Give us money – a con.
Think of the children! (Except when we’re aborting them).
Give us money – a con.
Think of the children! (Except when we’re aborting them).
Completely ignores all the vaccine reaction and damage cases but fine.
There was a study of mothers and their vaccine attitude, the rejecting mothers had higher average IQ. It was a minor point mentioned once.
The lower IQ tend to take all available medicines because they’re free or cheap and they trust the doctors.
The smarter people say “why should I risk my child for yours”?
And there is no rationally valid answer to this.
Doctors make mistakes.
It all comes down to emotional appeal.
The phrasing of ‘vaccine rejection’ implies they are the default. In medicine, there is no default treatment.
Every treatment must be tailored to the patient, and if there’s nothing wrong with them in the first place, there is no medical need for a treatment. Due to the legal protections of the companies and doctors’ kickbacks dispensing these vaccines, and the secrecy and fraud of medical research, there is a seriously imbalanced power dynamic. They’d hold down these kids screaming if they could get away with it. Would violating an adult’s body be treated so leniently by the law? Do children not have human rights?
There are many counter-indicators for vaccination, and this is what the parents reference.
For example, a history of chemical reactions and vaccine damage in the family point to a genetic vulnerability, unstudied. No amount of words is going to alter that.
Pregnancy is another one but sure, get the flu jab!
As covered previously, the ‘herd immunity’ hypothesis has been demonstrated as false. They are seriously suggesting 100% of people get them. Who TF are they protecting? Oh, but there’s a tiny asterisk to it – all who can get it.
Technically, we can all get it.
This is an is/ought problem. You can get it, but that doesn’t change the true Q: should you?
If Parent B’s kid dies, it isn’t Parent A’s fault. It is Parent A for putting them in the contaminating situation (if knowingly) and the Doctors’ faults for failing to treat it (AKA their job).
Shifting the blame makes them look impotent.
It is a parent’s obligation to protect their child. Their own. Beyond that, the responsibility ends. I am no more responsible for some random person in Africa than they are for me.
Nobody else has this duty to the individual child. Not the doctors, the manufacturers, the researchers or the lawmakers.
Naturally there will be a big T-rex size bone of contention.
Ad hominem along the lines of stupid all the way up to evil just makes the ‘professionals’ look like they don’t know what they’re doing, and confidence drops further. When they refuse to do a double-blind 50:50 split longitudinal study with placebos, who would trust them? They say it’s unethical but look at who’s talking – they’ve
bribed finagled it so they, a company, cannot be sued. They are not negligent legally and can maintain secrecy for withdrawn vaccines (the reasons), for example. The manufacture and testing procedure for vaccines does not follow the scientific method, so it is not scientific. They dodge the law and ideally, their service rendered is unnecessary.
None of these facts is accounted for in ‘soothing’ discussions.
The risk is taken onto the child using the parent’s ignorance. Because let’s face it, you’re going in blind.
There is a sin of omission argument they are trying to use.
Refusing an unnecessary chemical intervention is not a sin.
And who gets to decide who is worthy of the herd immunity protection? Who really deserves to be exempt?
Because that’s the real judgement they’re making, isn’t it?
‘Your healthy child isn’t worthy of this protection.
In my opinion, the risk of their pain and lifelong suffering is worth sparing this other, already-diseased child/adult.’
Forgive me for not killing/hurting MY (hypothetical) child so some deranged pozzed pig can fuck around at orgies a few more years before ODing.
This is one of the most obvious signs of gaslighting. If someone tries to tell you something is normal when you think it is wrong, you need to get out of that relationship.
This is like if a person does not want to take the next step in a relationship and is called a prude rather than accepting their comfort levels. Keep in mind abusers are not only in romantic relationships but even professional relationships.
p.s. It isn’t gaslighting if you request they get independently checked out by someone with your formal qualifications. I have encountered people dipshit enough to call “gaslight!”and clutch their pearls when I’ve recommended this. …It’s good mental hygiene. These are the same people who think self-diagnosis counts btw.
It isn’t part-time.
It isn’t 4 hours a week.
It’s a mindset that plagues you every waking hour.
This guy should be famous in redpill self-improvement circles. (Well, I guess they want a part-time get rich quick scheme some of them but the rest of them yes).
