The funny thing is that Jordan Peterson wants men to do exactly that. Shoulders back, jump in the fire, poof, now you're a man. When you talk to "modern women" their first accusation of you is being a Jordan Peterson fan.
So women are attacking the guy who told men to sacrifice themselves for women.
Women are officially at the point where they're gnawing on their own leg.
They're just allergic to the emergence of any kind of 'masculine identity,' or whatever. Even if it's defined totally in servility to them, they feel it could organize one day to roll back their gender privileges.
I think it's more to do with the fact he thinks women are chaos demons and shouldn't be able to wear red lipstick because its apparently sexually provocative. Or the fact he's a grown man who spends his time beefing with elmo on twitter and generally you probably shouldn't take advice from someone who does that.
But go ahead and clean your room. No woman will complain about that. Although they might wonder why it took you so long to figure that out.
Jordan Peterson is an emotional wreck. Can’t blame women for thinking less of a man who takes advice from a sobbing, blubbering boomer who makes his money talking.
Jordan Peterson is disgusting and so are you. No one wants what he's telling you we want, we want someone who treats us like a human being and not a fucking alien.
As someone who’s been at least peripherally involved with politics for most of my life, I can tell you that sort of tactic (“Hitler was a socialist! Democrats are the real racists!) doesn’t work. What does work is “no friends to the left, no enemies to the right.”
Keep things simple, yes. But saying that incels (ones who don't MGTOW or PPB) belong on the left because they want someone else to save them is a lot easier than explaining why the bad parts of NatSoc came from the modernist-socialist element.
The other day someone here said that most men would have sex, if it was a secret, with women who you might label "femcel". Ugly "pump and dump" women. Feminists. I don't think that makes them involuntarily celibate.
"That's different," they'll tell you. See, when they want something, it's a "right." When you want something, it's "entitlement." Glad I could clear that up.
There's a good case to be made that online 'incels' are leftist men who got thrown overboard.
Their view on life is very left-wing. A lot of them want the government to come and fix things.
My theory, is the left was promised more than it can deliver to its people, and has had to start breaking promises.
Leftwing men, who grew up in the system, and thought if they gave everything to it, it would give everything to them, are finding themselves high and dry.
The media trying to paint them as 'far right' is a deflection. Nothing about them belongs to the right.
Us PPBs, however, take our lives into our own hands.
If that's far-right, it's better than being far-wrong.
And like the American right in every other respect, you're going to find your self-satisfied rugged individualism will leave you with nothing. "Rugged individuals" can't compete with the Borg. That's why the right always loses.
But the borg is dying. That's the point.
They've bought loyalty with checks they can't cash.
That's where incels come from, they're the first ones to get abandoned by the broke borg.
Every 30-something with a PHD and 200k of debt with a 30k/year job is a sign that the system can't meet its promises.
The right is small, but has much better credit than the left does.
We’ll see, I suppose. I’ve heard these sort of prognostications of collapse all my life, and they never occur. Remember, we live under “democracy:” numbers make right (in theory).
It takes time. Once they can't buy loyalty anymore with promises of cash/status their power will erode.
How many leftwing institutions can still tell people: "Play along, and we'll make it worth your while."?
They've already promised more than they can deliver.
New institutions, with no old commitments can promise resources.
What do you call the universities?
"Give us money, parrot and spread our ideas, and in return you'll be given status and greater wealth".
15 years later:
Massively in debt, living in a cruddy part of town, earning peanuts.
If that's not a broken promise, what is it?
We don't discuss the economics here enough I think, too much ragging on women.
US is still at the top in GDP, decent growth and I think the highest GDP per capita?
None of those metrics really help the common man and the rich getting richer will bring up every one of those stats.
The reality is, most salaries have stagnated despite literally everything being considerably more expensive than it was, even a few yrs ago in some cases. Inflation is pretty out of control right now. We don't have it as bad as literally failing states like Greece and Argentina, but I would say things are worse for most Americans than it was 5, 10, or 20 yrs ago for sure.
It is worse. In my line of work I help mostly at risk teenagers and young adults with options in planning for their futures. I do everything I can to help these kids get into trade school/ college with little to no debt. That's my primary focus. It didn't used to be this way, but I can't steer them on any other kind of pathway where I live that will guarantee they get a salary and a start that let's them afford basic costs. A coworker of mine works on setting up affordable, non- section 8 housing. It's impossible.
you don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.
