Neckbeard Subreddits Bother Me

xDubLifex · 2022-08-01T23:52:53+00:00

It seems like the majority of stories are women getting angry that socially inept men can't read their minds. If you choose to not DIRECTLY let someone...

[–]HikuroMishiro 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xDubLifex[S] 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]g1455ofwater 26 points27 points28 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forcetobereckonedwit 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Hamster5571 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trev6ft5 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mother-Key582 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Significant_Rub6632 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KotzubueSailingClub 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antifeminist3 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ferbuggity 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I absolutely agree with you, on most points.

However, I can't have my head in the sand that there's a lot of men out there who are severely emotionally disturbed, as well, and troll dating sites and social media for easy sex, turning extremely vicious and even scary when refused.. that's not 'awkward', it's 'disturbed'. Yes, I like, love, and support men -- but I can't and won't support that behaviour. And I think excusing them or denying that their shit behaviour is shit (as happens at times) is not helping anyone or anything. They need to be called on it, and I'm glad they are.

That said, viciousness and idiocy are the domain of far too many women as well. The trend of ridiculing men to gain 'woke points' is extremely harmful, and women engaging in it ought to be ashamed of themselves. I think the internet allows people to act in some very sociopathic ways they'd never do in person, and it's sad that so many these days only have the net to guide them socially.

In my experience, having real conversations with people, genuine ones, is a good way to circumvent a lot of internet-created bullshit. I really notice it here... the more people genuinely discuss issues and forget about having to "win", the more empathy they have. I have certainly changed my views on a few things thanks to guys explaining things to me from their own pov.

[–]bottleblank 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

However, I can't have my head in the sand that there's a lot of men out there who are severely emotionally disturbed, as well, and troll dating sites and social media for easy sex, turning extremely vicious and even scary when refused.. that's not 'awkward', it's 'disturbed'.

Many of whom are socially successful and not the unfortunate social cripples so often lambasted online.

The problem often seems to be that two extremes of men are lumped together in the same category: actual, genuine, law-breaking, violent sex offenders and hardcore (real) misogynists - rightly so, if they seek to harm or disregard their victims as human beings - and awkward, socially-inexperienced, potentially less successful or less attractive men, who are not necessarily violent or misogynistic, but are painted as being that anyway as an easy way to disregard them as human beings.

The serial womanisers, bed-hoppers, casually offensive, casually violent men keep getting dates. People fall for them all the damn time. You can argue that they're included as targets when feminist messaging points out that men behave badly, as in the stories of wolf-whistling and such, but these men are very often successful, because they just don't care. They have all the confidence in the world, or sufficient ignorance that they never question whether they're infringing on another person's day, or headspace.

Yet men who aren't experienced, men who aren't massively good-looking, men who have had to scrape together ideas about what women find attractive from outdated social environments, movies, and pure fantasy, who might have had to develop solo or niche interests because of a lack of opportunities to do much of anything else, they get crapped on and painted as "creepy", "weird", anoraks, nerds, no-hopers, ignorant of the respect women deserve, and even probable future violent rapists (or terrorists - see "incel"). Many of these men literally care too much. Sure, they might get it wrong. Sure, they're not confident. Sure, they're awkward. But it doesn't mean there's any malice behind it, they just haven't been able to get the social training and self-esteem it takes to "put yourself out there". It doesn't mean they're somehow secretly nasty, scheming, evil, woman-hating troglodytes.

[–]Ferbuggity 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Bingo. Nail on the head there, I think. And they are the ones being called "incels" and "neckbeards" with not wholly undeserved hostility.

I don't think they are though. The socially successful men I speak of are the ones who seem to have no trouble getting friends and relationships, even if they don't care to keep them - the users, the abusers, the "I don't care as long as I get a shag". Often well-presented or sufficiently charismatic that it doesn't especially matter. They might turn on you or dump you on a whim, but they'll get their piece before they do.

But society seems not to mind them as much as they mind the "nerds", the "neckbeards", the "virgins", and so on. It's not new either. Anecdotally we could all tell stories of women getting with men who are clearly bastards, quite willingly, for unfathomable reasons, but we can also point to numerous long-standing social and media memes of the shy guys, the technical guys, the "boring", "weird", "scary" nerds - read "virgins", and now "incels" - who just don't have the tools to speak to women, not necessarily through any fault of their own, just simple lack of opportunity and practice.

(Edit: I will acknowledge that there are some "neckbeards" who do get very upset and angry at rejection or their own social inadequacy, and that - I agree - does deserve some scorn. It's not fair to take that out on other people.

