Nice. | MGTOW

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thatzombieoverthere 68 points69 points70 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]groverthebread38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatzombieoverthere 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]teslaistheshit2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robharv21 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GnuYOW3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This country's biggest after not picking our own cotton.

I've seen this a lot, thought about it quite a bit and agree wholeheartedly, but possibly from a different perspective than some. If blacks were not born into and constantly bombarded with shame (by other blacks) about the slavery of their race, I fully believe the black community would not have the issues it does and their level of success would be just like any other race. The blacks who are in this country would have come here of their own volition just as most others did, ready to make their own destiny, and they would have a different historical, collective understanding about this country. There would be generations of blacks taught that while not everyone starts out with equal chances, hard work and discipline generally lead to success.

But instead every black child is taught that his family was ripped from their homeland by the evil whites, that the whites alive today are just as guilty of this as their ancestors (notwithstanding the fact that actual descendants of slave owners are fairly scarce), and that they will never have a fair chance in racist America. They have an easy excuse (racism) for every little thing that does not go their way, which just further convinces them that the whole country is racist, and they pass that idea on to every future generation. So they give up, live off government benefits or hustle, or think the only success they can achieve is becoming a pro basketball star or rapper with a record deal.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Careful_Description37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This will change your mind.

Read it all of it. If you can't do that read my summary:

There are two things:

The Vote

Original voters were men but effectively on behalf of the family. Thus the Nation had one vote per family. This worked well because the smallest unit of a Nation is the family and not the individual (uses analogy of molecule as the smallest unit representing a substance).

Feminism gave women the right to vote, thus the vote was split and so was the smallest unit of the Nation. This in turn leads to a split of Men vs Women on the individual level and leaves more avenues for exploitationand abuse.

The Work

Feminism is economically a bad deal. By allowing women to work wherever woman wanted, they just did the modern day equivalent of grabbing 300 million (or insert population of a Nation of your choice) random foreigners and threw them into the field of work. Now there are twice the amount of job seekers yet the number of jobs did not change. BUT they have to hire those foreigners too, so now all those jobs are half the value. Cost of living sky rockets.

Ironically, Feminism wanted this so women can be free to choose to do whatever they want. But now that everything is worse, women are forced to work. Congratulations, you got your 2% affirmative action CEOs but now 80% are slaving away.

[–]RealBiggly15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's never been much restriction against women working, more a case of them not needing to. At most they were pushed away from some professions, primarily to protect them, not to hold them back.

In simple homesteading times women had little choice but to work alongside the men.

The really big difference was the industrial revolution, which started in the UK. This created a situation where muscle and size were not relevant for earning a day's wages. And remember this was at a time when most poor people didn't earn ANY wage and at best worked for 'bed and board' (food and housing).

Few realize just how poor the average peasant was before this time.

Suddenly there was nothing stopping a woman from going to work in a factory and earning the same as a man. Indeed even kids could earn actual money.

This created social pressure on women to woman-up and go earn some money. Take a look at pre-civilization societies and you'll see the women do most of the work, not the men, so this was a natural development (and as I'm forever reminding people, civilization is not natural).

As such early feminism was quite the opposite, pushing for women to be spared such indignity, with claims of how they were needed in the 'home sphere' and how the 'work sphere' should be for men.

And yes, even then they demanded that women should be able to work if they wanted to, they just shouldn't be expected to, unlike men whose choices were were full time work or full time work or full time work.

It was only when American socialists offered American women the vote did they suddenly decide they were full-blown communists and were being oppressed by not working in the factories.

They really are their own worst enemy lol.

[–]Teflon081916 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatzombieoverthere 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ScoutSteiner14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ReallyObvious 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]malerevolution6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeverNeverLandIsNow1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfingjesus0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfingjesus1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiGoogleAmpBot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ver0cious4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BrewtalDoom-6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Disposable__Male-7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypnotix000014 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gtowerthrowaway9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]gtowerthrowaway6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's more than just politics. This is a principle that applies to our everyday lives. There are people you love and trust, but you know there are responsibilities they cannot handle. So you keep them away from such responsibilities, and get people you know who can handle them, to take care of those duties instead.

