I can't even login to my computer without some Gynocentric propaganda

[–]pilledwillingly279 points280 points281 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]RunawayGrain52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilledwillingly28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KeyesKush11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]curiouslyengaged4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXx420VTECxXx0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditSilverRobot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leithz6 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilledwillingly0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]leithz6 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillBastard 111 points112 points113 points 9 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]divergentseries32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]divergentseries8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Indeed, but there have been a lot of forces trying to hold back the Internet and all have failed so far. The whole net neutrality fiasco is just the latest and I don't think that even that will prevail. There is just SO much value in the Internet that people simply won't be willing to give it up. If your business can't adapt it will simply be crushed.

Self-driving cars will be the same way. There may be lots of people who don't want them, but one way or another when they really work they're just going to take over everything. Ditto for any other kind of automation.

I get that feminists hate sex robots, but I think they'll be powerless to really stop that also. In the end though we won't know until it has been tried.

Ultimately the nature of game-changing ideas is that they really do change the game. It doesn't matter if you're amazing at playing the old game. The rug still gets yanked out from under you.

[–]newMGTOW2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, it will probably be a while before it happens, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it just yet.

However, I think it will be inevitable when it does happen.

First it will be an option that makes life easier. It will be expensive, but one of those things a lot of people will spring for.

Then prices will drop and it will be nearly standard, or a very easy to obtain option. It will start to be seen on the used market.

By now insurance data starts to show up, and you'll start getting a discount for having it.

The technology keeps improving. In countless insurance disputes the fault always ends up with the human driver, supported by tons of recorded video/telemetry/rangefinding data showing every car within 100 yards and its exact speed leading up to the crash.

Insurance companies start significantly segmenting the pricing. Almost all insurance costs for an automated car are for non-collision costs or other-party coverage like underinsured coverage. For a non-automated car the costs go up, as they're now bearing the entire cost of accidents.

Automotive fatalities have been dropping significantly. Now the ones that still happen start getting more attention. They all involve a non-automated car. Since drunk driving is no longer a problem and MADD doesn't want to disband and fire all their executives, they take up the crusade against manual driving.

At some point it is illegal to put steering wheels in new cars. At a later point it is illegal to use a manually driveable car on-road. Used/classic car owners are outraged, but the political ads in favor of the law feature a photo of that kid who was run over by a car from the 1960s last year.

Enforcement of the law is airtight. If your car is seen on a road by an automated car and doesn't attempt to make contact to coordinate the license plate is automatically relayed to the police.

I get where you're coming from, but just as I don't think the feminists can stop a truly revolutionary idea, neither can you or I.

[–]UDP-glucose 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grogans1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]newMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

are you sure manual cars will end up illegal?

same could be said for microwaves and ovens, it meant we didn't need to use open fires but open fires are still legal, also it lends a taste to the food that electronic equipment cannot do. fires are still arguably more dangerous.

Also what about viruses/hacking? they've shown that if your car connects to the internet it can be hacked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXfCNwMG64 anything that is controlled electronically it can be manipulated if there is an internet connection, usually through the head unit of a car. It's probably a good idea to disconnect any part of the car that can connect to the internet, just use your phone as a GPS or something and a head unit without Bluetooth.

Now with self driving cars, you have even more things in it that can be controlled remotely. There has already been 2 controversial and fatal crashes involving tesla autopilot and a recent mercedes with many electronic components. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3038085/michael-hastings-crash-wikileaks/

And what if some guy finds a vulnerability and spreads something like the recent wannacrypt virus except it fucks with your car? that could be extremely problematic.

[–]video_descriptionbot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

SECTION	CONTENT
Title	Hacking a Car with an Ex-NSA Hacker: CYBERWAR (Clip)
Description	Ex-NSA hacker Charles Miller demonstrates to Ben Makuch the dangers of hacking a car, and explains the cyber vulnerabilities of machines we use in our everyday lives. WATCH NEXT: Justifying the Crime: New Jersey’s Carjacking Crews (BLACK MARKET Clip): http://bit.ly/29AD4Tm Subscribe to MOTHERBOARD: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-To-MOTHERBOARD Follow MOTHERBOARD Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/motherboardtv Twitter: http://twitter.com/motherboard Tumblr: http://motherboardtv.tumblr.com/ Instagram:...
Length	0:05:25

^{I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply |}^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^{Reply STOP to opt out permanently}

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Obviously I can't be certain of anything concerning the future.

When an oven catches on fire, it usually doesn't kill anybody, and when it does it is very unlikely to kill anybody but the owner or their family. I have to imagine that the number of people killed per year from oven fires has to be very low - might be lower than people killed by lightning or meteors. Car crashes on the other hand kill something like 10k people per year in the US.