However, I believe that many of them end up in that position because getting constantly rejected and ostracised even when you're not actually trying to socialise with a girl or woman for the purposes of getting in their pants is incredibly grating, and if they feel they're genuinely trying to be nice, and to be part of the group, and get along with people, it's very confusing and emotionally draining to keep getting told to "go away".

But there's no differentiation, it's just blind hate towards anybody who's socially awkward, which pushes boys and men who otherwise wouldn't have been damaged into the same space as those who are.)

I don't think that many women can distinguish between 'awkward' and 'sociopathic' anymore, thanks to the seethings of feminism.

That much I certainly agree with, however unfortunate it is to have to acknowledge such miserable realisation.

Excellent post as usual, bottle-o. Lots to think about.

Don't know if we're quite on the same wavelength with this one, but thanks. Definitely prefer a constructive chat than an insult-slinging contest!

[–]Ferbuggity 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mimmimmim 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I think we kind of are copacetic, I might not be expressing myself very well today, which is quite likely. I meant 'bingo' on the two groups being mushed together, and feministic kneejerk manhate correlating them by default.

Ah right, yeah, then we agree on that. :)

I'm trying to get a bead on the guys who feature in subs like r/niceguys where there is commonly both vast misbehaviour and vast misunderstanding. It's this brand of misbehaviour I was talking about, and I'm not sure what kind of person acts that way --- they are always called 'incels' but the behaviours don't match up.

I think you're right, I don't think these guys are incels. Clueless, certainly. Pushy, possibly. Unnervingly oblivious, sometimes.

But those definitely can be signs of inexperience, as we're not really taught how to engage in a potential relationship beyond the same useless platitudes that get us into this mess in the first place.

"Be confident", for example. "Women love confidence, they won't bother with you if you stink of desperation and fear". Fine. But what does that look like to a guy who doesn't know what that looks like? It probably looks like being a bit forward, a bit aggressive, a bit overenthusiastic, right? Some of them may have fallen for the PUA "negging" advice, as another example. Not cool, obviously, but who's giving the real advice?

I don't mean to completely excuse misbehaviour, or complete unlearning ignorance, but of the stories posted there which are real (and I suspect many aren't), I bet I could explain how they might've happened with perfectly innocent intentions (if somewhat kneejerk frustration at not finding any kind of reciprocation).

I get it, I get that women don't want to be approached by clueless dudes who try to brute-force their way to figuring out how to form relationships, but if we're never actually told, and we're never given the opportunities to practice, of course that's going to lead to continued social inadequacy and frustration!

Frankly, I can't explain some of them. I can't explain why some men think sending dick picks is OK. I can't explain why somebody would open a conversation with something blatantly offensive.

But then I also can't explain why anybody thinks a lot of those posts are about "nice guys", because even the ones who are being nice to get their end away aren't that stupid. Nor can I explain why the responses are so disproportionate, the "woe betide any man who gets it wrong, even by accident, in a minor way" type stuff.

I think a lot of the stories posted there are just people being arseholes. Not (necessarily) "nice guys", whether they be genuinely misguided actually nice guys, or the ones trying to get laid and bounce right afterwards. I really don't think they come across as incels, and as I've said elsewhere, a lot of incels are actually pretty smart, eloquent, thoughtful, and wouldn't actively sabotage their own chances like that - they just wouldn't even bother, because they "know" that nobody's going to say yes already. Some exceptions apply, I'm sure, especially young, angry, spiteful types who are pissed off that they seem not to be worthy of anybody's attention. But that would be an unfair generalisation to assign to all incels, or all lonely/socially clueless men.

Edit: Since I just saw it mentioned there, how did "white knight" become a thing? The new word is "simp", of course, but they're more or less the same thing. I grew up being taught - rightly or wrongly - to "treat women right", which often means doing things for them, helping them out, being especially nice to them. I guess that would make me, if I were active in the dating game, "a simp". How - even in the context of "nice guys" being an insult - did "being nice to a woman you'd like to have a stronger relationship with" become bad?!

[–]Ferbuggity 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I really don't think they come across as incels, and as I've said
elsewhere, a lot of incels are actually pretty smart, eloquent,
thoughtful, and wouldn't actively sabotage their own chances like that

.. as I thought. They tend to use a lot of the same buzzwords/phrases too, so that's worth investigating.

How - even in the context of "nice guys" being an insult - did "being
nice to a woman you'd like to have a stronger relationship with" become bad?!

From what I can gather, it's meant to apply to male feminists or men otherwise currying favour from a woman by leaping to her defense, no matter what a crazy bitch she is being. Then I guess it gets applied by radical mangroups to any man who doesn't fundamentally despise women in general. I could be wrong, but to me that's the gist of it.

