense her advice to me until she passed on 7/4/2012.

      Well, I don’t like to dwell on my rapes but one happened when I was 14 – a stranger grabbed me out of a public hallway and into a room. You know how when you’re 14 people kind of fall into ‘adult’ or ‘kid’ category. I’d guess he was 20 – 30 years old.

      The other, was a sociopath that I was trying to break it off with (at 19). He drove wildly to a remote wilderness area, in the middle of the night (circa 1989) so no cell/gps, pulled out a large knife and proceeded to tell me awful things about how he was going to murder me and how my body would be unrecognizable when it was found. He also expressed a desire to be there when my parents were told the news. He held the knife to my throat the entire time.

      I’d known the guy since 8th grade (half my life at the time) and certainly thought he was ‘safe.’ Afterwards, he stalked me for a while but I had campus police escort me around – especially at night. One of the assertions made in Delvin is that rape is sometimes a confused suitor who doesn’t know what else to do. I don’t think any sensible person would see either situation as a relationship strategy.

      What I meant about sacred time was more along the lines of just where people will answer phone calls. Like.. while they’re using a public bathroom stall. Any restaurant, movies, driving, weddings, churches and funerals also seem fair game. I am certainly not available that often – I won’t answer if I’m in the middle of taking care of biological needs or.. you know… it’s wildly inappropriate.

      I’ve made note of your reading list. I’ve read quite a lot on it but I’m interested in some of the other stuff.

      Best regards,

      hateCaptchas

      • hateCaptchas,

        Obviously raping a child (14 years old) is completely unacceptable. Your story at 19 is harder to judge. You had terrible judgement if you knew this guy for so long and were unable to judge him. But it sounds like the rape was his fault.

        It’s been a while since I read the Devlin article, but I think the point is that women often say “no” and don’t really mean it. If you deny this, then you are just denying reality. A woman who is half naked in bed with a man and murmurs “no” and doesn’t resist sex simply is not being raped.

        I turn off my phone whenever whatever I am doing is more important than answering, which is most of the time. People know that the best way to reach me is by email. As for what goes on in public, I always assume the worst. Modern humanity is despicable and I avoid going out as much as possible.

      • Franklin, sex without consent is rape. If someone (gender irrelevant) withdraws consent and the other person carries on regardless of their wishes, that is rape.

        Additionally, rape is never the victim’s fault. Even if it was, according to your logic, ‘provoked’, the rapist still chose to assault the victim, and the victim has still been assaulted. The responsibility belongs entirely to the rapist. It is not incumbent upon a victim to ‘do more’ to avoid being victimized, whether or not it is in their best interest to do so..

        The bit about women saying no without meaning it is easily resolved; if the situation becomes ambiguous, stop until it has been clarified.

    • GGGF, I just want to let you know that I am thinking of starting a forum against modernism (modern culture). This is broader than my current ActBiblicaly site since it would include everyone who hates modern culture regardless of what they are for. There is no such forum now.

      • fschmidt, I really don’t have time to go into this in more detail but I fear it will just be a rerun of what happened with your earlier projects. Many of the things you said to me about how my blog is futile can also be said about what you’re trying.

      • GGGF, I linked to this blog from my forum, but then I deleted the link because I cannot edit my comments here, so I can’t fix any of my posts that I might regret. I just wanted to let you know why I removed the link.

      • Can’t you allow users to edit their comments? I think everyone should be allowed to do this. If I could edit my comments anytime, I would add back a link to this blog.

  29. In response to Franklin’s “To understand why TAC/Moderns are evil, please read this” post:

    Many of your foundational premises are dubious, your reasoning is largely unsound, and your conclusions are, with alarming consistency, highly questionable.

    And I’m afraid that name calling is just bad form, old bean.

      • No, I’m not Tyburn, but I have been pwotting for a couple of years now.

        Eric, was that article supposed to somehow prove that women don’t like men? Because it doesn’t even come close to suggesting that.

      • It doesn’t suggest that either. It suggests that women are more aroused by sexual acts than they are by simple nudity in a nonsexual context. It does not all suggest a sexual preference for different genders or species.

      • Pagan Pantheon:
        If that’s true, why do openly lesbian females show no bisexual tendencies? And why are ‘straight’ women more aroused by homosexual love scenes and animals mating than heterosexual ones?

        It’s because they’ve learned to hate men. You can’t sexually bond with what you hate.

      • Eric, did you even read that article? The heterosexual women were absolutely turned on by heterosexual love scenes.

        “Women with women, men with men, men with women: it did not seem to matter much to her female subjects, Dr. Chivers said.”

        I think that your misogynist-colored glasses led you skate past some of the finer points in that article.

      • “it didn’t seem to matter much to her female subjects”

        So pointing out the fact that women are unable to differentiate sexuality is misogynistic? LOL

      • Yes, because the study you read doesn’t say that women are unable to differentiate sexuality. Hilariously enough, you appear to be the one who is having trouble differentiating sexuality, because you can’t seem to grasp the concept that female sexuality is fundamentally different from male sexuality, which in no way supports your conclusion that heterosexual women are frigid man-haters (the study unambiguously demonstrates, in fact, quite the opposite).

  30. Sorry, guys, I’ll be real busy till around Sep 20. I am sorry I haven’t approved the posts that are up now. Anyway, I doubt I’ll be able to make long replies until then.