Sure, self-driving cars raise security concerns. Clearly they won't completely take over until those are addressed, just as they won't completely take over until their accident rates are much lower than that of human drivers. However, I don't think it is an unsolvable problem.

You actually understate your argument as far as self driving cars having things in it that can be controlled remotely. If you want your car to be able to do unoccupied trips the car must be remotely controllable to some extent. Sure, you could firewall the part that talks to the outside world and limit it to just providing destinations and allow occupants to override this, but a useful self-driving car would almost certainly be able to do things like drive itself to your location to give you a lift, or go park itself after dropping you off.

As with many things the problem is lazy engineering. There is no reason a car couldn't have one module that talks to the outside world, and that module couldn't have a very defined and limited interface. The problem is that engineers get lazy and just stick the UI in the entertainment system and then plug it into the CAN bus along with everything else. If you stuck a firewall in-between and had a tightly-defined protocol for sending data across it and carefully limited those messages it would be a much smaller attack surface to defend. For a self-driving car one of those messages might be to drive to a set of GPS coordinates or go park.

[–]newMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]poloppoyop1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PinHunter652 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]seekerofwisdom23 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, you know it. Turned out to be a defining moment in my life and one of the best things to ever happen to me. I only wish something like that had happened earlier in my life so I could've gone my own way sooner.

Anyway, unbeknownst to her, she accidentally left her Facebook open on her computer, so I actually was acutely aware of what was going on. Caught the bitch red handed, but of course she kept a straight face and lied all the way through... even with me quoting their exact written words to one another.

That was the first time I'd ever encountered such an extreme case of denial, and at that moment I understood that what I was dealing with had no shame, no morals, no humanity. Like some stupid animal, even when cornered and hopelessly outmatched, it kept fighting back the only way it knew how. It was frustrating, but even more pathetic.

That was the last time I trusted any woman. Decided to play the pro card and keep her around, though. Started turning the tables practically overnight. For over a year now she's been paying MY rent and taking ME out to dinner and doing whatever else she can to try to get me to give a fuck about her.

A while ago, she supposedly got drugged and raped by a bunch of her coworkers. I didn't even pretend to care, let alone waste any brain cells trying to decipher the "truth" of whatever happened. I'm completely emotionally detached.

She wanted Chad, and she fucking got him, by turning me into him.

Careful what you wish for, ladies.

[–]seekerofwisdom23 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sympathy? Hah. She came home with a serious medical condition a couple weeks ago and I didn't have an ounce of sympathy to throw her way (been made a fool too many times by that in the past); just took her to the hospital and kept reading my book.

Whenever she "works late" now, I just assume she's taking it from any of the 5-million horny guys on her Facebook or Instagram or whatever app of the month she's using. I ain't rude about it either; that's just the way women -- all women -- are these days, thanks in large part to technology making being a whore so easy, and all the evidence being erasable in a matter of seconds.

The only thing that smoothed my situation with her out, was right after she insinuated she'd tell the police I hit her (a lie, of course), I threatened to send videos to her family of her gargling my cum, along with all the evidence I'd collected of her slutting around with the whole neighborhood behind my back. With her coming from a traditional East Asian household, and me being on good terms with her maternal grandfather, my reaching straight for that nuclear option was the tipping point that finally saw her calming down and ceasing with her escalating lies. Pinched her fuse off about a nanosecond before the big bang.

The denial technically never ended, and I have not a doubt in my mind that she remained as much of a lying whore afterward as she was before, but at least she recognized that there are consequences to playing these sorts of games with me and she subsequently began playing by my rules.

I also learned to play her game. Say one thing, mean/do another -- I learned that from women, and especially from her. So whenever she asks me about marriage and children before she hits the wall, I smile and pretend that's totally in the cards for her, even though my heart's been totally blackened to the idea (with any woman).

I'm not sure if she's just playing along as well and knows the truth deep down inside. She should. But either way, when her time comes, I'll have all the options and all the say -- either she'll comply with my desires (open relationship that's 100% beneficial to me in every way), or I'll ditch her.

I played with her and got burned. Her turn is coming. I say that not out of malice or from any desire for revenge; the fates we all choose for ourselves are as inevitable as the passage of time.

[–]PinHunter650 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Over time our culture will adapt....thats interesting you say that. Have you ever heard of the mouse utopia experiment? Pretty interesting stuff. The findings basically said that an overpopulated utopia will inevitably end in the extinction of the population. Everything that happened to those mice, is evident in todays world. The similarities are astounding.

