The guys who complain about make-up

are also the ones who’d complain if a woman smells like anything other than floral body lotion.

Like, they’ll criticize women for being fat but also being “high maintenance” i.e. not fat.

Nah-uh!

By ancient standards, you’re more decadent than a French king.

Think how poofy you’d be.

 

You sleep on fluffy pillows, on stitched mattresses, with plush blankets, having used liquid soap, shampoo, conditioner, toothpaste, deodorant, a comb, an electric razor, central heating/air conditioning, with a glass of cold milk waiting in your refrigerator if you wake up thirsty. You think this is nothing and feel entitled to this and more.

 

Who’s the vain one? When are these guys dispensing with all their vanities?

First up, the smartphone! Ultimate vanity symbol! Don’t need that!

Right….?

Right guys?

No, you won’t give up modern comforts so STFU lecturing everyone else.

Do it yourself first and then you might have something to signal with.

 

Being attractive isn’t a sin! These embittered boys are like SJWs and want everyone else to stop making an effort because they’re too lazy! (Covert narcissism, their ego is triggered because they stand out for not making the effort).
R-types want an equalist playing field, remember? Equal outcomes. They actually believe it’s better we’re all equal in stench and skin ailments (skin cancer exists) than feel insecure some dude next to them on the train is wearing nice jeans and a cool cologne.
Men against make-up, for a third-world society looking and smelling like shit.
It already does, in my opinion, let’s not make it worse. The average person makes less effort with their appearance than at any time period before in all human history.
Fashion history exists, whether you read it or not.
Porn taught you “make-up” (please define make-up, guys who can’t spot eyeliner) is a sexual invite and you’re pissed the fiction is fake. That isn’t the world’s fault. That’s your fault for being dumb. (They also think natural beauty is a sexual invitation because addicts are gullible idiots).
What other people look like and how they groom their body has nothing to do with you. Stop being so shallow and obsessing over it.
Grooming is a basic primate instinct. If you don’t have it, you’re clinically depressed.
They look at a naturally pretty girl and think she’s a bitch for wearing lipstick – who’s sinning here?
Jesus himself went off on one at the person who dared call his oil bath vain. There is a spiritual bond between how we treat ourselves (with respect) and how we act in the world (decently).
How dare any of you Americans (and it’s always Americans) shame people about simple standards of appearance?
I’ve been to your country enough times to know you have Fuck-All to be proud of in the appearance stakes.
Romans 12:1, NKJV. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service
1 Corinthians 10:31, NKJV. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV. “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
And there’s nothing sinful about having a woman’s body either, God made that too. To insult a woman’s natural form is to blaspheme God’s design.
Genesis 1:27, NKJV. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Beautification is not a sin, and never has been (there are plenty of Biblical references about good, moral wives looking good too and being the pride of their husbands) it’s about a First World living standard and a longer lifespan, pride is the sin. Like presuming to judge other’s non-silicon appearance and the body/Temple God gave them…
If you look at the history of cosmetics, it’s always been primarily about health because, guess what? Healthy people are more attractive! Cosmeceuticals are not a new thing! Only in the past couple of centuries have they been separated off. Why? Legal reasons. Lower standards for non-medical products to hit the market or that they couldn’t prove the really subjective claims e.g. radiant smile. What’s that? How do you medically prove that?
These would be the “men” who attack other men for wanting to make the best of their appearance.
Leave them alone and join a pro-ugly group, you losers.
Sorry attractive people enjoying their life make you sad, but this isn’t a company’s fault, it’s evolution. [Explain sexual selection without attractiveness, I fucking dare you.]
Since it’s none of your business unless it’s your wife, join a monastery if attractive things frighten you. Do you balk at flowers and smiling babies too?
If everyone went back to smelling like ass and swamp crotch, you’d still be bottom of the barrel and whine about it. Fitness still exists.
Sports are as decadent as Hollywood but the guys claiming models shouldn’t be paid for what nature gave them never ever apply that logic to the genetic freaks known as athletes.
They’d only be happy in the world of Harrison Bergeron because pretty people couldn’t oppress them by comparison. Dya wanna ban Photoshop too? You do, don’t you?
It’s basic etiquette to look good and act good too.
This isn’t an either/or, don’t try to spin a false dichotomy out of this.
Looking like a slob is a sin as much as being it. It’s literally a sin to apply sloth to your personal care habits.
When are you banning mouthwash for making men seem more attractive than their natural oral bacteria (including the likes of Herpes) might suggest?
Jesus never used mouthwash. QED according to you.