  31. I just want to share my incel story,because i think that author of this blog is completely right when stating that its a real condition,not just persons imagination.It all started in my childhood,i was a fat and sensitive child,so i really hadn’t played with other children,i was never bullied in primary school but had hard time to fit in.I got my shit together in a highschool,and lost a lot of weight also,and of course try to get attracted by the girls.Always was a romantic soul,i thought sex is just a natural extension from loving and caring bond between a man and a woman.But luck wasn’t on my side i i got a couple of rejections which shook me because i was not prepared and they were harsh rejections.So i finished higshcool with none experience and after a year of wasting time found some shitty low payed job and that was the time i experienced my first anxiety attacks and depressions.I established bad relationship with my parents because they couldn’t understand “how a man can suffer from these conditions and just need to toughen up”.At the same time i started to get ridiculed by a society and received suspicious looks from my friends,simply you could never see me with a girlfriend.Years have passed and i even noticed couple of guys like me(yes there are people like this outside,every school,every workplace,every street has at least one of them).I met a beautiful girl who won me over with her smile but again failed miserably and was rejected,i just didn’t know how to say right things,how to act masculine and desirable,problem is solved if a woman want that,not just by guys pure willpower. I think that authors plan for an incels is legit.It doesn’t discriminate man or women,and its completely voluntary.Everyone who is not recognizing incel problem is gonna end like me,30yo kiss-less virgin,but that’s not the worst thing it usually comes with some sort of depression,anxiety or pessimism.Just wanted to say that i am not mad at anyone anymore,things could be different if i had a luck,but never really attracted for fat girls,which were the only ones who wanted something with me.Now i am almost completely isolated from a society,almost no social circle,haven’t found meds that works.I bet most of guys like me feel like they are not alive anymore,walking around in some kind of zombie mindset,and that is what is the worst.I hope that is some way out of this nightmare,because this is not a life one should live.

    • BruceLee, I will give you the advice I give all incels, which is to look for women in non-feminist countries. If you live in a reasonably wealthy country, then you should be able to afford to do this. I can give you specific advice if you are interested.

      • As for what happened when I was 14, it caused me serious issues that plague me to this day. I was in a public space that should have been safe. I don’t know if you’ve had any dealings with military bases but there are definite ‘safe’ zones and ‘restricted zones.

        As far as the one when I was 19, I never reported it because of the 2 prior experiences – the rape at 14 and molestation at 9 by a man who was in a grandfatherly relationship with me. What happens to rape victims afterwards is not pretty. Or wasn’t back then. You didn’t just point your finger and cuff’s went on. There were interrogations, medical exams (just what you want), and what I consider to be out right torture.

        The guy when I was 19 had been away for a few years and came back to live with his parents ostensibly to get a job or a degree. I was going to a community college (saves money) and we did have prior consensual sex. He started acting very weird and jealous – so naive me, thought we could step back into that comfortable friendship that we used to have. He invited me to go somewhere and ‘just talk’ and, yeah, I did get into his car. He then proceeded to drive very fast and no pauses for red lights. After we were in the middle of the wilderness area, I immediately got out of the car and came around the front in a “What the hell is wrong with you…” way. He tackled me to the ground (easy because I was 5’3 and weighed all of 100 lbs and he had been a former football player). And then so on and so forth.

        “It’s been a while since I read the Devlin article, but I think the point is that women often say “no” and don’t really mean it. If you deny this, then you are just denying reality. A woman who is half naked in bed with a man and murmurs “no” and doesn’t resist sex simply is not being raped.”

        The thing that struck me the most in Delvin was a quote that if a woman is raped she should be forced into an immediate husband/wife role with her rapist. I’d have been dead. Either he would have killed me – which is why I allowed no contact between us, or I desperately would have killed myself rather than live with him. He was a true sociopath. Before I managed to wait him out, he’d show up after my classes at college and he vandalized my car. I was terrified.

        From Delvin:
        “The date rape issue can be solved overnight by restoring shotgun
        marriage—but with the shotgun at the woman’s back. The “victim” should be told to get into the kitchen and fix supper for her new lord and master. Not exactly a match made in heaven, but at least the baby will have both a father and a mother. Furthermore, after the birth of her child, the woman will have more important things to worry about than whether the act by which she conceived it accorded with some women’s studies professor’s newfangled notion of “true consent.” Motherhood has always been the best remedy for
        female narcissism.”

        Anyway, if you’ve got a knife at someone’s throat describing the various ways you won’t be able to be identified, I think you’ve pretty much given up on the relationship and was using rape as an excuse to show my how much my actions upset him. I’m not sure I even care anymore about who’s fault it is/was. What’s done is done. Unfortunately, I have flashbacks and a bit of ptsd with regard to all that nonsense. i’ve been to 3 psychologists (Ph.d’s) and several therapists that all diagnose the same thing. But, I’ve often wished I’d just moved my head a little to the left and sliced my carotid/jugular artery and vein and just died that night.

      • hatecaptchas, I don’t think your rape at 19 is what Devlin meant by date rape. I think Devlin meant more what I described, and what you experienced was just straight rape. So instead of shotgun wedding, in your case the guy should just have gone to jail. But for date rape of the kind I described, a shotgun wedding is entirely appropriate.

        The kind of society that I want should prevent experiences like yours. I want legal prostitution to provide a sexual outlet for men. I want harsh punishment for serious crimes like real rape. And I want to eliminate promiscuous culture where dating is for sex instead of a prelude to marriage.

      • Franklin;
        That’s very good advice—real women are not feminists. It’s difficult, though, for American INCELs because the feminist sexual protection racket has enacted a lot of legal and social barriers against it.

      • Hatecaptchas:
        It sounds like your real problem is not being able to keep away from violent and dysfunctional males; and you’re using your ‘traumas’ as a crutch—to stay away from decent and responsible men. I hear this type of ‘experience’ from women so often that it sounds like a broken record.

        Face the fact that you hate men and have to seek reinforcement for that hatred. I’ve just told you what those three psychiatrists should have told you. The PTSD and flashbacks are what some psychiatrists term ‘reaction formations’. It’s your own fear of masculinity that brings those experiences on when you’re faced with real masculinity—i.e. your subconscious erecting a rationalization-barrier against what you most hate and fear. It’s not men who are your problem.

  32. Franklin,

    Oops, I forgot to actually ask the questions, Delvin portrays women’s sexuality as … I don’t quite know the words – but something functionally planned ie. “mating.” People don’t always “mate” for reproduction so can you tell me what”s so bad about that?

    • Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to. But all of our behavior is somehow functional, otherwise we wouldn’t have evolved to have that behavior. It doesn’t matter that we aren’t always aware of the functionality.