Do we really need to be having this conversation? Was MGTOW created because women have always been vile, or did the internet allow women to become more and more corrupt? You can argue that the internet and even technology have been these great advances....but what are we advancing to? Is our society really better than it was 60 years ago? Does having technology and video games and flashy screens really make for a better society?

You being paid to chat online.....does that really make a better society?

.......Does it even matter anymore?

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

IMO women are no different today than in the past. There are just fewer external constraints on their behavior, and even some legal structures that encourage it, like alimony.

I hadn't heard of the mouse utopia experiment but did a brief read via wikipedia/etc. My immediate reaction was that some of these behaviors might be unique to mice.

What specific behaviors from the mice are you seeing today? I don't think you could really make more than general comparisons considering that mice don't really have most of the behaviors people exhibit. To the extent that the same behaviors occur in people I'm not sure that the mechanisms would be the same.

Is our society really better than it was 60 years ago? Does having technology and video games and flashy screens really make for a better society?

Well, given a choice of living today or 60 years ago, I'd pick today. To really judge whether society is "better" we'd need to agree on some kind of criteria by which this is judged. Some might consider today an improvement, some might not, and I suspect it would come down to personal values.

[–]PinHunter651 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I do agree, mice and men are not the same thing. But, both humans and mice are both animals. Subject to the same evolutionary process. The study was interesting because it not only ended in extinction, but it happened every single time the experiment was done. The experiment itself was to test the effects of over-population.

A few key things the mice did: 1. They initially just started fucking, having babies, having one hell of a time. Getting that population way up there in a short amount of time. The graph then flat lines for a while before starting the sharp decent into extinction.

The mice, for all the space they had grouped themselves into tight packs. Almost like cities. They had all the space they wanted and decided to pack themselves in tightly into a defined space.
The mother mice almost forgot how to be mothers. They began to let their babies drop to the ground, and they just abandoned them. The parental side of the mouse dwindled quickly.
The mice started to kill eachother off, and eat eachother.
Complete and total loss and social structure. The last tally of mice (day 900 or so) was 3 males and 24 females. All completely healthy and able to reproduce.....But they didnt. They had lost the ability to be mice. They had lost all social knowledge. Even the alpha males in the end who had all the females, wouldnt reproduce.

How do these items correlate to humans? Well, you can already see the tightly packed cities that we have going on. With the outliers and country people (same as mouse utopia). Theres always been a friendly rivalry between city and country....what happens when the rivalry turns violent? You can also see both motherhood and social interaction being destroyed. Yes I know, we still have babies and go on dates. But just think of how much the social aspect has changed in the last 50 years. Just think about men. We used to never worry about women and would just ask them out. Now its all dating sites, and apps, and being social has gone to the wayside. Even if you wanted to approach in person, theres a chance you can get thrown in jail. You can also see it in mothers. Just think of many mothers are drowning their kids, or killing them off. Its behavior that makes you go, "wut?". Its the exact same thing that happened in the experiment. And lastly, well, were already killing eachother off. Its massive. Just think about how many people die everyday due to unnatural causes.

I dont think the question is if we are on the graph or not. I think the question is, where on the graph are we? Were already over populated. Were already fucking like rabbits. Our social structure is dying. Parental factors are dying. Were killing eachother off. The proof is already right there.

Ive heard the, "mice arent humans, humans are smarter, we would never let this happen, were evolved...blah blah blah" argument before. But Im pretty sure if this study was done with any other species of animal...the results would be the same. Humans are nothing but animals. Highly evolved, but still animals. Nature has a fail safe built into her. It doesnt allow massive over-population. The mice didnt know they were going extinct. They didnt know they were losing the ability to be mice. Humans wont either. We're already on the graph, and we dont know it. Humans are creatures of ego. We dont think we could go extinct, we're too smart. And its that ego that will destroy us.

Mice forgot how to be mice. Humans are already forgetting how to be human. Coincidence? Ill let you decide.

[–]AppreciateYa 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PinHunter650 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, I see some of the same patterns, though I'm not sure to what degree the causes are the same. There are a lot of other factors that I think contribute:

Ease of travel and communication: People depend less on friendships with neighbors and instead have relationships with people who are distant. When you lived in a town of 100 and developed a bad reputation, it didn't really matter what the legal consequences are because the social consequences were devastating. When you live in a continuous urban/suburban landscape if one relationship gets burned you just move on to the next. There aren't any reputations to worry about.
The role of religion/tradition: People used to believe that if they did bad stuff there would be some kind of consequence even if they "got away with it." That is generally not the case today. I don't suggest that we'd be better off believing in fairy tales, but I do believe that it had a big impact on society back when we did. Also, small churches/etc can also be other forms of tight-knit groups where reputation matters.
Laws: Obviously laws around rape and no-fault divorce and gender quotas/etc create artificial areas of conflict between genders. This is constantly elaborated on here...