Just enforce the law already?

We’re returning to 50s morality where strangers can’t talk to one another without it being weird.

Here, it’s still pretty weird and not just a London thing, it’s English and cultural.

LEWDNESS IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Disturbing the peace and other offences.

Honour culture coming back. We didn’t need to say it plainly to fellow high IQ Europeans with a Christian culture. Criminal White men who tried it on were fought with canes, umbrellas and hat pins. They tried to claim sexist, despite attacking first. We could stop the conflicts any time we like with deportations of rule-breakers. One strike and you’re out, we have the CCTV. But is it worth hurting some poor white girl for existing, for someone who doesn’t have to be here in the first place, should we wait until there’s already a trauma? Women don’t respond to sexual attention in public like men, it’s a negative experience. Singling out a person in public is bullying. When it’s sexual, it’s acting like looking good is a sin (so women dress more like men and they’re still whining). Women don’t need to act like men or the way predators want them to act (gaslighting, “you should take it as a compliment!” – nope, still illegal). It’s humiliating, intentionally, it’s mocking, equivalent to groping a child (also low testosterone). It’s forced sexualization so traditional men are most opposed to harassment, the street isn’t a free-for-all brothel – the assumption is No. We don’t allow one group (children) to be harmed in public (by those who find them sexually attractive) blithely (children can’t help looking cute/what they are either) so no, this isn’t Brave New World, there is no entitlement to the bodies of others. You can’t rob a bakery because you’re hungry, we expect people in the First World to act like a human, dogs can have more control on these matters! Does cake before a hungry man have more rights than a white woman in her homeland? Who do we care about more, ingroup safety or outgroup “honour”? Who is we? Guest right has long expired. Social trust is more important than anyone’s feigned feelings of dishonour, they dishonoured themselves by their criminal actions.

This problem won’t go away. The lower IQ, the weaker self control. Weak-willed people have no excuse. If you don’t like the West, move. You aren’t important.

The subtext is: to prevent harassment/rape, women should look less like women.

This has never been true. It’s a blatant lie, blaming the victim. Covered head to toe, women are attacked and have been historically. It’s like saying a poor man is never robbed. And how can a rich man or an attractive woman stop being, stop existing? Laughable psychopathy on display, to insist the world magically alter its properties because these people don’t want to control their degeneracy. The predator DESERVES to be met with force.

Victims don’t deserve it, that’s a just world fallacy!

Maybe if you’re nice to the tiger/Muslim, it won’t eat/rape you! That isn’t how predation works, cuck.

Should you take it as a compliment that a burglar found your house “nice enough” to rob? You should enjoy the slanderous “attentions” of the SJWs!

The real meaning is “let us”, be completely passive, let us harm you and play along (don’t “snitch” and assert your human rights). We don’t take that aiding and abetting, enabling approach to predators in the civilized world.

A straight male sexual predator will be attracted to women because they’re women, whatever they look like. You cannot help being in that category. It’s genetic, the way you were born and exist. Like a child cannot help being in a pedophile’s predation group. Is it their fault for looking too cute? Should we ban cuteness? Predators are a sheer minority and we mustn’t fall for their tricks or lies in enabling them. They are wrong, not the people they harm. There is no Original Sin of whiteness or attractiveness, unless you’re insane.

But harassment’s always been illegal?

Why should your culture come last? That’s why they are there, to be in your culture.

The hypoagency proclaimed by sexual predators is detestable. Going to a nudist beach shouldn’t “provoke” rape, you piece of shit. Children walk around naked too…. just saying.

We are not America. They allowed in the past century, their laws to slide to speak to and treat one another like shit. Watch how many harassment laws they break on “prank” shows to lube you up for it. That isn’t funny.

https://www.rt.com/news/434993-france-whistling-bill-women/

Meanwhile, not a word on groping, grabbing, rape.

What’s key is … that the laws of the French republic forbid insulting, intimidating, threatening and following women in public spaces,” 

They need these laws now. How long until more etiquette laws are brought in?
The PUA scam pretends to sell non-white men a method for turning any white woman into a free whore. It’s a scam but the “techniques” which legally qualify as harassment will land them in court eventually, including incitement to harass, I tried warning for years. They made their bed. Prison bed.

It’s incitement to harass on a sexual (sex, noun) and race basis too, so like… triple illegal.