      • Franklin:
        “hatecaptchas, I don’t think your rape at 19 is what Devlin meant by date rape. I think Devlin meant more what I described, and what you experienced was just straight rape. So instead of shotgun wedding, in your case the guy should just have gone to jail. But for date rape of the kind I described, a shotgun wedding is entirely appropriate.”
        Franklin,

        I know you’ve said it’s been awhile since you’ve read the paper. I hope you don’t mind me pinching portions out of it and asking you for your thoughts. This isn’t a game of gotcha! I will make a good faith effort not to misrepresent or sensationalize his statements.

        “Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men
        fi gure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there
        would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large,
        untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To
        release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh
        commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting
        adults.” Every man could have a harem.

        Well, it sounds like a good idea on the surface but considering the tendencies for women’s cycles to synch up, he’d better be out of town for that week. But, that’s not even the biggest problem. Assuming you’re OK with multiples, why even go the harem route? Let’s assume the average man would choose 3 wives – more and it’s probably over kill. Has sex with them all and bears children. The weak spot in this scenario is the mess it’s going to make should something happen to him. All his children loose a father and all his wifes loose a husband. A much wiser version would include straight old polygamy. Multiple husbands and multiple wives. Sexual access for every one – a non hierarchical spreading of genetics. Greater wealth accrual access (let’s pretend it’s traditional gender) roles AND should something happen to one member of the household, you’ve got backups that the children already know.

        “This should not be surprising. Most men prefer a virgin bride; this is a
        genuine aspect of male erotic desire favoring monogamy, and hence in constant
        tension with the impulse to seek sexual variety.”

        The question, I suppose is why? For us (me and my husband) we were both relieved that the other had a (small) number of experiences. Sexuality is a hard thing to do. Maybe it was the culture I grew up with but there was a distinctive push to experiment a little but not become a slut. These days, I don’t know how many actual partners it takes to make a ‘slut’ but back then it seemed much lower.

        And, just to be practical, in order to get over the rape at 14, I think I needed to work it out with someone I didn’t necessarily marry. Men want virgin brides but as much as they seem to say they’re understanding – they’re terrified of sexual abuse victims – and rightly so.

        “Second, if women are all monogamous, the men will perforce be monogamous
        anyway: It is arithmetically impossible for polygamy to be the norm for
        men throughout a society because of the human sex ratio at birth.”

        Seems this has been replaced by serial monogamy.

        “Fourth, women are, next to children, the main beneficiaries of marriage.”

        It’s a bit ironic to see this on a board about incel. Many incels want more than just sexual encounters – they want to be cared for and loved. All the little wifely things we do.

        “He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex.”

        I won’t claim normalcy but I was intensely interested in sex…

        “The reason rape was regarded as a particularly odious form of assault is
        that it violated this superpersonal moral principle by which a woman subordinated
        her momentary private desires to the wellbeing of those closest to her.
        Modesty had to be respected, or else protected, if it was to perform its essential
        social function of guarding the integrity of families.”

        Ok, really?! Can we stop worrying about higher level moral principals until we’ve at least stopped the bleeding? It’s not like these are sex toys… they are people!

        “Feminists understand
        rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fi delity, but
        of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against
        rape to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims.”

        Seriously?! Personal wishes?! Well, why on earth not have sex with women against her personal wishes? Why is this even a conversation. Exactly when does it become OK to have sex with a woman – a living, breathing, feeling person – without her wishes.?

        “One might have more sympathy for the “date rape victims” if they wanted
        the men to marry them, feared they were ruined for other suitors, and were
        prepared to assume their own obligations as wives and mothers. But this is
        simply not the case.”

        I’m guessing this does not apply to me…

        And, yeah, my parents (especially my mother) lost absolutely NO opportunities to explain very clearly why I was forever damned, a slut, and that I would never get married because no man would want my sullied self. That’s a lot to take in when you’re 14. Oh right, that and the molestion (at age 9) were my fault. In fact since the elderly guy when I was 9 was married I’m apparently an adulteress too. Though we never had sex… I was prepubescent at the time. Oh, and everyone would know and it was going to keep happening until I ‘learned’ how to be better.

        The man (at 14) was choking me to try to keep me quiet. At some point in the assault, I passed out. When I came to, I was in a strange place … and then the shit really hit the fan. My problem in life is that it never came to an end in my mind. I just sunk into darkness without being able to breathe. I dream about it and my husband has to wake me up because I’m screaming.

        My point in all of this is not to make you feel sorry for me. I’ve mostly recovered and I have a kind and understanding husband. It’s that there is such a wide chasm between rape culture (“every man is a rapist”) and women go around crying rape as a power play and vengeance, after all, how bad could it BE? I see two very slippery slopes.

        “Colleges, for example, instituted harassment committees one of whose stated purposes was “to encourage victims to come forward.” (I saw this happening up close.) The agitators wanted as many young women as possible accusing unsuccessful suitors of wrong doing.
        And they had considerable success; many women unhesitatingly availed
        Summer 2006 / Devlin 21
        themselves of the new dispensation. Young men found they risked visits from
        the police for fl irting or inviting women on dates.”

        You know, I have to say this does bother me. The very LAST thing I wanted was anyone to know what happened to me. I’d gone through the rigmarole back when I still trusted adults to do the right thing. It was a nightmare. I was accused of being a slut, having buyers remorse and .. wait for it.. what would a grown man want with a little, ugly thing like me. In none of the 3 cases no one was arrested. No one was punished – except me. But, then again, my mother reassured me I was worthless and the only thing I’d ever had of value I’d given away so get used to a life of misery.

        So, the rest of it I’m so-so on. But these are the high points that made my hair stand on end.

        Best regards,

        hateCaptchas

      • hatecaptchas,

        One of Devlin’s core points is that modern thinking denies human nature. If you design some utopian system, like communism, that is contrary to human nature, it will devolve into tyranny. Your suggestion about polygamy is such a utopia. The nature of women is that in a polygamous or promiscuous society, they will choose the most popular men and the less popular men will be left with nothing. This results in a sexual tyranny that oppresses most men. The only sensible system is monogamy.