[–]bottleblank 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

.. as I thought. They tend to use a lot of the same buzzwords/phrases too, so that's worth investigating.

I don't know if I've recommended it to you (specifically) before, but I'd check out Naama Kates' Incel podcast if you're interested in what many of them actually think.

Most of the episodes are around interviewing and digging into what they feel, what their histories are, how they got there, what they feel about the future, that sort of stuff. It's really the only current, consistently running podcast (or any media, really) that I know of which covers it from that point of view. Listener discretion is advised, of course, because some dark topics do come up. But if you're looking for that kind of insight, that's the place to get this stuff right from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

Some interviewees are more polite and eloquent and others, but I think you'll get a pretty good picture of what incels - even the ones in the communities and forums - actually think, feel, want, have experienced, and so on. I'm sure there's some element of self-selection, and I imagine she would be hesitant to air an interview which was a wall to wall misogynistic rant full of the absolute worst swearing and insults with no redeeming insight, but she's let a bunch of really troubled guys talk. Couple of girls too, if you're interested in that perspective. Also a small handful of episodes with discussions by experts in psychology and stuff.

It's a ton of super useful content all in one place.

From what I can gather, it's meant to apply to male feminists or men otherwise currying favour from a woman by leaping to her defense, no matter what a crazy bitch she is being. Then I guess it gets applied by radical mangroups to any man who doesn't fundamentally despise women in general. I could be wrong, but to me that's the gist of it.

Yeah, that's how I've always understood it - I guess what they also call "an orbiter" these days too. A guy who hangs around a woman, acts like her friend (he may be her friend, obviously these external observers don't know, it doesn't mean they're right to think about him as a chancer), stands up for/promotes her, being a "nice guy", waiting for that shot to get into her underwear. That he's not really there for the friendship or to treat her with the respect she deserves, but instead just putting it on until he can get what he wants.

But I think that's incredibly uncharitable towards men who are just friends, even if they develop feelings for something more, it doesn't mean that's all they want or ever wanted. Sometimes we just become familiar with a woman and enjoy her company more and more, until we reach a stage where we'd like to develop something more with them. Not even necessarily sex, just more closeness, you know?

As with the incel/neckbeard terms, like you say, it's just blatant corruption and misuse of terms which might once have referred to men with unfortunate agendas and manipulative behaviours, but now is just slang for "guy I don't like, even if I don't know him, because he's a man and therefore must have an ulterior motive".

I feel it's incredibly damaging to gender relations, and must surely be perpetuated by people arguing in bad faith. Particularly as it counters the exact opposite expectation - and indeed propaganda - that men absolutely should be defending women, treating them as goddesses, and so on.

[–]Ferbuggity 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know if I've recommended it to you (specifically) before, but I'd check out Naama Kates' Incel podcast if you're interested in what many of them actually think.

Never heard of it.... sounds really interesting, I will definitely check that out.

But I think that's incredibly uncharitable towards men who are just friends, even if they develop feelings for something more, it doesn't mean that's all they want or ever wanted. Sometimes we just become familiar with a woman and enjoy her company more and more, until we reach a stage where we'd like to develop something more with them. Not even necessarily sex, just more closeness, you know?

Yep, I do. When people try to tell me that men and women can't be friends it makes me laugh.. I have been blessed with such wonderful male friends all of my life.

Uncharitable, indeed. But then, I don't keep pet men around to defend me when I act out, and the like.

[–]bottleblank 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mimmimmim 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Some of them may have fallen for the PUA "negging" advice, as another example. Not cool, obviously, but who's giving the real advice?

I hate when people mention PUAs and negging while demonstrating they don't understand what negging is.

There are multiple schools of thought behind the neg, none of which are really manipulative. Neg stands for "negate" not "negative". They're definitely a bit irreverent, but the goal is more to avoid "reflexive" rejection or to demonstrate you're not putting her up on a pedestal and stand out.

Namely the theory goes that especially very attractive girls get hit on a lot. If you approach and hit on her she will reject you without really thinking about it. If you instead say something that someone hitting on a girl usually wouldn't take the risk in saying (like asking if her nails are real), you avoid that reflex, and force her to actively engage, where you have a better shot at not being rejected.

I'm not really into the PUA/seduction community, but I actually bothered to look up when a neg was, and now I am cursed with having to explain it till the end of time.

[–]bottleblank 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mimmimmim 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I can respect that it wasn't your intention, but I believe that is a fair reading of the language you used. Specifically the notion of "falling" for the advice, which, to me, carries a connotation of being tricked into following the advice, as if the advice wouldn't work, or is inherently bad.