I'm sure all these factors as well as some of the observations in mice all contribute to some degree to where we are today. I don't know that we'll ever be able to say that it is 15% due to mouse utopia, and 27% due to distant social networks, and so on.

[–]n0solace0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EconomistMagazine0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]partty13 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]divergentseries1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]partty15 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Codoro2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robzonpl3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gradchad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What was the last truly game-changing technology? The internet. When was the internet invented? Late 1960s, early 1970s.

Depends on how you look at it.

Technically speaking, the really BIG "game changing" tech relative to the "internet" wasn't so much the internet itself, but rather Tim Berners-Lee's creation of the HTTP protocol & HTML (a subset of SGML) and the simplified "world wide web" tools (webserver, webbrowser, etc) -- and that happened (mainly) in 1989. (Albeit granted you can push back to SGML in the late 1970's and early 1980's, and before that even to IBM's "GML" in the 1960's, and etc.)

And it's not that I disagree that "feminism" per se has been one of several negative factors that became prominent in the late 1960's and early 1970's... but really it's far from the only such factor, and arguably far from the most important one.

[–]divergentseries0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dramatic change in the US monetary system -- aka the "Nixon Shock" of late summer 1971 -- and thus a fundamental alteration in the basis of western (and arguably worldwide) monetary system, as the US was the "reserve" currency of the Bretton-Woods arrangement (or instead of a "dramatic change" perhaps more correctly a blatant acknowledgment of the prior de facto changes in it, that the US essentially).
The several and various legal & taxation & "social welfare" and "wealth redistribution" changes of the 1960's -- generational as well as ethnic & gender-based -- but also including significantly reducing corporate taxes, while at the same time substantially increasing "payroll" taxes (undermining the formation/saving of "capital" by the lower working classes), the so called "civil rights" acts, the establishment of Medi-Care, vast expansion of the college/university system (largely to accommodate and delay the influx of the now-maturing "Baby Boomers" into the workforce), etc.
The significant change in demographics -- i.e. birth rates, GenX (or as it was called previously the "baby Bust" in contrast to the post WWII "baby Boom") -- in part due to the advent of oral medication birth control (although also an "echo" demographic baby-bust ~30 years on from the Great Depression).
Other changes in things like the expansion & pervasive distribution & widespread use of cheap antibiotics (used as essentially "silver bullets" and handed out like candy as a virtual "cure all" by an ignorant/irresponsible medical establishment).

I could go on... and on... but those are some of the other MAJOR factors (granted many of which "co-traveled" with feminism, but yet were also distinct from it).

[–]fuu999 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poloppoyop0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty certain that feminism preceded the Internet by about a healthy 2 decades. Big society changes usually come about after a big war. As it applies to US --Feminism0 created after US/Spanish War; Fem1, WW1; Traditionalism after WW2; Fem2 after Vietnam; Fem3 after Iraq War, my opinion.

You needed a very large room location to hold a 60s computer; they were operated by tubes and were fed by cards that were keypunched separately. Only military or very large companies could afford them.

A top notch computer in the late 70s, called Microvax, cost ~$100,000 (all attachments), out of reach and those who owned one (companies) had to sign a declaration not to sell it to the USSR. The REM was an astonishing (at that time) 1 megabyte, backups were done on a 7" floppy disk holding 700k each (You typical needed 12 of them). Any cell phone today is millions of times more advance.

Internet took off during late 80s+.

[–]bama79rolltide17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dogwoodcat3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Woshi-Wumao0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PinHunter654 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillBastard 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]verynormalsimple4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Science is already bullshit. You can publish whatever you want on ISI Journals as long as you have the money. You can publish stuff that's absolutely bullcrap, even hundreds of papers that can't be read (that's right, computer generated meaningless text) are being published, papers that state things that are clearly crackpot science also can be published if you've got the time and the money, well gender studies is an academic subject now (which is bullshit in its majority). I majored in a true scientific field and even went to grad school just to know everything I have worked for in my life is absolute bullcrap no one but the main researcher gives a fuck about and journals will publish that useless subjects regardless because they need the articles and money coming. My estimation is about 99% of the basic research being done is absolutely useless for mankind at this point and those scientists are just pretending to care about this stuff just to keep the money flowing to their labs and pockets.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

lol, makes sense. i see so many complex papers with seemingly amazing stuff going on. but never any real world useful products coming from them.