        If you believe in evolution, then the value of a virgin bride should be obvious. And regardless of what you believe, you can look up auctions of male and female virginity and compare the final price to see which human nature values more. Your case should not be relevant because girls should not be raped. In a healthy society, most women are virgins until marriage.

        Serial monogamy is a nonsense term that simply means promiscuity. I mean unless a man always has sex with multiple women at one time, he is in some sense serially monogamous.

        Devlin: “Fourth, women are, next to children, the main beneficiaries of marriage.”

        I agree with you that this quote is wrong. Monogamous marriage benefits everyone.

        You: “I won’t claim normalcy but I was intensely interested in sex”

        No woman can even imagine the sexual desire of a young man. The closest you can get is to go a month without food and then spend a few hours walking around a buffet without eating.

        Looking at your next few quotes from Devlin, I have to admit that Devlin shows lack of empathy for women. So I agree with you on those.

        I agree with you about “two very slippery slopes” on rape. Note that modernists on this thread hate my view, but I think I am solidly in the middle, between these slopes.

  33. “One of Devlin’s core points is that modern thinking denies human nature.”

    What is the repression of natural sexual desires but the denial of human nature? Humans are sexual beings.

    “The nature of women is that in a polygamous or promiscuous society, they will choose the most popular men and the less popular men will be left with nothing. This results in a sexual tyranny that oppresses most men.”

    I’m not sure why women would not suffer from the same hypothetical problem. Additionally, while I empathize with those who have difficulty finding companionship, I’m not sure that the term ‘oppression’ applies in this scenario.

    “In a healthy society, most women are virgins until marriage.”

    This is a highly problematic statement for a variety of reasons. If your definition of a healthy society is subjective, then it is a relatively meaningless statement of opinion. If it’s objective, then it would be impossible to support given the staggering lack of data on the subject.

    “No woman can even imagine the sexual desire of a young man.”

    Turning this around, I don’t think that any man can truly have an appreciation for the sexual desire of a young woman. I’m not saying this to be argumentative, I just think you are being dismissive of adolescent female sexual desire, which would be a mistake.

    • I realize that Delvin was talking about utopia. I still fail to see why polygamy seems to be such a bad idea. It sounds like you might be thinking that 10% of the men will share the to 70% of the women. Just as we’ve limited marriage to two people, why not limit it to 6? To prevent the harem situation, simply demand that the numbers of genders have to be equal. Then, if you wanted to grow your legal family, you would have to add another pair (triangle relationships are awful in practice). If a couple likes monogamy, they simply don’t marry anyone else.

      Heh. If you believe in reality, then a virgin man is your best bet. Given the DNA testing and the propensity of the US to hunt down men – whether or not those men even knew they were fathers – and impose crippling child support (which conveniently includes back pay from when the man didn’t know the child existed)…. well, do I really have to go on?

      Back again to serial monogamy. In the past, it seemed people were willing to stay together. These days, not so much. So, in the short term, serial monogamy (expressed as multiple consecutive marriages) at least allows people to pair up again. I am making a strong assumption that any “death do us part” would allow the widow/er to remarry without consequence or question.

      Thank you for clearing that up. If you live in the US, are you aware of the covenant marriage movement?

      • I am not going to argue about polygamy because the value of monogamy is so obvious to anyone who really thinks about it. I will say this, that women have a hard time understanding the value of monogamy is a strong argument that they shouldn’t be given the vote.

        I don’t care what is common in the present and I don’t care about the laws of America. I don’t know much about the covenant marriage movement. As far as I am concerned, America can go to hell. If my wife were to divorce me and get alimony, I would give America the middle finger and leave. A lot of my assets are abroad and I am organizing my current business offshore with an offshore bank account.

      • Franklin, I don’t know how anyone can believe that women have difficulty “understanding the value of monogamy”. That is counterintuitive and just plain wrong.

        It’s kind of late to reconsider the whole suffrage thing. Do you really believe that women deserve to be second-class citizens? That’s just awful, man.

      • “Back again to serial monogamy. In the past, it seemed people were willing to stay together. These days, not so much.”

        Willing or lacking any other options (without being ostracized or left impoverished)?

        Was my grandmother “willing” to stay with my grandfather, or could the fact that he was able to have her involuntarily committed when she tried to leave his abusive ass have had something to do with that? We can’t interpret the past based on the freedoms we have today. There is a lot of science out there that explains the benefit of serial monogamy and polyamory and not much that suggests that we are designed to stay with one person throughout our entire lives. If you choose that life for yourself, more power to you, but to insist that the rest of us live that life because some people can’t get dates is tyrannical. Even back when people were “willing” to stay together and were less “slutty,” there were were spinsters and bachelors. They just didn’t have internet forums to gather together to demand the government fix them up on dates.

        • Bones, I am really sorry your posts haven’t been published before, they got stuck in spam folder for some reason I can’t understand.

    • Hello Pagan,

      “The nature of women is that in a polygamous or promiscuous society, they will choose the most popular men and the less popular men will be left with nothing. This results in a sexual tyranny that oppresses most men.”

      I also draw a pretty strong line between promiscuous behavior and polygamy. Promiscuity requires transient relationships with many men. I highly doubt that women who remain faithful inside the context of a polygamous marriage would be considered promiscuous. Or, the men wouldn’t. Or something. But the fact that there exists a long term relationship should be sufficient to rule out promiscuity.

      Given today’s economic crisis, having couples (only) makes it hard to eek out a living. If both parents work, then there has to be substitute child rearing. If both parents don’t work, they run the risk of not being able to sustain themselves. In times past, it wasn’t that women/mothers didn’t work, it’s that families tended to stay together and roles were given to those most suited for them. All of the men (but the elderly or disabled) worked outside the home. Many of the women did too. For example when my grandmother was newly married, she worked at a cannery. Her mother, who was still having children, took care of and raised my father and my aunt. Not the whole time, of course, but while they got on their feet.