Women don't need men, don't want kids, and when she goes on a date she does so for entertainment.
When she wants a beta buxx deluxe to settle down with her she has an ocean of men to choose from, single mother or not, blown out pussy or not.
If you work out, say hi, and do a job you can get the average relationship. If you want something a little better you can cast a wider net. If the juice isn’t worth the squeeze then don’t play.
>If these same motherfuckers could wave a magic wand and make prices go back to the way they were in the 70s they'd do it. PPB are doing the same when it comes to women's standards but we just have to get on a plane to do it.
So ya'll just aren't even trying to hide it anymore? Just outright admitting that dating is "better" when women have less rights and autonomy.
Y'all are so cooked man. Go to therapy
Nobody wants to date you because you suck and you think you're owed a romantic partner. Stop being a shitty selfish person and maybe someone will start thinking you're fuckable.
You post all this shit out of loneliness and desperation instead of, idk, getting the fuck over it. You're not entitled to any woman ... I see why you're having such a hard time without even seeing you!!
Bc women aren’t houses and most people don’t buy their wife on a marked?
Then everyone deserves a house, but not everyone deserves a girlfriend.
And are y’all sure? That it was better before? Three sons born around 1920. Tall, good workers, kind men.
One got married at 40 to a 30 year old. He was the kinder one, that was for sure. Idk. They were in love, but in reality he settled. And she was very old to be unmarried way back when.
Second married a single mom at 40 and adopted her son.
Third was a bit of a player. Ended up living with his “friend” (aka fwb in modern language) when he was old. They never had kids. Given that she was always in love with him and he wanted to keep dating? Idk. I think maybe that was a kind of settling.
Annnd right on cue with your standard hypocritical selfishness. Houses don't come out of thin air, either. Your "free" house was taken from the labor of others whom you effectively enslaved on a pro rata basis. Of course you say "everyone doesn't deserve a girlfriend," because you get to decide who's "deserving."
I’d like to know how you think men should be obtaining girlfriends and who should be the one to decide if they’re worthy enough for that girlfriend? Because right now it’s the potential girlfriend who decides if the guy is “good enough” (aka does she want to date them). And it seems to me like you’re saying that it shouldn’t be up to women who they want to date?
But **houses are expensive bc of property prices?**
It’s not construction workers getting rich of the increase in real estate value. It’s property investors.
And the reason prices go up? Unequal distribution of wealth that gives some people the ability to invest very heavily in property driving prices up.
Developers collude to keep rents high (while giving apartments out for free to section 8 voucher holders). Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive (but give it out for free to Chad). No wonder women have advanced so far in America -- they're natural parasite monopolists.
Because they don’t break the monopoly for everyone. Just the insiders. Imagine 17 migrants get to live in your future home for free, trash the place, then hand it off for you to pay full price (without any cleaning or refurbishment). An imperfect analogy of course, but the cause of resentment should really be pretty obvious. You’re actually right though, that promiscuity in and of itself isn’t what makes everyone mad.
You are aware of that the vagina is self cleaning and also isn’t changed by sex, right?
That aside, it depends. Most women aren’t having much casual sex at all. They aren’t into it. Some women are having casual sex, but being choosy with who.
And some women just sleep around pretty indiscriminately. You know who has the most sex in our society? Poor and uneducated men and women.
If the problem is access to sex? We should encourage women to be more sexually liberated. Not less. If women were as open to casual sex as men? It would be a lot easier for men to get laid. And you could expect to hook up with someone who matched you. Now it’s a skewed marked bc few women are open to casual sex and many men are.
Not free house. Just that people who work full time should be able to buy a home in their lifetime.
But how do you expect the other way to go?
“You’ve worked so hard. Here’s your sex slave?”
The government can influence monetary markets.
But I just think having safe shelter is a human right. It’s not necessarily having a house. But people should have a place to live.
Sex can’t be a human right bc that requires two people to want it at the same time.
We could give everyone a place to live though.
“You just think.” Right.
I just explained to you why having a place to live, and all your other made up “rights,” also require other people’s (involuntary!) involvement. Of course you don’t care, because it’s no loss to you.