Are individuals really entitled to make mistakes though? Well...only to a certain extent. Everywhere, people have rules preventing too egregious mistakes from happening. Look around. Your workplace, your favourite restaurant, even your home. Would they or you allow anyone to make whatever mistakes they desire? Voting mistakes affect the entire country, everyone suffers.

Sadly, simply arguing well is not enough. No matter how well people argued against feminism, the divorce courts, things like mass immigration, they still rotted the West, in large part because of universal suffrage. Why should we let it get so bad, before trying to fix things? Prevention is better than cure, and saving people from voting for disastrous policies means saving people from worse disasters later on.

[–]Disposable__Male1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Certainly I would agree that people in conservatorships should not be permitted to vote, since it would be impossible to tell whether or not the conservators were stealing votes.

Compared with the ability of restaurant staff to induce food poisoning, our votes are relatively sterilized by the counterveiling power of other voters, and the requirements to get measures/candidates on the ballot. The average idiot isn't going to be able to legalize "the purge" without overwhelming popular support, for instance.

It must be the care that people are entitled to their mistakes, otherwise we would not allow them to become homeless. That said, even a homeless person is not allowed to arbitrarily commit a tort or crime. Clearly, the limits of their error is where it affects others without their consent.

But we have consented. When we take part in a democracy, we agree that in exchange for our voice to be heard we must also submit to the will of the majority. You could escape to another country if you feel that you should not be subject to the will of the American public, but you would still have to play ball.

Some people won't listen to reason, but we assume those people are in the minority and will be outweighed by rational actors. We risk losing more rational actors than irrational ones by restricting the right to vote to net taxpayers unless we first prove that welfare recipients are majority irrational (outside of perpetuating their entitlements).

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The counterveiling voting power of others failed to stop feminism and anti-male laws from passing and wreaking havoc, among other bad policies.

It's very easy to ruin a country, if just any odd person can vote. People have done so for decades, bit by bit. Small voting mistakes, time and time again, add up.

Would you really want people to be entitled to make mistakes that ruin the country? A lot of the mess we're in, that you and I oppose, could've been avoided if we stuck to the original voting laws (land owners and military servicemen only).

A minority of people is often all it's needed to tip the scales in favour of bad policy. The will of some Americans, leads to the downfall of all. For responsible voters, recourse is running out. Because of some idiots who voted for feminism, America is now the no. 1 exporter of feminism across the world, not to mention the entire West is collapsing from universal suffrage. Pretty soon there will be nowhere for us to go.

Taxpayers are generally more responsible than non-taxpayers. Taxpayers labour for a living, and support themselves, more or less. Their labour props up society, so they have an interest in its preservation.

Also, we know that men are more logical and less emotional than women, so straight off the bat, net-taxpayers (most whom are men) are more logical and less emotional than non-net-taxpayers (most whom are women).

[–]Disposable__Male2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I meant minority as in minority of voters. Often, that's all it takes to tip the scales for the worse.

I don't mind voters' intentions, only the results. I believe it's reasonable, that people who are more likely to make harmful decisions, should be have less decision making power. And there's a difference between a mere difference in opinion, and a decision that causes harm. This goes beyond political lines.

The majority of net-taxpayers are still men, and always will be for the foreseeable future. Working women take more benefits than working men. And the net-taxpayer vote will end gender quota hiring anyways.

What if NAWALT and the more emotional women are in the net taxpayer category?

Well, first, as mentioned, far more men are net-taxpayers than women. This is already a huge improvement from having 50-50.

Also, net-taxpaying women are more logical than non-net-taxpaying women. Maybe not as much as men, but an improvement from the average woman.

Alternatively, we could just support a straight Repeal the 19th, which I'd also be okay with.

[–]Disposable__Male2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My mistake: I was assuming an up/down ballot measure, but if we're talking about first-past-the-post candidate selection between 3 or more, yes absolutely a minority can be a deciding factor (also why I favor Ranked Choice Voting).

I can get the rationale behind net-taxpayers being more responsible, since income is correlated with trait conscientiousness, but I usually try to avoid attributing ethical qualities to persons based solely on income.