      This behavior, while obviously not polygamy, demonstrates the strength of family ties in the past. But you can’t go back home and all that… today’s society requires a lot more from people as individuals and, until they become a big problem, most children get minimum attention when they’re young. And, much of that is given by over taxed, over whelmed, frustrated parents. The rest is given by overworked and underpaid teachers who lack any real power over the children. Or, day care workers (I was one for a time) who I wouldn’t trust with my house plant.

      All that leads me to conclude that, with the inevitable economic disaster looming, somehow re-creating old ties or building new ones is a sensible option to consider (not saying I have it all right.. but just considering that direction.) More people can mean more role distribution and more resources gathered – and less resources needed. If you choose wisely, you might have a Dr., a mechanic, and a lawyer or something (not necessarily all male).

  34. Yes, I realize that Delvin was speaking of utopia. I still fail to see why polygamy seems to be such a bad idea. It sounds like you’re thinking of a scenario where the top 10% of men share the top 70 % of women. Just as we’ve limited marriage to two people in the US, why not set the limit to 6. To preventthe harem situation, simply demand that the numbers of genders is equal. Then if you wanted to grow your legal family, you would have to join another pair. If a couple likes monogamy then they would simply not marry anyone else.

    Heh, if you believe in reality, then a virgin man is your best bet. Given DNA testing and the propensity of say the US in hunting down men who didn’t even know they wer e fathers and the amounts of child support required – which includes back payments for what ever time the father didn’t even know about the child. Well, do I really have to go on?

    Back to serial monogamy. In times past and more and more marriages aren’t built to last. So, as a long term goal maybe not so much but in the short term, serial monogamy at least allows people to legally pair up again. I’m making a strong assumption here that any ‘death till we part” ends a relationship and freely allows remarriage to the widow/er.

    Thank you for clearing that up. If you live in the US are you aware of the covenet marriage laws?
    Ember

  35. Franklin,

    Have you ever read Starship Troopers? The movie was tripe, but the overarching message is that birthright did not endow sufferage. Instead the vote was given – along with the title citizen to those who served society – men or women. I would be in favor of such a change.

    Covenant marriage was a movement designed to reverse no fault divorce. Many people, me for one, are not fans of no fault divorce.

  36. I guess thatt whenn I log on to Wordd press I have a difficult time getting back here. I will look into it further. I suspect it is just me.

  37. I read the experiences of the blog owner and I do not know what his problem is. He has had many experiences with different women, and he is not a virgin. I completely agree with him about involuntary celibacy, but I do not believe he has it as bad as he thinks he does. You want to know who is bad off? Me. I will tell you why.

    I am in my early 20s but still a virgin. This hurts because I am an average looking guy, and I am NOT shy with women. I am also charming, funny, smart, and have many good qualities. However, none of that matters as the ONLY thing women use to give you a chance INITIALLY is how you look and how you ‘seem.’ So you might be wondering why/how the hell am I still a virgin? Well, very simple. Let me use some logic.

    1. I need to be at least SOMEWHAT attracted to a female in order to go out with her/sleep with her. I think that it is pretty fair and normal to have this standard. Also, I am not willing to have sex with a prostitute as I am paranoid about STDs. Prostitution is outlawed anyway.
    2. None of the girls that fit the category of number 1 like me back. This is for 2 reasons:
    a) I am skinny. I already tried working out but due to various reasons I cannot gain the necessary weight in order to make a significant different to my body. Skinny girls will always be in demand, by NON skinny guys. Any girl will be in demand, unless she looks horrible. So WHY should a skinny girl settle for a skinny guy, when she is in demand by NON skinny guys? Of course she will choose the non skinny guy every time. That is why the skinny guy will lose out.
    b) Girls think I am ‘too nice.’ Now as we all know, if a girl thinks you are nice, she would rather get cancer than go out with you. I don’t know WHAT it is that makes girls think I am nice. I am NOT too nice. I DO NOT act nice with them. I DO NOT do favors for them. In fact, I act confident and cocky around girls. I guess girls might think that I am small/skinny and have a baby face so they automatically ‘deem’ me as nice. For some reason, they just get a ‘vibe’ that I am too nice and therefore they will never give me a chance as a boyfriend.

    Now, it is a combination of 1 and 2a and 2b that is making it impossible for me to be in a relationship or have sex. It is just so unfair that I have to suffer from this, while seeing FUGLY guys with decent looking girlfriends. I see a FUGLY guy with a good looking girl and I assume that he is her boyfriend. Yet I could not even IMAGINE myself with an UGLY girl. Which girl on earth would POSSIBLY choose me? It is not that I have low self-esteem. I developed this view based on reality. It is impossible to ‘change’ 1, 2a or 2b. Therefore, logically, it is not my fault, and it is the governments job to provide me with my HUMAN RIGHT, which is to have sex, and YES that IS a right. Either prostitution needs to be legalized with regular, mandatory STD checks, or other plans implemented by the owner of the blog need to happen. It is NOT asking for too much.

    Let me mention that I USED to be VERY shy with girls, but I have NOT been for the past few years. So I am absolutely fine with talking to girls, however, after getting rejected many times, I simply don’t find a point in asking any girls out anymore.

    I do not even enjoy watching porn or masturbating anymore. It is just something I do in order to not go insane. I feel jealous even of porn actors having sex. It sucks to see the ENTIRE world having sex, even people who are much uglier than you (yet their girlfriend is decent looking enough that you want to have sex with her) while you are forced to just watch them. I don’t know why this strange mismatching and illogical problem has to affect me. I just look at myself in the mirror and say HOW? HOW? can NOT ONE DECENT looking girl not want to even give me a CHANCE? LOOK at this face.. there is NOTHING WRONG with it. I look AT LEAST average. I talked to this HOT girl online once, and I showed her my picture (only face), and after a few chats she was really charmed by me. However, when we met up in real life, we never ended up having sex, and the relationship broke off. Im 95% sure it was because of my skinniness. Girls are weird. What is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad about being skinny? I am not even disgusting/skeleton skinny nor lanky.