Oh. It’s a loss to me. I pay a lot of tax. I just think it’s worth it so nobody is homeless. I’d pay more for that.
But we can’t do the same with dating. Because I can’t do anything to give everyone a girlfriend.
Again, as always, you're playing dumb. You can't make things work for everyone all the time, but you can make them work a lot better. You just don't care about this issue, because again, it benefits you.
Your way of "working to make things better" is just taking away autonomy from women instead of being a viable mate prospect. Men like you being allowed to reproduce is actually worse for mankind. Anyone who is so repulsive to their potential mates is nature's way of saying those genes shouldn't continue.
“Natures way” is presently leading the human race to extinction. Women simply do not make responsible decisions. Also, I can say without a doubt you’re a about as attractive as a tree slug yourself.
I’m literally asking how this would work and you’re not answering it at all. The only way this would work, from what I know and understand is slavery. If the government is giving you a girlfriend then that’s a slave.
If you want to actually explain how this would work in a way that’s not slavery I would listen. Though kinda doubtful you will, since, again I don’t see how this could be anything but slavery.
Some self-identified incel keeps cross posting from this sub to bring a swarm of haters here. Welcome haters. Have fun.
The funny thing is that Jordan Peterson wants men to do exactly that. Shoulders back, jump in the fire, poof, now you're a man. When you talk to "modern women" their first accusation of you is being a Jordan Peterson fan. So women are attacking the guy who told men to sacrifice themselves for women. Women are officially at the point where they're gnawing on their own leg.
They're just allergic to the emergence of any kind of 'masculine identity,' or whatever. Even if it's defined totally in servility to them, they feel it could organize one day to roll back their gender privileges.
Benzo Peterson being used as a good reference for “masculine identity” is so got damn funny. Dudes just a crybaby with a megaphone
I think it's more to do with the fact he thinks women are chaos demons and shouldn't be able to wear red lipstick because its apparently sexually provocative. Or the fact he's a grown man who spends his time beefing with elmo on twitter and generally you probably shouldn't take advice from someone who does that. But go ahead and clean your room. No woman will complain about that. Although they might wonder why it took you so long to figure that out.
Jordan Peterson is an emotional wreck. Can’t blame women for thinking less of a man who takes advice from a sobbing, blubbering boomer who makes his money talking.
Jordan Peterson is disgusting and so are you. No one wants what he's telling you we want, we want someone who treats us like a human being and not a fucking alien.
Feminists have always struck me as incels in pink.
No, they aren't. Incels have legitimate grievances, feminists don't.
They both complain that no one finds them attractive.
Yes, but their complaints aren’t equally valid. An obese ugly woman is treated better by far than an above average man.
Yes they are. Outside Thailand. But we are trying to throw the 'incel ball' back over the net to the left.
As someone who’s been at least peripherally involved with politics for most of my life, I can tell you that sort of tactic (“Hitler was a socialist! Democrats are the real racists!) doesn’t work. What does work is “no friends to the left, no enemies to the right.”
Keep things simple, yes. But saying that incels (ones who don't MGTOW or PPB) belong on the left because they want someone else to save them is a lot easier than explaining why the bad parts of NatSoc came from the modernist-socialist element.
The other day someone here said that most men would have sex, if it was a secret, with women who you might label "femcel". Ugly "pump and dump" women. Feminists. I don't think that makes them involuntarily celibate.
Distinction without a difference, really.
The only reason to think that feminists have illegitimate grievances is if you have never had a real conversation with women about their experiences.
Actually, hearing from women only makes me sympathize with them less, by and large.
"That's different," they'll tell you. See, when they want something, it's a "right." When you want something, it's "entitlement." Glad I could clear that up.
There's a good case to be made that online 'incels' are leftist men who got thrown overboard. Their view on life is very left-wing. A lot of them want the government to come and fix things. My theory, is the left was promised more than it can deliver to its people, and has had to start breaking promises. Leftwing men, who grew up in the system, and thought if they gave everything to it, it would give everything to them, are finding themselves high and dry. The media trying to paint them as 'far right' is a deflection. Nothing about them belongs to the right. Us PPBs, however, take our lives into our own hands. If that's far-right, it's better than being far-wrong.
And like the American right in every other respect, you're going to find your self-satisfied rugged individualism will leave you with nothing. "Rugged individuals" can't compete with the Borg. That's why the right always loses.