[–]verynormalsimple0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]curiouslyengaged1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]RedPillBastard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ananda_Arahant 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]derp_derpington24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AppreciateYa 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's funny b/c my bitch of a sister suggested to me the other day that I get a psychologist evaluation.

She suggested I spend one full day getting evaluated. Which, I can see how it makes sense from her perspective. For one, hypothyroidism runs in my family and several family members have it. I have also had issues with depression.

But at the same time, it's stupid as fuck. I just dropped out of grad school b/c I don't think it's rigorous enough and doesn't have enough to do with actual work. So, I dropped out of grad school. And, I don't have a job. (Those things run together: full time school = probably no full time job). Also, I'm MGTOW and it's obvious to ppl in my family. None of that is indicative of mental illness. Just going through some tough times regarding financial issues.

And, as far as I can tell, psychologists are full of shit. Here are some people who think that because other people created [non-reproducible] psychological studies, that somehow they're the word of truth and to be relied upon. How many people died/committed suicide due to the faulty prescription of pharmaceuticals like SSRI's? Quite a few kids' depression worsened to the point of self harm due to "anti-depressent" SSRI stuff like Zoloft.

I have the same concept of psychology as you: It's a bunch of people judging other people, based on the ideas/opinions of other people... with very little in the way of imperative scientific processes involved.

Furthermore, it's peoples' opinions... it's not objective. And their clients are judged on a spectrum... there are no definitive categories of any psychological issues/problems in people. The psychologists are going to be biased. And they have an incentive to have clients-- i.e. to tell clients "HEy, you're fucked in the head. BUt I'll help make it all better. Now pay me."

Which assumes: A. that you are fucked in the head, and B. that they can actually help you.

I don't believe either in most cases...

[–]Woshi-Wumao1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a bunch of people judging other people, based on the ideas/opinions of other people... with very little in the way of imperative scientific processes involved.

IMO, the two most relevant names are B.F. Skinner and David Buss.

Skinner, despite having advanced the single strictly empirical AND MOST EFFECTIVE branch of psychology, has largely been pushed out of the spotlight and minimized because the implications and uncorruptability of his branch were, shall we say, "unappealing" to those who profit from pushing certain social narratives. Skinner solved problems, and that's bad news to all who's roles depend on the maintenance and expansion of our dysfunctional system/world (e.g. feminists, sjws, bible thumpers, academics, quacks, governments, corporations, affirmative action proponents, etc.).

Look at how many prison guards and owners would be out of jobs if we actually rehabilitated people, not to mention police officers and their lobbyists. Can't have that! Or teachers, professors and university staff, if we actually taught kids effectively. And so on.

As for Buss, well... he's pretty much literally Hitler in the eyes of the status quo, not because he's a misogynist, but because the very nature of scientific inquiry into the evolution of the human mind necessitates looking deeply into the evolution of human sexual selection (read: women's decisions) and dimorphism... and of course that starts digging up all sorts of misogynistic facts and stats right and left.

Basically, any scientific study of women's minds and motives makes them look bad, ergo any science that (or scientist who) does so is "bad". (Not women, oh lawdy no... we know they're just perfect. It's that patriarchal evidence that must be wrong. Just like how IQ tests are racist.)

[–]AppreciateYa 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]8017352 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]heili6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]8017350 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

While the chart is interesting it doesn't actually directly measure the intelligence of women, or the reasons that they choose majors associated with lower IQs.

I don't think it is because women are less intelligent per se. I just don't think most see any advantages in majoring in STEM.

First a quick comment on female intelligence. My understanding is that the mean intelligence of women isn't all that different from men, but the distribution is narrower. That is, you have fewer women with intelligence well above OR BELOW the mean. It seems like evolution has led us to a system where genetic experimentation takes place in men, and then women pick the experiments that work to breed. The strongest/smartest/whatever guys get to breed, and the genes that left men really weak/dumb/etc probably don't get passed on. That kind of system makes sense since you really want a system where all your women can safely have children, because the number of women you have is what ultimately limits the number of children you can have.

Now my real point: women don't go into STEM because they don't see the benefits. Guys go into fields like STEM because they pay the bills. They're willing to put in a lot of work if it means having the beta bucks later in life.

Women don't pay the bills, especially at the age when they're deciding what major to pick. They benefit from social contact, which means going to college, but if it were socially acceptable to just go to college for 10 years and not take any classes a lot of girls would do just that. They have an incentive to pick a major that is easy so that they can focus on socializing, or just doing whatever interests them personally.

