Study shows fake geeks are extraverted narcissists

We already know, they keep blocking up the lines to conventions and raising ticket prices. Now you can’t go to ONE of those things without the shoals of ‘popular people’ bumping into you (because to them, you’re still invisible). It’s like hey, I came here to get away from you people! You have tons of places to call your own! Aren’t the festivals enough?

They would’ve found the opposite if they’d studied geeks before being one became ‘cool’. Maybe they should replicate once it does go totally out of fashion, I sense that shift is already happening.

Now, by pure volume, most geeks are not real geeks. There used to be very few of us, so few that, in a given area, we’d all be on first name terms with one another and our respective interests (because LAN Internet). What do I mean by fakes? As in, they wouldn’t be seen dead doing half that stuff if it weren’t already trendy. And they have to post selfies to prove it.

It’s become an image, aping an identity. Ironic cultural appropriation.

The issue with social science is that it assumes the membership of a group is a stable quantity. With demographics, this holds. Sex, age range, race, nationality, all work fine.

When you involve social status, that assumption is false. In the mad scramble over social media, it never stops. It’s the musical chairs of our age.

Think of the geeks you knew at school as a ratio of the whole school itself. I knew, like, 5/1000, tops. That isn’t even one of a hundred.

And how do you count it? People who like certain (populist) films do not count. Yet I bet they went by markers i.e. wearing t-shirts, quoting a mediocre film or liking it on Facebook….

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

So yeah, fake geeks are only there for attention, what a groundbreaking discovery.

Further reading for further fun-poking

Link: The 10 types of guy you’ve ghosted on

and I’ll add why.

The girl who wrote this is somewhat self-aware but there are good reasons for every red flag. Nobody should get invested in a first date anyway.

1. What does Tweety say? cheap! cheap! cheap!
2. ugly/desperate, which is ugly
3. STDs and mommy issues
4. not an adult
5. too in touch with his feminine side
6. addict, need I expound?
7. trying to make a bad decision better, for both parties
8. probable sociopath
9. dumb
10. won’t like you either in 6 months

3 is only attractive to other promiscuous people.

1 is often a strange creature who bemoans the lack of traditional women (by denigrating all women, which is frankly offensive to all of us) despite an ignorance of his part to play in that equation. Namely, that a man who believes in gender roles has literally one job, and that’s to foot the bill. It isn’t hard. Odds are, he asked her on the date, and he chose the location and hence, cost. The girl’s duty in that equation is to be charming company, whether it works out or not, she is giving him a chance, eggs are expensive, and for that the least he can do is pay for one reasonably priced meal. That’s the way the world works and yes it may be unfair but whining along those lines will leave you Forever Alone. Traditional women imagine down the line like future flashbacks how impossible it would be to extract money for your children’s new shoes out of his vise of a wallet.

Nothing puts off a traditional woman faster than being not only a bad provider, but a grump about money too.

You know who that does attract, though? Feminists, who love footing their own bill. And then he wonders why he has a string of bad dates… and blames all women instead of his terrible decision-making. And the cycle continues.

Ban the red, white and blue, say SJWs

The French flag.

How obvious does the rot have to be? Let the institutions who allow this fall, they’re gone already.

The law graduate behind a controversial campaign to remove a statue of British colonialist Cecil Rhodes from Oxford University’s Oriel College has turned his attention to the French flag, saying he’d support its ban on all university campuses.

Ntokozo Qwabe, co-founder of Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford, says France has committed acts of terror and refused to concede that Isis is worse than the French state.

This is why you don’t stray from accepting based on merit. They’ll never quit until they sit among smouldering ruins, because designing buildings of architectural merit, that stay up, is a White Man’s claim…

They’re comparing it to a swastika because of course they are.

Little Hitlers get a thrill out of controlling and especially banning things.

If he hates Western culture so much, he can move back to his blessed Africa, the place with all the wars.

However, may I remind him that English is the ultimate cultural appropriation, so he must speak the rest of his life in clicking sounds, like his People?

After all, if you want a meme,

English is the language of colonialism.

Link: Kinsey, the r-types’ sexologist

The basis for the modern myths of sexuality, and informing the Sex Ed screwing up modern children.

The biggest myth being SEX IS ALWAYS GOOD. The core programming directive sounds odd spoken bare, doesn’t it?

Another being SEX IS A RIGHT WHATEVER YOUR AGE AND YOU CANNOT CONTROL YOURSELF/IT.  Reminiscent of a possession metaphor.

A third example being PERVERSIONS ARE NORMAL. Which is the opposite of statistical meanings of the word normal, he was trying to make them socially acceptable. All of them. Freud defined pansexuality and it means an attraction to everything (animals, children, corpses). Despite how modern neurobiology shows tastes in arousal are mutable by porn use, something they argued was impossible back then because they’re liars.

I’ve posted about Kinsey before. Search the tag.

Others followed in his criminal footsteps, notably Dr Money, the man who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and took photos…. and started this whole tranny mess.

Links: The Evolution of Politics (naturalistic fallacy abounds btw)

Cooperative politics = Left wing
Prehistory = the time we genocided a bunch of other intelligent primates and ate them.
Not a single mention of r/K or mating strategy. Think they’re starting to get scared? Of the truth. From that point of focus on, they’re doomed.

Ideas don’t scale. A tribe may survive based on genetic similarity, there is an extraneous variable causing the observed correlation. A whole continent based on the same principles would fail. See the EU for how that’s going.