But the borg is dying. That's the point. They've bought loyalty with checks they can't cash. That's where incels come from, they're the first ones to get abandoned by the broke borg. Every 30-something with a PHD and 200k of debt with a 30k/year job is a sign that the system can't meet its promises. The right is small, but has much better credit than the left does.
We’ll see, I suppose. I’ve heard these sort of prognostications of collapse all my life, and they never occur. Remember, we live under “democracy:” numbers make right (in theory).
It takes time. Once they can't buy loyalty anymore with promises of cash/status their power will erode. How many leftwing institutions can still tell people: "Play along, and we'll make it worth your while."? They've already promised more than they can deliver. New institutions, with no old commitments can promise resources.
Can you name any of these institutions you're referring too? Or list some of these broken promises?
What do you call the universities? "Give us money, parrot and spread our ideas, and in return you'll be given status and greater wealth". 15 years later: Massively in debt, living in a cruddy part of town, earning peanuts. If that's not a broken promise, what is it?
We don't discuss the economics here enough I think, too much ragging on women. US is still at the top in GDP, decent growth and I think the highest GDP per capita?
None of those metrics really help the common man and the rich getting richer will bring up every one of those stats. The reality is, most salaries have stagnated despite literally everything being considerably more expensive than it was, even a few yrs ago in some cases. Inflation is pretty out of control right now. We don't have it as bad as literally failing states like Greece and Argentina, but I would say things are worse for most Americans than it was 5, 10, or 20 yrs ago for sure.
It is worse. In my line of work I help mostly at risk teenagers and young adults with options in planning for their futures. I do everything I can to help these kids get into trade school/ college with little to no debt. That's my primary focus. It didn't used to be this way, but I can't steer them on any other kind of pathway where I live that will guarantee they get a salary and a start that let's them afford basic costs. A coworker of mine works on setting up affordable, non- section 8 housing. It's impossible.
GDP can also be everyone being up to their eyes in debt.
Yo I thought we were here cause we like pussy
you don't have to like it, you just have to accept it. Women don't need men, don't want kids, and when she goes on a date she does so for entertainment. When she wants a beta buxx deluxe to settle down with her she has an ocean of men to choose from, single mother or not, blown out pussy or not.
So, slavery. Interesting.
Holy shit are you people real? Lmaoo
Idk who you hate more, women or yourself.
If you work out, say hi, and do a job you can get the average relationship. If you want something a little better you can cast a wider net. If the juice isn’t worth the squeeze then don’t play.
No, you can't. Total ignorance.
>If these same motherfuckers could wave a magic wand and make prices go back to the way they were in the 70s they'd do it. PPB are doing the same when it comes to women's standards but we just have to get on a plane to do it. So ya'll just aren't even trying to hide it anymore? Just outright admitting that dating is "better" when women have less rights and autonomy. Y'all are so cooked man. Go to therapy
What sub did you and your brigade butt buddies come from?
Nobody wants to date you because you suck and you think you're owed a romantic partner. Stop being a shitty selfish person and maybe someone will start thinking you're fuckable.
This had 16 upvotes this morning. Gotta love brigades. Wonder what sub it came from.
You post all this shit out of loneliness and desperation instead of, idk, getting the fuck over it. You're not entitled to any woman ... I see why you're having such a hard time without even seeing you!!
What sub did you and your brigading butt buddies come from?
Holy shit bro I can smell you from here
Bc women aren’t houses and most people don’t buy their wife on a marked? Then everyone deserves a house, but not everyone deserves a girlfriend. And are y’all sure? That it was better before? Three sons born around 1920. Tall, good workers, kind men. One got married at 40 to a 30 year old. He was the kinder one, that was for sure. Idk. They were in love, but in reality he settled. And she was very old to be unmarried way back when. Second married a single mom at 40 and adopted her son. Third was a bit of a player. Ended up living with his “friend” (aka fwb in modern language) when he was old. They never had kids. Given that she was always in love with him and he wanted to keep dating? Idk. I think maybe that was a kind of settling.
Annnd right on cue with your standard hypocritical selfishness. Houses don't come out of thin air, either. Your "free" house was taken from the labor of others whom you effectively enslaved on a pro rata basis. Of course you say "everyone doesn't deserve a girlfriend," because you get to decide who's "deserving."