  38. “Women have never been oppressed as a class in the west”

    This is patently untrue. Women have been systematically held down and treated as second class citizens throughout history, lacking on the whole the same rights and privileges afforded to men and receiving disproportionate consequences for violating laws or social norms. Women were, by and large, treated as property of men, to be protected and controlled at the behest of their masters. The fact that they were not sent to die in wars or assigned dangerous jobs can be attributed to sexual dimorphism as well as an innate male desire to protect a commodity he values and perceives to be both weak and vulnerable. Further, don’t forget that it’s perfectly possible for people to venerate things that they view as subordinate. Veneration is not a sign of liberty, nor of equality, nor even necessarily of esteem or regard beyond a narrow focus.

    “If you are able to compare lack of sex and relationship with eating too much twinkies you’re an imbecile and I really shouldn’t allow you to post here. This is so sickening and insane that… I have no words, really.”

    This is a textbook example of a straw man. You attacked the comparison (which was hyperbolic and had little bearing on the actual point) rather than addressing the question posed.

    “if I were in TAC your comments would now be attacked with strawmen”

    Oh… awkward.

    Look, nobody is perfect. I’m sure that we can all understand that there are logical fallacies that we can all fall into from time to time. Making a mistake doesn’t make anyone less of a person and it doesn’t necessarily invalidate an argument, either. You believe very strongly in your opinions, which is fine. I believe just as strongly in mine, and goodness knows I make mistakes just as much (maybe more often than) the next man, so please don’t dismiss people’s beliefs out of hand if you want yours taken seriously too.

    My biggest question about all of this—really, the very core of our disagreement—is that I feel that interpersonal relationships are the sole responsibility of the people within them. Because they require consent, they cannot truly be coerced, especially by government and even in the form of incentivization. People do not have an innate right or entitlement to relationships. This is not because some people do not deserve them (they do) nor because people always choose partners that are best for them (they too often don’t), but rather because people have first and foremost a fundamental right to self-determination, including the right to make bad decisions so long as they don’t violate anyone else’s fundamental rights. This, more than anything else, is the reason why people view the anger and violence you project outward to be inappropriate and unjustified, and why I feel that it is not the government’s place to attempt to intervene or interfere when it comes to interpersonal relationships.

    • “This is patently untrue. Women have been systematically held down and treated as second class citizens throughout history, lacking on the whole the same rights and privileges afforded to men and receiving disproportionate consequences for violating laws or social norms. Women were, by and large, treated as property of men, to be protected and controlled at the behest of their masters. The fact that they were not sent to die in wars or assigned dangerous jobs can be attributed to sexual dimorphism as well as an innate male desire to protect a commodity he values and perceives to be both weak and vulnerable. Further, don’t forget that it’s perfectly possible for people to venerate things that they view as subordinate. Veneration is not a sign of liberty, nor of equality, nor even necessarily of esteem or regard beyond a narrow focus.”

      Femifascist nonsense, backed up by nothing at all. Like I said on Cracked, you liberal feminist types are fools who think a 1513 man thought like 2013 because you know jack shit about history. Or pretty much anything else. You’re as dumb as a bag of hammers. You’re just foolish fanatics who believe in nonsense. Once again, nobody oppressed women in the past. Everything was done to ensure the survival of human beings in brutal, scarce conditions, not because somebody in 1046 hated women.

      “This is a textbook example of a straw man. You attacked the comparison (which was hyperbolic and had little bearing on the actual point) rather than addressing the question posed.”

      No, it’s not a straw man. I simply said that this comparison is barbaric. You don’t think it’s extremely barbaric? Ok, think about this. What if I you said that some people couldn’t work because of cancer and I tell you that some people say they can’t work because Nets didn’t win the game last night? That was the level of this moron’s comparison. And you don’t see a problem with it? Fuck you, retard.

      “Look, nobody is perfect. I’m sure that we can all understand that there are logical fallacies that we can all fall into from time to time. Making a mistake doesn’t make anyone less of a person and it doesn’t necessarily invalidate an argument, either. You believe very strongly in your opinions, which is fine. I believe just as strongly in mine, and goodness knows I make mistakes just as much (maybe more often than) the next man, so please don’t dismiss people’s beliefs out of hand if you want yours taken seriously too.”

      Look, you’re a moron. Empty platitudes. You have no idea what TAC is. TAC aren’t people who make a mistake now and then. TAC are the kind of people who claim that my program wants to enslave women, that I use a translator when reading people’s posts, the kind of people who openly rejoice at deaths of people like Milton Friedman or Margaret Thatcher.

      “My biggest question about all of this—really, the very core of our disagreement—is that I feel that interpersonal relationships are the sole responsibility of the people within them. Because they require consent, they cannot truly be coerced, especially by government and even in the form of incentivization. People do not have an innate right or entitlement to relationships. This is not because some people do not deserve them (they do) nor because people always choose partners that are best for them (they too often don’t), but rather because people have first and foremost a fundamental right to self-determination, including the right to make bad decisions so long as they don’t violate anyone else’s fundamental rights. This, more than anything else, is the reason why people view the anger and violence you project outward to be inappropriate and unjustified, and why I feel that it is not the government’s place to attempt to intervene or interfere when it comes to interpersonal relationships.”

      You mention incentivization. And that is the only indication that you maybe might have read the program. What are you talking about?? Who is forcing anybody and to what here? People apply freely and are obliged to do nothing but go on dates.

      As for your talk of personal responsibility in many cases of hard core incels this is actually a death sentence. They can’t help themselves. They are virtually free to die in pain. Is that what you think the society should be striving for?