This guy needs to be famous. He isn’t a household name because he tells the truth. It is hard. It takes decades of work. In convenience culture, this cannot be true to us, we feel. And when you GET there…
I’ve had that. Be nice to nice people, gracious to gracious people and so on, treat as you find, but the bulk of messages you get from weak connections will be chancers, the exceptions. The two main types of user are casual and malignant.
The best response to the fake nice shirty ones trying it on casually is actually;
I was working every single time you were out having fun. You got memories, I got paid. That’s the price of success and why by now you’ll never be able to catch up to me. But sure, ‘luck’, it was also luck I got better grades than you too, huh?
The reformed bullies are funniest. It’s like a script. Don’t think it’s about you, hence I’m posting the generic script.
Hey, remember me? (they’ll mention where they sat in a class) Listen I’m so sorry about (awful things I did) I was just a kid and I’m really ashamed of it now and I’d like to make amends and I saw (successful thing you’re doing) and I wanted (contact, connection, time, free stuff), it’s (compliments, often back-handed, like allusions ‘luck’) and I’d like to be friends.
The bolded phrase is the entire reason for their correspondence. If their sweet nothings are so good or you make an excuse they really mean it (that’s your vanity talking) say you forgive them but you don’t want them to contact you again. Oh, they’ll contact you again. Bullies can’t stand the victim taking control away. A sincere person would not reply, not even to snidely infer you’ll be sorry (I hope you can find it in your heart….)
It’s like, honestly? You think I’m stupid? Do I have doormat stamped on my forehead? I want you to fuck off and die you abusive piece of shit, you set the terms and chose to start on me. How dare you try and patch this over and further screw me now I’m finally out of school and your clutches. That’s a healthy response to abuse, you are not a bad person for it.
However, if you ignore them, read their messages but resist the urge to reply (reply to a designated vent friend), the mask usually comes off again. Something like…
OMG you’re so ungrateful, (what did they do?) you were always such a (spoiled brat) that’s why nobody liked you and (achieving thing) doesn’t matter because you’ll always be a loser to us.
They still think you care what they think. Just reply: Grow up.
Block them. Done.
When someone’s first impulse is to use you, and emotionally blackmail you with things they have done? That is a sociopath. 1 in 50. They are immature and the best response is to outclass them.
I was reading about SJWs and the Victorian Cult of Sensibility that kicked off their ostentatious, lachrymose over-sensitivity and it occurred to me that most people don’t understand emotion altogether.
Emotions are forms of judgment……
TLDR: Because everyone’s doing it, all the time, and it’s bleeding obvious.
Because at least ninety percent of the messages I get use negging. And more negging. And pretty much just that, aside from some painfully unfunny banter. Banter is great—it’s what we used to call “conversation”—but you need to do it for more than two floppy sentences before you start firing random insults.
Which is why I hope these guys are just experimenting, because it’s fairly safe to assume that they know I know that negging exists. And here’s the thing: once a girl has even the sketchiest idea of what game is about, you can no longer depend on the rules to keep working the same way.
It’s literally the One Thing everyone knows about game at this point.
Negging, for example, is supposed to bring results because it reduces a woman’s status, or her perception of her status, so that you seem higher in status by comparison.
I wonder how these guys make friends?
Do they go around insulting everyone on first meeting and keep who’s a punching bag?
However, if she knows that this is the purpose of negging, and she knows you know that, then negging is essentially telling her: “I think you’re too good for me, and I’m trying to bring you down to my level.” That is about as sexy as socks with sandals. And cargo shorts. You can argue logically with that all you like, but you can’t argue with results, or lack thereof.
Everyone with an internet connection knows that by now. And peacocking but that’s hilarious, keep that up.
If you tell a girl you hate the way she looks, she won’t fancy you. Since attraction is physical. A man who attracts her will be one who likes her “Look” – a very personal thing. You’ve killed your chance with her.
If you tell a girl you hate her, due to some transient quality – she’ll believe you. And avoid you, either for judging you or because she prizes that thing. Because that’s what you do when there is awkwardness with a random (and negative sexual tension btw).
Here’s my personal favourite;
If you tell a girl she’s not good enough for you, which every single woman in the West has heard because of the absolute popularity of that one form of negging in media, if she has a brain she will scoff and you’ll complain about a bitch shield. Basically the type of attitude you’ll have created is –
From what normally might be a nice girl.