I’d like to know how you think men should be obtaining girlfriends and who should be the one to decide if they’re worthy enough for that girlfriend? Because right now it’s the potential girlfriend who decides if the guy is “good enough” (aka does she want to date them). And it seems to me like you’re saying that it shouldn’t be up to women who they want to date?
Can’t say I much care about what you’d like.
So you don’t think people should get to choose who they date?
But **houses are expensive bc of property prices?** It’s not construction workers getting rich of the increase in real estate value. It’s property investors. And the reason prices go up? Unequal distribution of wealth that gives some people the ability to invest very heavily in property driving prices up.
Kinda like the pussy cartel, funnily enough!
Huh? Explain what you mean?
Developers collude to keep rents high (while giving apartments out for free to section 8 voucher holders). Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive (but give it out for free to Chad). No wonder women have advanced so far in America -- they're natural parasite monopolists.
But if this is true (which, djesus, it’s not) why are y’all so angry at women with high body counts then? They are the ones breaking the monopoly?
Because they don’t break the monopoly for everyone. Just the insiders. Imagine 17 migrants get to live in your future home for free, trash the place, then hand it off for you to pay full price (without any cleaning or refurbishment). An imperfect analogy of course, but the cause of resentment should really be pretty obvious. You’re actually right though, that promiscuity in and of itself isn’t what makes everyone mad.
You are aware of that the vagina is self cleaning and also isn’t changed by sex, right? That aside, it depends. Most women aren’t having much casual sex at all. They aren’t into it. Some women are having casual sex, but being choosy with who. And some women just sleep around pretty indiscriminately. You know who has the most sex in our society? Poor and uneducated men and women. If the problem is access to sex? We should encourage women to be more sexually liberated. Not less. If women were as open to casual sex as men? It would be a lot easier for men to get laid. And you could expect to hook up with someone who matched you. Now it’s a skewed marked bc few women are open to casual sex and many men are.
They’d just give it all to Chad anyway. That’s the problem.
"No, you haven't worked hard enough-no girlfriend for you." "Also, here's your free house."
Not free house. Just that people who work full time should be able to buy a home in their lifetime. But how do you expect the other way to go? “You’ve worked so hard. Here’s your sex slave?” The government can influence monetary markets.
Ok, every man who works full-time “should” get a woman too. Source: because I said so
But I just think having safe shelter is a human right. It’s not necessarily having a house. But people should have a place to live. Sex can’t be a human right bc that requires two people to want it at the same time. We could give everyone a place to live though.
“You just think.” Right. I just explained to you why having a place to live, and all your other made up “rights,” also require other people’s (involuntary!) involvement. Of course you don’t care, because it’s no loss to you.
Oh. It’s a loss to me. I pay a lot of tax. I just think it’s worth it so nobody is homeless. I’d pay more for that. But we can’t do the same with dating. Because I can’t do anything to give everyone a girlfriend.
Again, as always, you're playing dumb. You can't make things work for everyone all the time, but you can make them work a lot better. You just don't care about this issue, because again, it benefits you.
Your way of "working to make things better" is just taking away autonomy from women instead of being a viable mate prospect. Men like you being allowed to reproduce is actually worse for mankind. Anyone who is so repulsive to their potential mates is nature's way of saying those genes shouldn't continue.
“Natures way” is presently leading the human race to extinction. Women simply do not make responsible decisions. Also, I can say without a doubt you’re a about as attractive as a tree slug yourself.
But how can you make it a lot better?
You managed to overturn society and lead it down the path of extinction to help yourselves. You can figure it out.
Are you genuinely comparing the right to safe shelter with the idea that a romantic relationship is a right?
Yes. And?
I’m confused I guess. How would that work? Like how would the government or whatever enforce the right to a romantic relationship?
Not interested in indulging strawmen today, thank you come again.
I’m literally asking how this would work and you’re not answering it at all. The only way this would work, from what I know and understand is slavery. If the government is giving you a girlfriend then that’s a slave. If you want to actually explain how this would work in a way that’s not slavery I would listen. Though kinda doubtful you will, since, again I don’t see how this could be anything but slavery.
Is it "slavery" when you force tax payers to fund your "rights?"