Agreeability is negatively correlated with income for men, so rich men are likely to be able to get to a better compromise through debate, so that could play out nicely as well.

I expect the average American woman to be bewildered by political economy since 56.3% of them prefer concrete Sensing to abstract Intuition and make decisions with their Feelings rather than Thinking (compared with 30.7 percent of males) according to the MBTI.

I watched the 2012 debate with a girl I was trying to rail (before I learned my lesson and went MGTOW) and she kept barking at the TV insisting Romney was lying. It was really unchill.

You're absolutely right: with the current tax distribution it would be more favorable to men to split out welfare recipients. I tend to get hung up on the theory and forget about Getting Stuff Done.

I don't think I can be convinced that women won't find a way to gain power if we set the bar based on paying taxes, or that the benefits of doing so outweigh the cost, so we might have to agree to disagree there.

That said, I do want to compliment you on being an admirable opponent: Thank you for your excellent posting and participation in this thread. You've given me a lot to reconsider.

[–]Carnosauria2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You mean a ranked choice system like in Australia? That does sound better than the single vote two-party system in America. Independents would definitely do better.

I admit, women regaining power under the new system is still a concern, but I think there are workarounds. First off, under the new voting system, feminist policies, propaganda and quotas will slowly disappear, reducing the number of working women, until people default to traditional gender roles. The biggest problem is simps giving women the vote again, but that can be fixed by giving them a sexual outlet (eg, sex robots).

Concerning costs vs benefits, I'd say my overall stance would be, that it's best to have the responsible majority be the people who decide the country's future, rather than an irresponsible minority. We could also go for other systems, like having only men vote, or something like the original system (land owners and militarymen only) or something else.

Thank you too, for also being a great counterpart. You raised many excellent points, and made me think more carefully how voting systems affect different people. I'm glad we had this discussion.

[–]Disposable__Male1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShearStressin4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon081912 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealEyesWideOpen15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]gtowerthrowaway13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teslaistheshit0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_Koopaman10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thesupergeek429 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]teslaistheshit1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_lesbians_lul6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkster20-4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The problem with your assumption is that is assumes people's motivations are solely determined by ascribed statuses in society.

It doesn't. You are just arguing nothing here. I have not once said it's purely based on your status whatever that means. It's based in your identity If a jew with dual citizenship tells me white people shouldn't have children I would never trust him. If a communist starts telling me about how well socialist policy works I wouldn't trust him.

If an FBI agent that has no connection to you comes and tells you this if you believe him then you are a useful idiot.

potentially confident State info which I have no official privy to

That's exactly the point if he tells you something secret the only reason he would ever do that is to use you. Of course there is a small chance he is honest but if you take that chance you have alot more to lose then to gain.

That's why your Individualism is a joke, because you don't play the odds. You let people deceive you and you always lose.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Then you don't know what ascribed status is.

Ascribed status is what we are given irrespective of our choices. No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood.

We get to choose who we are eventually, but not initially.

And also, who are you to tell me that I let people deceive me? And who are you to tell me I am arguing over nothing?

From what you say, it's clear you don't understand the relationship between status and identity.

For one, status is part of identity, and identity is part of status. They are not the same, but they aren't divisible. Ascribed statuses in many ways determine a lot of our initial identities.

You are way over your head.

Coming from your replies I can see that I'm not the joke.

[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood.

And also, who are you to tell me that I let people deceive me? And who are you to tell me I am arguing over nothing?

I never said you do, my fucking god. i said your the behaviour that you are promoting causes you to easily be deceived because you dont have preconceived notions of motives based on identity. I am telling you, you are arguing over nothing because you are simply naive, you can have your fantasy feel good invidiualism but it simply doesnt work hence this argument is pointless.

Ascribed status is what we are given irrespective of our choices. No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood.

We get to choose who we are eventually, but not initially

Now you are playing semantic games, i missed the ascribed part of your comment, but it is irrelevant to my point, i dont care wheter you got to chose your identity or not, it affects you all the same.

From what you say, it's clear you don't understand the relationship between status and identity.