We’ve heard it so much, always (deeply ironically) from ghetto rats or lower-class trash, it doesn’t work anymore. Sometimes we’ll assume you’re autistic or joking and just laugh, awkward. Planning a means to leave and never, ever speak to you again. And you choose this time to ask for numbers?? Can’t you see how ridiculous you are?
The high-value ones don’t need to announce their value, let alone compare themselves to a woman, that’s what effete boys do. It’s become a DLV. If we can’t see you’re high value, you aren’t. Insults just make you look bad and give us social license to match you.
It assumes so much it’s ridiculous. That a woman can be judged on sight, Sherlock-style, that you formed that opinion regardless of your own value (sure, if your James Bond and a total 10 yourself, use it, that would be dynamite, otherwise I don’t think so, especially from a 7 or below it becomes highly amusing like watching a little kid tell you they could beat you up) and the autism-like trait of voicing that very rude opinion (definitely a No-Go in England, at least) doesn’t attract anyone. It’s supposed to be a (puerile) response to the girls who say things like “You wish” and “In your dreams”, which, if you’ve been drooling at her and staring on the Tube, is a totally fair rebuff. We have social rules for this reason, like calling any man invading personal space on purpose or taking body pics for masturbation a ‘creep’, it’s more descriptive that happens to be an insult if you do those things. You can actually get banned from the Tube for example, if you do it to enough women and they report you. There are police lines set up for this sort of thing, harassment like this it’s so common, which dumb American tourists should be told about if we didn’t expect you to behave to First World standards…
That’s deserved creep status, for example a Tube carriage isn’t a club nor should ever be treated like one, we’re there because we have to be, our social rules (in England at least) highly respect space and privacy especially in a metal can under the ground which has been used for terrorist attacks. You forgot? Yeah, we wish we could. Yeah, it’s got that cultural significance to it, that reverence, remember, and show some damn respect. Respect the cultural differences and don’t blame us when you’re arrested. American Negging is like the topping for what is already a shit sundae. It’s like walking up to a person to tell them you’re ignoring them – childish (beta-seeming) and pathetic. I tend to say “Yet you wanted to talk to me………….”
Yes, I get this a lot.
It confuses them. They know I’m onto them. Then I walk away, if possible. They never follow from shame.
The problem with game, and negging in particular, is that it only works on insecure or damaged girls.
A regular woman with a sense of self (aka what’s normally considered quality) will simply see it for what it is – an overt, pitiful, public attempt at emotional abuse/blackmail to foster dependence. Despite the material on Dark Triad for professional applications, regular/good women don’t want that, or there’d be no single men in prison. Again, it only works on the messed-up ones. So don’t blame the girl because you spit shit game, son.
If you read Hare’s work on Dark Triad (really the definitive coverage) you’ll notice their personal lives are shit. In every case, it’s part of their condition. There’s a reason for that. The gains only apply in a corporate framework, which most in the manosphere don’t have, especially real MGTOW.
It’s like avoiding a street magician. You may like the odd card trick, but you feel you’ve seen it all before.
Personally, if any random bloke who was previously trying to flirt begins to insult me, I insult them right back viciously and tell them to go fuck themselves. That’s the British tradition, we’re allowed to match the rudeness of those “starting on us”. The British have a series of frames all our own, a British girl likely won’t buy into it because she sees it for what it is, we practically invented the concept with British humour e.g “who are you, mate?” is a typical British response, from men and women, to somebody overstepping their boundaries and imposing their frame. It’s been putting people in their place for centuries. I don’t date rude people, period, and insulting someone you just met, especially someone you’re supposed to like, makes me wonder what terrible company you’ll be later on.
But hey, I’m psychologically normal, so I guess that’s the response you should expect to public verbal abuse. Online you’ll get a ‘lol no’ and a block. Don’t dish it if you can’t take it, as we’ve seen with bitchy male Tinder responses to a taste of their own medicine, because women are naturally better mindfuckers than men. This is how women fight, you’re playing a woman’s game.
Just hope no male relatives or friends are with me or your mark when you try it on. They don’t stop at verbal barrage like me. 😉 Hope you didn’t need that face for anything.
Btw, all of this I just explained is why Roosh hated London. Fair play, don’t bother
with us. Our politeness conventions and etiquette are the sworn enemy of Game.
All the nice, pretty girls are hidden away at private parties and no, I won’t tell you where.