I wasn't referring to it as a manipulation tactic (although I would argue that the entire point behind PUA is to "play the game" and maximise your understanding of "the rules" so you can score when you otherwise wouldn't have).

I think this is an over-broad interpretation of manipulation. Like, if I hit on 10 women, do I have to say the same thing to the 10th woman as the 1st even if it isn't working? I'm trying to maximize my odds of success by making that change. Does it only become manipulation when someone else tells me what worked and didn't work for them? It seems quite arbitrary.

Just straight up insulting. They might have expected different results, or thought they were doing what they heard they were supposed to be, but took it way too far

From just one google googling of "pua negging", the three PUA-sites I see all explicitly warn about this, one says negs are overused, another suggests to use an entirely different tactic instead, and the third just warns.

[–]bottleblank 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I can respect that it wasn't your intention, but I believe that is a fair reading of the language you used. Specifically the notion of "falling" for the advice, which, to me, carries a connotation of being tricked into following the advice, as if the advice wouldn't work, or is inherently bad.

That was a bit ambiguous, admittedly. What I intended to convey was that they took the suggestion rather literally, at face value, because that's (as your earlier point about people misunderstanding what it means suggests) a common misinterpretation of it. A naivety, if you will.

I think this is an over-broad interpretation of manipulation. Like, if I hit on 10 women, do I have to say the same thing to the 10th woman as the 1st even if it isn't working? I'm trying to maximize my odds of success by making that change. Does it only become manipulation when someone else tells me what worked and didn't work for them? It seems quite arbitrary.

I think what I'd say is that, in a reasonable adult environment, one might expect a natural conversation to occur and that it wouldn't necessarily need to be pre-planned or with formulated lines and games to try and "win". It would just be two people, talking to each other, organically bonding and getting to know each other, you know? Even if that is multiple people in a night, or over some longer time, because previous attempts didn't pan out. Like speed dating, for example. You're not going to like everyone, so try your luck with a few. I think that's perfectly reasonable, as long as you don't go around spending 2 minutes on each woman in the place desperately trying to get one of them to give you a blowjob.

From just one google googling of "pua negging", the three PUA-sites I see all explicitly warn about this, one says negs are overused, another suggests to use an entirely different tactic instead, and the third just warns.

I wouldn't assume everybody gets their advice from the same place, though. This stuff is/has been passed around by YouTube videos, forums, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, word of mouth, whatever - not necessarily with context and warnings intact.

I'm not keen on the whole idea, personally. At least not in the way PUAs are commonly believed to work. I don't think it's intrinsically evil or manipulative for a man to be forewarned of potential traps, or steered towards a better approach, but I don't like that it's an "industry" or that the goal isn't to help people, quite often, it's to become a cult of personality with a crowd of hungry guys wanting to throw money at you to fix their problems.

[–]mimmimmim1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I intended to convey was that they took the suggestion rather literally, at face value, because that's (as your earlier point about people misunderstanding what it means suggests) a common misinterpretation of it. A naivety, if you will.

I would suggest this is not much of a PUA piece of advise though. The people who advance that form of negging are almost entirely people critical of PUAs, using it as an example of how creepy and manipulative PUAs are. As far as I can tell it is largely one of those memes that nobody ever bothers to fact check, and anyone pointing out that it isn't correct just gets shouted down for daring to defend PUAs.

one might expect a natural conversation to occur and that it wouldn't necessarily need to be pre-planned or with formulated lines and games to try and "win". It would just be two people, talking to each other, organically bonding and getting to know each other, you know?

I think this is a very particular perspective on how things should work, that ignores people who don't or cannot work like this. Is someone autistic, who simply uses "scripts" to approximate a natural conversation being deeply manipulative, by not instead presenting as their authentic autistic self? Or who, even when presenting as themselves, wanting to not be too weird, decides to say, let the other person talk, every once in a while?

Perhaps to be a bit more relevant, if a guy is trying to have casual sex with women, and just absolutely cannot manage, is he just obligated to keep on failing over and over, and cannot even just internally "non-naturally" try to experiment and strategize to improve his odds?

Also, at least from the bit I've seen the only truly planned things are opening lines, which, you cannot really avoid starting a conversation being unnatural.

I wouldn't assume everybody gets their advice from the same place, though. This stuff is/has been passed around by YouTube videos, forums, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, word of mouth, whatever - not necessarily with context and warnings intact.