Sure, they'll hit the wall in 15 years, but that is a completely alien concept to an 18 year old who has guys asking her out all the time.

I don't think that is the whole story because a lot of guys get interested in STEM at an early age, but I think it does explain a lot of why women don't pick STEM in college.

[–]heili2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it is because women are less intelligent per se.

The further you get from the median in IQ, the less women there are. This is true in both directions. Once you get two or three standard deviations above or below the median, most of the people there will be men.

I don't think that is the whole story because a lot of guys get interested in STEM at an early age, but I think it does explain a lot of why women don't pick STEM in college.

Very young girls show about as much interest in maths and science as very young boys. Somewhere around junior high (puberty) that changes, and girls become hyper focused on fitting in to their peer group. Boys who get made fun of for being nerds are far more willing to just own it and be nerds, whereas girls tend to be unable to deal with being in a social group that isn't the top of the pecking order, so they quit when peer pressured by the in clique.

They also tend to be far more afraid of failure than boys. Right around junior high is where things start to get hard, and where not being immediately successful and receiving instant praise becomes an issue. Boys will try, and fail, and try again until they succeed. Girls don't. They'd rather not try at all than fail.

So most of these "Women in Technology" absolutely dive onto tangential roles that allow them to claim they're so techy, but really aren't. Things like IT project manager or software product design appeal to them. It's why they're trying to shoehorn an A into STEM, for the "arts". That kind of forced diversity dilutes the field.

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Boys who get made fun of for being nerds are far more willing to just own it and be nerds, whereas girls tend to be unable to deal with being in a social group that isn't the top of the pecking order, so they quit when peer pressured by the in clique.

Maybe because for these girls social success is attainable, but for these boys it is not?

Think about how incentives work. If the reward is big and the effort is challenging but attainable then people will tend to work hard to get the reward. On the other hand if the reward is big but the effort to obtain it is vastly beyond what somebody is capable of, then they won't waste their time trying. If I offered you a billion dollars if you could jump over a skyscraper you'd just laugh and find something better to do with your time.

Even below-average girls in junior high can work at it and get plenty of attention. Sure, they won't be attracting high school boys, but they can get decent ones their own age. Even if they're below average their SMV is much higher than that of an average boy.

Boys will try, and fail, and try again until they succeed. Girls don't. They'd rather not try at all than fail.

Yes and no. They won't take risks, but that doesn't mean that they won't invest effort. A girl won't be the one to ask a cute guy out, but they'll certain cake on the makeup and be available for them.

I think they're just preoccupied with "more important things" than STEM.

[–]heili1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe because for these girls social success is attainable, but for these boys it is not?

Not necessarily. Whether or not a girl will ever fit in to the top tier social group of girls, she will almost always seek their approval in a way that boys will not. They are more influenced by peer pressure than boys are, and girls are far quicker to turn on and ostracize another girl if it will bump them up even slightly in the social hierarchy. Girls are almost never loners.

Even below-average girls in junior high can work at it and get plenty of attention. Sure, they won't be attracting high school boys, but they can get decent ones their own age. Even if they're below average their SMV is much higher than that of an average boy.

What matters to them more than what the boys think is what the most popular girls in the school think, including about the guys who give them attention. Everything they do affects where they fit in the female social hierarchy, and being "a nerd" regardless of everything else knocks them down in worth to the upper echelon of girls.

They won't take risks, but that doesn't mean that they won't invest effort.

They'll only invest effort if they don't have to risk failure that they have to take personal responsibility for. You can't really do that with STEM, because a passive approach of just trying to appear the smartest will not cause the test to pass itself.

I think they're just preoccupied with "more important things" than STEM.

The most important thing to post-pubescent females is virtually always where they fit in the female social hierarchy. There are multiple multibillion dollar industries built entirely around the fact that females will fiercely compete with one another in pretty much everything. Their efforts to obtain highly desirable men are simply another way in which they compete with each other. Being STEM not only doesn't earn any points in that contest, it actively lowers their score.

[–]rebuildingMyself3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]digzilla1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

You can turn that shit off.

[–]GuidoBandito12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZombieAlpacaLips2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DisintegrateBeef7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GuidoBandito7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]newMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GuidoBandito2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]enki_durga2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]newMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GuidoBandito0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cfuse22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You sure they're not simply pointing out that 'women are stupid'? From my vantage, they're just reiterating men's vast intellectual superiority.

The interpretation of statistics is in the eye of the beholder. You may choose to behold this however you wish, either from the perspective of gynocentrism, or from the perspective of rationality.

Put another way:

-> 99.6% of teen girls aren't smart enough to major in computer science, and they know it, so they plan on "careers" (a lifetime of leeching daddy's/beta bux's money) in gender studies instead.