For one, status is part of identity, and identity is part of status. They are not the same, but they aren't divisible. Ascribed statuses in many ways determine a lot of our initial identities.

More semantics, i dont care wheter you call it status or identity i care what the persons background is and how it affects their motives when speaking to me.

You are way over your head.

Coming from your replies I can see that I'm not the joke.

Coming from a guy arguing semantics

If an fbi agent told you russia is behind 9/11 would you trust him? now if julian assange said the same thing, who would you trust more?

If a woman tells me how much she loves me and wants to stay with me forever i simply wouldnt trust her because she is a woman and enganges in a pattern of behaviour that is common to women. The same reason i wouldnt let them vote.

Because females are females and even the "smart ones" will intrinsicly vote with their emotions because thats simply their biological imperative.

If there is like 0.01% of woman that can vote smartly there is literally no reason to give them the vote, and i could never truly know wheter that small percentage would even vote differently or they would still fall victim to the same emotion decisions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's why your Individualism is a joke, because you don't play the odds. You let people deceive you and you always lose.

That's exactly what you said. And then you reply with:

I never said you do, my fucking god. i said your the behaviour that you are promoting causes you to easily be deceive because you dont have preconceived notions of motives based on identity.

As you've misread my initial post, I think you've misread or failed to read the part that I do judge people. The only difference is my method of judgment is broader and with more depth.

And for you to assume that I'm a feel-good naive individualist is a long stretch; the academe and education fields have some of the most cynical and guarded individuals out there.

Just because I'm listening doesn't mean I'm believing what is being said. It comes with the practice of academics and being a frequent thesis panelist.

That said, I can't blame you for judging me as a bleeding heart leftist, as I infer from your post. But I'm not.

[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's why your Individualism is a joke, because you don't play the odds. You let people deceive you and you always lose.

That's exactly what you said. And then you reply with:

I never said you do, my fucking god. i said your the behaviour that you are promoting causes you to easily be deceive because you dont have preconceived notions of motives based on identity.

The first parst is reffering to general individualistic behaviour, its a refrence to INDIVIDUALISM not exactly your behaviour, if it doesnt apply to you then fine.

As you've misread my initial post, I think you've misread or failed to read the part that I do judge people. The only difference is my method of judgment is broader and with more depth

More depth? do you think i advocate for only judging people only on their identity? I said in general terms, if i meet a black guy i will have assumptions about him, for example him being for more likely to shoot me or rob, that doesnt mean every single black guy i meet i will treat like a criminal.

But when making policy i argue in generalities because you are dealing with huge populations, individualism at home, collectivism in the outside world.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Darkster201 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wheredidiputit 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demilich6633 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Women make up the majority of voters now. They vote off emotions, and vote for initiatives that sound caring warm and fuzzy. Hence, now you see the media pushing most of their terrible agendas by hiding behind children. Give up your gun rights because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", open up our border because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", let's go to war with Syria because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", let's legislate "hate speech" laws because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" (we're punching Nazis, and fighting racism LOL). Let's convert our country to socialism because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", let's expand the welfare state because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", etc. etc. THEN, they turn on their heel and fight to the death for their right to abort fetuses any time they want for any reason because "MY BODY MY CHOICE". The mask slips when they say 'fuck that clump of cells. it's not a child until I say it's a child!" Women vote to take men's rights away, and my rights away EVERY SINGLE DAY. So yeah, I'm not a fan of women's suffrage, after I see their gender-specific pathological voting tendencies. Women vote to erode and destroy the country, and beg for a dictatorship that will take our rights away.

[–]Blazelini2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZaunGate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loss-jpg0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]loss-jpg-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]loss-jpg0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blazelini0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]loss-jpg1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RixDixRox0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cavali19 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReallyObvious 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cavali19 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]devok10 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReallyObvious 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]r80010 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]thatzombieoverthere 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dariego-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thatzombieoverthere 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Nice.
Author	thatzombieoverthere
Upvotes	333
Comments	103
Date	June 18, 2019 12:42 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/c1vk8l/nice/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/nice.444705 https://theredarchive.com/post/444705

Comments