My point of pulling from three different sites was that I think warnings are pretty common across multiple sources.

but I don't like that it's an "industry" or that the goal isn't to help people, quite often, it's to become a cult of personality with a crowd of hungry guys wanting to throw money at you to fix their problems.

I don't like the industrialization of anything either. There certainly is plenty of cringe I've seen and desperate people are always easy to sell shit to.

[–]bottleblank1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is someone autistic, who simply uses "scripts" to approximate a natural conversation being deeply manipulative, by not instead presenting as their authentic autistic self?

I mean, I am (officially) on the spectrum, and I hold the view I presented above, preferring the more organic method.

But, actually, yes, I would say that to some extent it could be considered an inaccurate portrayal for an autistic person to train and come specifically prepared for attempting to date, because that's not necessarily how they're going to be when the relationship ages by... more than a couple of hours.

I don't mean that to sound harsh or exclusionary, I feel that autistic people should be able to be loved, and capable of engaging in a way that allows them to make progress. I don't even think it's necessarily manipulative, if you're up-front about needing prompts, reminders, etc.

But masking and preparation can only get you so far, compared to the ongoing needs and stresses of an actual relationship, beyond dating and initial attraction, and that's not how you're going to be if it comes to something more serious. I suppose there's an argument to be made for "fake it 'til you make it", but if "making it" ultimately doesn't happen - and, for many, it won't - you can't fake it forever, it's going to become obvious to your partner that something's not right here, or that it's more than they signed up for. Especially if you get easily stressed and have meltdowns with excessive socialisation, overstimulation, or social difficulties with disagreements, or long rambling monologues about a favoured subject. It's going to show, eventually, even if you're quite good at masking you'll end up getting fatigued and the mask will fall. So in a sense, perhaps it's better to just be up-front?

Edit: I should say that there's obviously a case for putting your best foot forward, everybody tries to sell themselves to some extent, but when the gap between "what I showed you that night we met" and "what I am day to day" is potentially far larger than normal, things are going to get awkward.

[–]mimmimmim1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean, I am (officially) on the spectrum, and I hold the view I presented above, preferring the more organic method.

Then do you feel that when you developed scripts, that you were being manipulative? That is the question. Not what your preference is, but if it amounts to manipulation or not.

I would say that to some extent it could be considered an inaccurate portrayal for an autistic person to train and come specifically prepared for attempting to date, because that's not necessarily how they're going to be when the relationship ages by... more than a couple of hours.

First, who says that you want a relationship longer than a couple of hours? Second, it isn't necessarily about having a specifically prepared script, but any form of script at all. Even just pieces of memorized small talk that they use in other interactions in their life are scripts.

I feel that autistic people should be able to be loved, and capable of engaging in a way that allows them to make progress. I don't even think it's necessarily manipulative, if you're up-front about needing prompts, reminders, etc.

This strikes me as this conversation having completely lost the plot.

But masking and preparation can only get you so far, compared to the ongoing needs and stresses of an actual relationship, beyond dating and initial attraction, and that's not how you're going to be if it comes to something more serious

Who says you're having an actual relationship and not just casual sex?

I suppose there's an argument to be made for "fake it 'til you make it", but if "making it" ultimately doesn't happen - and, for many, it won't - you can't fake it forever, it's going to become obvious to your partner that something's not right here, or that it's more than they signed up for.

Just because you're starting off the bat trying to represent yourself the best way possible, doesn't mean it isn't your genuine self, or that you are being manipulative. There is a massive difference between putting on a front, and working on and improving your socialization with people. I feel like you think this is some massive dog and pony show, when this actually encompasses literally any action you take which makes it less likely you're going to get rejected, or end up at the end position you want. So that includes things that literally just revolve around starting the conversation, which is the absolute hardest part.

Especially if you get easily stressed and have meltdowns with excessive socialisation, overstimulation, or social difficulties with disagreements, or long rambling monologues about a favoured subject. It's going to show, eventually, even if you're quite good at masking you'll end up getting fatigued and the mask will fall. So in a sense, perhaps it's better to just be up-front?

Or, maybe don't lead with those things, and mention those early but not right away? And work on finding a way to explain them where the other person has an accurate understanding but not one that causes them to overestimate the amount of energy or effort needed on their part, .etc. All of that is part of selling yourself well, and can increase the odds of getting what you want, but none of that is manipulative.

Title	Neckbeard Subreddits Bother Me
Author	xDubLifex
Upvotes	100
Comments	29
Date	August 1, 2022 11:52 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wdwe1q/neckbeard_subreddits_bother_me/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/neckbeard-subreddits-bother-me.1126216 https://theredarchive.com/post/1126216

Comments