      • “Femifascist nonsense, backed up by nothing at all. Like I said on Cracked, you liberal feminist types are fools who think a 1513 man thought like 2013 because you know jack shit about history. Or pretty much anything else. You’re as dumb as a bag of hammers. You’re just foolish fanatics who believe in nonsense. Once again, nobody oppressed women in the past. Everything was done to ensure the survival of human beings in brutal, scarce conditions, not because somebody in 1046 hated women.”

        First of all, I’m not claiming that they hated women. I’m claiming that they oppressed women. You don’t have to hate someone to consider them beneath you and allow your laws and society to reflect that. Women were not represented in their governments. They were not permitted to own property. They were bought and sold by men into marriages. Intent has little to do with it. Women were second class citizens because men had power and they believed that they were superior to women. Not hate, just a worldview that was conducive to oppression, and one that I very clearly believe has changed since 1513.

        “No, it’s not a straw man. I simply said that this comparison is barbaric. You don’t think it’s extremely barbaric? Ok, think about this. What if I you said that some people couldn’t work because of cancer and I tell you that some people say they can’t work because Nets didn’t win the game last night? That was the level of this moron’s comparison. And you don’t see a problem with it? Fuck you, retard.”

        I think that the comparison was intentionally obtuse to make a point. As I said, it was hyperbole.The implication in his comparison was actually that lack of sex/relationships and Twinkie guy are not the same. The point was that the logic you were using to justify actions he found abhorrent could also be used to justify the terrible actions of a monster like Twinkie guy, which, as you evidently agree, would not be a good thing. That’s why your response was a straw man. It did not address his point at all, but rather was a knee-jerk defensive reaction to being compared to a monster. Which, again, is perfectly understandable, which is why I gave you all those empty platitudes afterwards, because such understanding should apply to everyone, including people who rudely and vociferously disagree with you.

        “Look, you’re a moron. Empty platitudes. You have no idea what TAC is. TAC aren’t people who make a mistake now and then. TAC are the kind of people who claim that my program wants to enslave women, that I use a translator when reading people’s posts, the kind of people who openly rejoice at deaths of people like Milton Friedman or Margaret Thatcher.”

        They sound truly awful. Am I in TAC? Because you seem kind of back and forth on that one. Let me assure you that I am confident you have a strong command of language, that I don’t believe you want to enslave people, and that I cannot recall having ever celebrated over a death.

        “You mention incentivization. And that is the only indication that you maybe might have read the program. What are you talking about?? Who is forcing anybody and to what here? People apply freely and are obliged to do nothing but go on dates.

        As for your talk of personal responsibility in many cases of hard core incels this is actually a death sentence. They can’t help themselves. They are virtually free to die in pain. Is that what you think the society should be striving for?”

        I think that society should strive to help people. I think that the government is not an appropriate tool in this particular instance, and a private enterprise would be the logical and appropriate choice for creating a program such as you describe. I agree that these people need help; I disagree that the government is responsible for helping them in this case.

        “You’re as dumb as a bag of hammers.”
        “Fuck you, retard.”
        “Look, you’re a moron.”

        Yeesh, That was unnecessary.

        • Alright, I’m sorry for my harsh language. I was nervous about something unrelated to this when writing a reply. I don’t think people like you ar Apochryphal are TAC members. You’re just young men who seem to have soaked up some of their nonsense.

          “First of all, I’m not claiming that they hated women. I’m claiming that they oppressed women. You don’t have to hate someone to consider them beneath you and allow your laws and society to reflect that. Women were not represented in their governments. They were not permitted to own property. They were bought and sold by men into marriages. Intent has little to do with it. Women were second class citizens because men had power and they believed that they were superior to women. Not hate, just a worldview that was conducive to oppression, and one that I very clearly believe has changed since 1513.”

          Yeah, I made a mistake. “Hate” isn’t the right word. However…

          I disagree that they were oppressed. Oppression would mean no rights and many responsibilities.

          You say they weren’t represented in governments. That is true. It were men who were nominal rulers most of the history. However, many women had a strong influence behind the scenes. Also, do you know what it meant to be a king in, let’s say, medieval times? You couldn’t have just been outvoted like today’s governments are. Kings, unless they died, usually stopped being kings after coups and wars. This could mean a death of you and all of your family. Being a king was a huge burden. I don’t see how were women oppressed by not being allowed to be kings. But I understand what you’re saying and will say something you will almost certainly disagree with- I think men were rulers because their instincts are better suited for tribal formation.

          Women weren’t allowed to own property? Dude, before 18th century almost all the property was in families. Men were the nominal heads of the family and hence they had property. Also, I don’t know enough about law during the previous centuries but Roman women, for example, could hold some property and inherit.

          Bought and sold into marriages? Alright, but you still don’t seem to understand the proper context. You know what real oppression would have been? If a man could choose any village girl he liked and married her without her consent. But that is not how it was. In reality the fathers of two families would have arranged a deal and married the boy to a girl. Marriage was seen as more of a business contract and a very important contract indeed. By marrying you’d insure that the family wealth will be taken care of by a further generation and that there would be offspring. Boys couldn’t choose their spouse no more than girls could choose theirs! You see, in 1265 there were no messy divorces with grubby lawyers, therapists, cars, Cosmopolitan, health care, feminism, ice cream, Tumblr, pension funds. The only ones who’d take care of you were your children and maybe in some cases your relatives. So by marrying two people the fathers had to make damn sure that they won’t make a mistake and lose their family fortune. Romantic love was a story for ballads and songs, not a real factor. Women were happy to go for men richer than their family was as that would ensure them a relatively comfortable lives and better chances of survival for their children.

          Do you know that in some cases European monarchs would negotiate future marriages between a 10 year-old boy and a 5 year-old girl? What choice did the boy have in that situation?

          That was no oppression. People just did what they had to do to survive in conditions unimaginable to modern man. I don’t like to pull my credentials on anything, but trust me on this, I majored in history.