-> 93.3% of women's heads are stuffed too far up their own slimy cunts to hack it in any field that hasn't been hijacked, perverted of logic and completely hollowed out by white knights, "academics" (cucks, socialists and feminists), and the other intellectual dregs of society.

Two thumbs up, Microsoft. Keep the MGTOW stats coming. I love having a daily dose of red pill right on my login screen.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

You sure they're not simply pointing out that 'women are stupid'? From my vantage, they're just reiterating men's vast intellectual superiority.

The interpretation of statistics is in the eye of the beholder. You may choose to behold this however you wish, either from the perspective of gynocentrism, or from the perspective of rationality.

-- BINGO.

It's much like other things that "feminism" (and other "isms" and "ists") have been pushing recently.

Per example the whole "consent" issue, and the promotion of the idea that women CAN (and SHOULD be able to) alter their "consent" after the fact.

There is an alternate way of interpreting/looking at that... which is as an ADMISSION that women are inherently not capable of being "responsible adult" members of society.

And moreover that the historical/traditional stance that women needed someone else (some family MALE, either father or brother) to "consent" on their behalf -- which is why women were NOT allowed to sign contracts, own property in their own/sole name, etc. -- they couldn't be relied upon as having responsibly agreed to (comprehended & "consented" to) the terms of any agreement, much less be held accountable/responsible for their breach.

The "pussy pass" is also a NEGATION of "adult status" -- it is very much the same as the "minor child 'pass'" -- that is an inability to hold a creature as "responsible" for it's actions, because it is incapable of comprehending moral & ethical consequences of them.

-- Likewise with any/all of the "equal opportunity" bullshit -- regardless of whether for gender OR race/ethnicity (or indeed even "economic birth status") -- the demand for relaxation/reduction of "standards", whether it be physical strength/endurance, or mental capacity/performance, or any other "standard"...

Is simply a ~~tacit~~ -- nay open & blatant -- ADMISSION of an objective categorical "inferiority" (and therefore "unsuitability" for the job/task at hand).

All it takes is a simple "change in your WAY of viewing" the points of the arguments they are themselves putting forth... seeing that the glass isn't "half full" but rather "half empty"; and moreover that regardless of which euphemism is used... it is objectively not and never will be a "FULL glass."

EDIT: BTW, once you learn the technique... you can "slay/destroy" any number of shitty-arguments.

For example, I have many times entirely "cut the legs out" from under the arguments of teachers & other "education" professionals when they state that "higher pay for teachers" would be THE SOLUTION (or even AN IMPROVEMENT) to a moribund educational system.

-- You see there are only TWO possible mechanisms for "higher pay" to create a "better" array of teachers in the system, either:

A) Higher pay would entice BETTER QUALITY individuals (i.e. smarter, more intelligent, more committed) people into becoming teachers -- under the presumption that they are working in other fields because they obtain better compensation there.

OR

B) Higher pay would INCENTIVIZE the current "crop" of teachers into performing their work in a more competent manner.

-- Of course complementary/corollary to the above, those mechanisms also mean that:

A) The current crop of people choosing to become teachers are "subpar" (i.e. not the sharpest tools in the shed so to speak).

AND/OR if that is rejected (which it always is*) then it means that...

B) They ARE specifically "underperforming" -- in other words they are PURPOSEFULLY "holding out" and NOT working (teaching) to their BEST ability -- i.e. they are INTENTIONALLY "malingering" and/or engaged in a profession-wide (and multi-decade) "work slowdown" as a negotiating tactic/strategy.

And of course THAT is always rejected as well -- usually via a protestation of "How DARE you insinuate that..."

-- But the protestations (and rejection of the corollary) are themselves a REFUTATION of their own original premise -- if higher pay will result in NEITHER: A) An improved array of teachers, NOR will it create B) A more "committed" harder/better-working present set of teachers...

Then that means HIGHER PAY is entirely useless as a mechanism of change -- it means PAY is not the problem -- and as such there is no need to increase it (and no value to be gained from increasing it).

Moreover, that "change of viewpoint" (and logical/rational analysis) entirely eliminates any/all arguments over "merit-based pay" and etc...

Instead it reveals that the whole "pay" issue is IRRELEVANT, and that the "educational system" -- as it is currently constructed -- is fundamentally flawed in some (and possibly/probably several) other regards.

(Like revealing the fact that it really ISN'T an "educational" system at all... but rather mainly a "youth incarceration" system: the chief benefit {?} being that it serves as a sort of "compulsory daycare" to keep "urchins" off the streets {during the workweek/daytime at least}, and likewise prevents children/youth from entering the workforce and & competing with adults, etc.)