“cohesive, smoothly-functioning social groups were central to the success of our species”

during times of famine, war and natural disasters for humans like the Ice Age i.e. when times were hard and lives were short (resource restriction). That speaks nothing of the ease conditions we have today and conflates the State of Nature with 21st century civilization (no, just don’t). A common good requires genes in common.

““In our view, this “gene-centric” focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution.”

Genes are measurable, we can look at them you daft prick, until you can categorically measure the other stuff, it will remain the focus and I needn’t listen to anything else those people have to say. There aren’t ‘missing pieces’, what sophistry. One of the issues with evobio, we have too many explanations. They are lying. To put my money where my mouth is;

  • “Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias);” novel mutations, genetic
  • “how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity);” how do you develop muscles? the body heals after stressors and this varies by the organ in organism, duh, basic incremental improvements over generations
  • “how organisms modify environments (niche construction);” it’s called mastery and caused by adaptation/reaction
  • “and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance).” Loaded question, inheritance isn’t limited exclusively to the coding information packets we call genes. For example, cultural information is inherited.

This person tops it off with an outright lie covering for Kumbaya politics. “Whatever the multiplicity of mechanisms underlying evolution may be [DS: classic academic code for We Want More Grant Money], it’s clear that they often result in organisms whose behavior is decidedly cooperative and generous.” How is it clear? How often? Where? The Burden of Proof rests with you. Humans are still waging war. Other primates wage war. The diametric opposite of those things.
“Boehm argues that “egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy, a curious type that is based on anti-hierarchical feelings.” That isn’t an argument, that’s an opinion, but okay.
…”egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy“, everyone

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

It isn’t as if words have agreed upon meanings, is it?
FYI voting was about societal contributions in the form of tax, expressly how those were spent. Up until very recently, if you didn’t pay tax, into the pot, you couldn’t vote. Men simply managed the estates, including taxes. Women and all discounted men got the vote when the economy allowed them to live independently (20s era wealth) and manage their own taxes.

Link: “How do I know if I’m a virgin?”

Don’t laugh, it’s a good question. No judgement here.

I was linked to this by a girl concerned about an arranged marriage.

It’s accurate.

I’m posting it here because there are many attempts by ‘men’ to lie about ‘deflowering’ girls, describing levels of blood loss that would cause her to pass out and require a transfusion in A&E. Or they give vivid, almost Mills & Boon level erotic descriptions of what ‘breaking’ her felt like.

go away leave ew eurgh gimme space tony stark no gross

They are lying. 

It just makes you look bad and worse, ignorant of basic anatomy.

Trigger warning: the gore women have to put up with for life but men get all squeamish about because you’re softer than us.

Less known is the fact that ‘inadequate’ lubrication (caused by the man being bad at it) can cause microtears from the friction in the vagina (internally) and that may be causing the blood sometimes seen (still, not much, barely like ‘spotting’ for a period, don’t look that up). That’s a reason to be ashamed of yourself, not proud, and certainly never bragging, pay her medical bills and spend the next year minimum making it up to the poor girl, since it can cause serious scarring, increased risk of catching STDs by the internal wounds and fertility issues (this also happens in rape, so yeah, be very very nice since conditional instructions are a basic part of consent).

This video gets all of it right bar one thing.

Virginity does exist. That’s an SJW lie. Simply the common premise based on a Hollywood trope is wrong. The anatomical one. Virginity isn’t anatomical. No animal has anatomical virginity to my knowledge, that wouldn’t make any evolutionary sense and they would’ve gone extinct. The cellular shedding required of the reproductive tract would build up and cause a lethal infection.

Virginity is behavioural. More specifically, an omission of behaviour. Hence, men can be virgins.

It is cruel and evil to base a test of human value on anatomy, that nobody can help. Imagine if women judged men entirely on their foreskins. Imagine it. You’d be pissed. Imagine if you could be killed for lacking a foreskin. Whatever the reason you don’t have one. This is one of the rare times the broken feminist clock is right, that’s barbaric.

So why do we women have a hymen (some of us, others aren’t born with one)?

It protects the area during development. You know how little kids tend to stick any random object up their nose?…. Yeah…..

I’m not completing that sentence for you.

How could we prove that hypothesis?

Easy – does it thin over time? As in, it becomes less protective the likelier you are to require the tract for reproduction?

YES! And nobody seems to mention this. It thins over time. So an adult virgin woman may look anatomically indistinguishable from a massive slut of the same age. The only thing that really wrecks a hymen, stretching it or changing blood flow patterns until it recedes? Child birth.

So really it has nothing to do with sex per se, but whether you’ve pushed another human out there. Which is… fair enough, actually.

Should a man insist on his marital rights if his wife finds him repulsive?

I have nothing to add, this is brilliant.

Throne and Altar

This dilemma was inspired by the discussion over at The Thinking Housewifehere.  I don’t want to focus on the specifics of the cases discussed there, though.  I’d rather think of the more general question.  I’ve showed before that wives have a duty to render the marriage debt to their husbands–that this is the unambiguous position of Christianity and that it has an important natural function.  That was looking at things from the wife’s point of view.  Now let’s look at things from the husband’s point of view.  Given that his wife usually must comply with his requests, when is it right for him to make them?  As the head of the household, the husband must not privilege his own desires; if anything, he should disfavor himself so that his authority will more clearly seem to be motivated by the common good.

I think the answer is, a husband…

View original post 441 more words