          “I think that the comparison was intentionally obtuse to make a point. As I said, it was hyperbole.The implication in his comparison was actually that lack of sex/relationships and Twinkie guy are not the same. The point was that the logic you were using to justify actions he found abhorrent could also be used to justify the terrible actions of a monster like Twinkie guy, which, as you evidently agree, would not be a good thing. That’s why your response was a straw man. It did not address his point at all, but rather was a knee-jerk defensive reaction to being compared to a monster. Which, again, is perfectly understandable, which is why I gave you all those empty platitudes afterwards, because such understanding should apply to everyone, including people who rudely and vociferously disagree with you.”

          Look, the point, which you’ll obviously understand, is that I lose any will for a debate after such a comparison. Incel destroys lives, can cause mental and even physical problems completely on its own (that’s not to say it can’t be caused by them as well) and this person mentions Twinkies in this? Sorry, as somebody whose life has been destroyed by incel I find that extremely hurtful. I did publish that person’s comments as they broke no rules but that doesn’t mean I have to be nice to them.

          “They sound truly awful. Am I in TAC? Because you seem kind of back and forth on that one. Let me assure you that I am confident you have a strong command of language, that I don’t believe you want to enslave people, and that I cannot recall having ever celebrated over a death.”

          Like I said, I don’t think you’re in TAC. Of course, that’s not all what TAC members do. That’s just some examples of their stupidity and callousness. If you want to look for a place where all the members are hard core TAC members try Freethought Blogs or Atheism Plus… Those kinds of people are really in TAC.

          “I think that society should strive to help people. I think that the government is not an appropriate tool in this particular instance, and a private enterprise would be the logical and appropriate choice for creating a program such as you describe. I agree that these people need help; I disagree that the government is responsible for helping them in this case.”

          But tell me what private business can provide enough money to incentivize noncel women to go on dates with incels, enough money for education of women who’ll help love-shy men, enough money for such women to work on breaking their LS, enough money for providing for psychiatrists who screen people etc? The entry fee for a private program should be tens of thousands of dollars. There aren’t that many incels for that to work out.

          And, once again, sorry for my language. You see I’m not that bad when I want to be polite 😉

  39. A quick amendment: when I said that the government is not responsible in this case, what I meant was that the government is not responsible in this manner. A government does have a responsibility to help its constituents, but it doesn’t have a responsibility to find them romance.

  40. “1 proclaimed but fake atheism (belief in god is
    actually replaced by other religious beliefs, like
    extreme and irrational religion of therapy or
    feminist myths ”

    Your definition of atheism is wrong. An atheist can believe in metaphysical phenomena or weird philosophy, so long as they do not subscribe to the belief in the existence of a THEOS.

    Also, when your definition of a word includes both Atheism and Islam, maybe it’s less a desciption and more what Eminem called a “shit list”. It just looks like a bunch of unrelated stuff under a banner of “I don’t like it”. Is a TaC anything that has one of these descriptions, or all of them? Or some of them? I’m not even gonna get into how these things relate to people getting any? With some people in some places being loud and unPC works. But in others it doesn’t. I know a thing or two about being a grown up Virgin, but I know Islam has very little to do with it.

      • Yes, I am a history major.

        Since you provided no arguments for your claims I advise you to read my argument for this again. Women were never oppressed as an entire gender. On the other hand, they held and still hold many privileges.

    • “Your definition of atheism is wrong. An atheist can believe in metaphysical phenomena or weird philosophy, so long as they do not subscribe to the belief in the existence of a THEOS.”

      My definition of atheism is the same as the dictionary definition. TAC worship therapy, feminist myths and various other things as gods who can do no wrong and require no evidence. This is among many reasons why they’re not worthy of living.

      “Also, when your definition of a word includes both Atheism and Islam, maybe it’s less a desciption and more what Eminem called a “shit list”.”

      You’re stupid. I wasn’t writing about a “definition of a word” but a list of TAC traits. TAC claim to be atheists, continually make excuses for Islam and hate Christianity.

      “It just looks like a bunch of unrelated stuff under a banner of “I don’t like it”.”

      It’s not a bunch of unrelated stuff. There are many people who hold a majority of the traits I’ve described and some of them hold ALL of them. It’s not uncommon at all.

      “Is a TaC anything that has one of these descriptions, or all of them? Or some of them?”

      It always takes more than one of these traits, usually more than half. It also depends on how strongly they’re held. But, no, never just one of them or all of them.

      “I’m not even gonna get into how these things relate to people getting any? With some people in some places being loud and unPC works. But in others it doesn’t. I know a thing or two about being a grown up Virgin, but I know Islam has very little to do with it.”

      You’re silly. You wanna know how it relates to people (not) getting any? These people, are theoretically so much in favor of welfare and government intervention are the loudest in opposing my ideas. No libertarian was ever so adamant about opposing them. Why are these people like that? Because they’re vile monsters who need to be killed. Look at what I wrote to a guy whose cousin is George Zimmerman about them

      You are George Zimmerman’s cousin? I can tell you that the “people” I hate, The Atheist Cult, wanted nothing more than to have him convicted. This had nothing to do with the actual facts of the case, which I will not go into nor are they relevant. They wanted to see him convicted because he killed a god. To TAC, women, POCs and some other groups are gods. To them, you shouldn’t be allowed to kill a god, not even in self defense. The only way for him to be even more hated by TAC is if he were undoubtedly white.
      They’d want a death penalty too if only it wasn’t against dogmas most of them hold.

      The facts of the case are completely irrelevant to them, which is why I’m not mentioning them at all. This is the kind of people I hate. I am not wrong to hate them. You should hate them too.

  41. Dude, you aren’t bad looking for an older man ( I can say that, I’m middle-aged). You & I have conversed on another site…You seem to be intelligent. I’ve read you have depression. I’m sorry for that, but at least 60% of Americans suffer from that condition.

    I’m no prostitute. I’m no atheist or any other “ist”. If you can present yourself as a gentleman, I might ask you out for drinks. You don’t need to pay for anything, not even the drinks. But, it might be a good idea if you write your reply and let it be for a few days. Then, read it & see it through the eyes of a LADY…not a hooker.

    I wish you the best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s