-- * Despite the MASSIVE array of evidence from the so called "educational" industry's OWN "metrics" (i.e. IQ tests, SAT & ACT scores, etc).

[–]Woshi-Wumao0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Logic defeats MGTOW

Again, no it doesn't. In fact MGTOW is based on logic, and a rational analysis of the situation.

Ah, but having a basis in logic and rational analysis is precisely why a MGTOW's argument can be "defeated" (why we can be convinced to change our views). I'm simply stating that MGTOW are susceptible to logic.

Fee fees defeat logic.

No, they don't.

...

That said, the logic of the argument generally doesn't "convince the opponent" -- but that isn't the goal -- the goal is to demonstrate that THEIR argument and positions are absurd and facile, and to the surrounding audience.

Oh, but who is the surrounding audience? Go to a university and argue with academics as per your example, and the surrounding audience's "logic" is going to be 99% fee fee fueled, as you yourself have experienced. Try mansplaining your facts and logic to a woman and see how many other women and white knights rush to her defense while you're made out to be the villain.

I suppose you're implying that you're arguing for the sake of that 1-in-100 bystander who may see the light as a result of your efforts. Ok, that's noble. The MRAs would probably give you kudos for that. But I think most MGTOW are gonna find something better to do with their time than go do battle with the establishment just to try to squeeze the odd convert out of a pile of (certainly childish and potentially vengeful) rocks.

So you argue with them, you and one guy in the crowd feel you're right, while your 99 opponents have doubled down on their fee fees and declared "good riddance" after you finally leave.

That's not exactly a victory in my book, but hey, to each his own.

People who believe (feeeeel) they do are akin to those that believe LSD can make them able to "fly" (like "Superman") when jumping off the roof of a building -- they are simply delusional and refuse to accept reality -- a reality that will in fairly short order "smack" them in the same way the ground smacks the LSD jumper.

Except they never do get smacked. At least, not in any way that they're capable of learning from. You know the drill: shit (often literally) blows up in their face, and instead of doing the logical/responsible thing and recognizing the cause and effect of their own mistakes, they instantly start pointing fingers and placing the blame on other external actors.

THEY LEARN NOTHING. EVER. That's why they keep doing the idiotic things they do, that's why society is in the state it's in.

Sure, they jump off the building and get smacked. But instead of comprehending the laws of gravity and the gravity of their faulty judgment, they blame men. Patriarchy. Their LSD dealer. The wind. "WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP ME!?" They go get the police and find a way to throw the nearest man in jail, in order to make a man take responsibility for her actions, and then the throngs of compassionate women and white knights come along to console her and convince her she's a VICTIM absolved of any responsibility. And then she goes out the next day and does it again.

Why do they persist in this inanity?

Because fee fees defeat logic.

Fee fees subvert the rule of law.

Fee fees topple empires.

And fee fees, in the long run, inevitably wind up "winning" the "argument".

Generally speaking: No amount of rationality can uproot a fee fee. But the tiniest of fee fees can snowball and steamroll even the mightiest of rational facts. We see this time and time again; it's incontrovertible.

[–]rebellionmarch14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]8017352 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Can confirm Gnu/Linux is the answer.

To anyone interested I recommend checking out Linux Mint if you're used to Windows.

[–]Swordeater1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedFoxOnFire9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cyborg_type_darkness1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]420PussyEater4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]priatechair5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dwarf902 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Woshi-Wumao1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedSugarPill6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mortis_XII3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]80BAIT082 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ontrus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]keltsbeard2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]8017351 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yellow_black 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillulerouge22 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realChebz2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luce_Bree3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SnapshillBot1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JStheHammer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MidWestAussie 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TFCNU1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a nice wallpaper, anyone have a link to it?

[–]MediocreHolocaust2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfkrone1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nullberri1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LegitTruthSpitter 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]miketow0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]clungey93 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NullIsUndefined0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sorensofos0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoThirst0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrml0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arabian_Wolf0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]insomniacsheep0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mountainhermit108 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realChebz0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]username0820161 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]topstrok20141 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't even login to my computer without some Gynocentric propaganda

Comments

Here's your Reddit Silver, kind stranger!

-- BINGO.

Title	I can't even login to my computer without some Gynocentric propaganda
Author	Jcart105
Upvotes	458
Comments	139
Date	June 12, 2017 9:47 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/6gr86u/i_cant_even_login_to_my_computer_without_some/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/i-cant-even-login-to-my-computer-without-some.581775 https://theredarchive.com/post/581775