If you ask a question more than once, it’s coercion. Goes for sales too. If the first No isn’t respected, why should the 20th? Although wearing someone down is an abuse tactic.

It’s like the French women who had to move but still said diversity was good because, men don’t realize, they might literally be murdered for saying anything less to the press. Diversity takes away your liberty. To know who rules over you…

Cut off the welfare state to the non-French and they’ll leave. It’s the only way to handle an infestation of leeches, cut off supply.

Emma Thompson complains her daughter was grabbed but says nothing about the legal right to self-defense or fear of being stabbed and melted with acid.

When you can’t defend yourself, you’re a slave.

Meanwhile, on the child connection

https://yournewswire.com/french-law-children-consent-sex/

ageism!

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/08/03/01016-20180803ARTFIG00271-consentement-sexuel-la-loi-ne-pose-pas-de-limite-d-age.php

Minors cannot consent. Set it to 18/age of majority!

This is why we can’t have nice things

>Women look like women, normally.
>Harassment and stalking, male superficiality and baseness.

Pick one.

Nobody thinks you really want the number or a chat.
There’s only one type of woman that gets solicited in the street, everyone knows it’s an insult.

Anything less than full androgyny is not hooker attire.
Looking female =/= sexual? The most matronly women have worn skirt, dress or heels. It’s a cultural norm.

Don’t talk to strangers.

Not just etiquette for kids!

It is still weird to solicit (actual word meaning) strangers in the street for any purpose, whatever American comedians tell you. Some of us are raised better. Instant bad impression, whoever you are.

She missed out the schizo verbal abuse when you try to politely, passively avoid the pervert interrupting your day.

Imagine if someone at a bus stop called you a bastard for not talking to them. Multiple times a day.
Men would be horrified. Oh, and you can’t physically defend yourself or pepper spray them, and their revolting hands might grope you…

Because they liked your “outfit”.

Gee, why do so many women dress like shit, wear huge coats in public, avoid men or get fat?

Maybe…. men’s behaviour had something, some tiny, little, fleeting influence on that?

Ask yourself: is this something ghetto trash would do?

If so, never ever do it!

You know, if a woman likes you, she can talk to you first?

Or a hey if she didn’t notice you and you’re in the same place for a while?

Avoid the circle of personal space. She can close the gap.

If she keeps it short, move along. A minimal response is basic politeness, savoir vivre.

You never see men’s mags say “15 signs she isn’t interested”.

Subtitle: and how to make a classy exit.

This would be useful.

It explains the entirety of the problem, forcing a reaction (abuse). Kinda like putting your job interviewer in a headlock. One step down from kidnapping.

So what you really have in most cases are men with no idea how an adult is supposed to behave, think you can “tease” people like in school, and worst of all, that think you can talk someone into fancying them.

The fat girls can’t do it, neither can you. Nice guy = great personality. No.

Men over-estimate their attractiveness, excessively. Not fancying you isn’t a personality flaw, it should be expected (most humans don’t fancy most humans), especially when you’re enraged about it. Doesn’t strike the casual observer as sane.

Whether someone is single doesn’t matter. Maybe, just maybe, they aren’t a slut?
Look at the statistics, young people are sleeping around less than their elders.

Why?

Those elders (Boomers, Gen X, some Y) and the young vibrants that think porn is real constantly being lecherous at them might have something to do with it. Women do not work like men. Random compliments make us feel worse. We weren’t thinking about how we looked and suddenly this sleaze has an opinion, feels entitled to tell me and thinks I should respond to it?

Like a literal magic word? (how stupid do they think women are?)

Like insincere compliments are hard to get?

Bad compliments are insults.

Why?

They make a heap of degrading assumptions.

For instance, women wear “woman” clothes because actually, they’re physically practical! A low neckline ventilates a hot bust! A breezy skirt prevents thighs from chafing (even in thin, non-anorexic women). Do I have to explain the sweat benefits of sleeveless?

Women already know this, ask women you know about the practical reasons for wearing clothes. It has nothing to do with men and entirely what we like. Not melting in summer is among them. Women probably stopped fainting because we could get some sweet, sweet breeze circulation!
If you had two globules of fat on your chest overheating your core body temperature, like a heat pad on your heart [1], you’d want low-cut tops as well. In the Victorian era, this was understood to be the only part you could bare – for practical reasons! Nothing to do with showing off or sex. You’re a perv.

Lingerie ads tell men what we wear has anything to do with them. Not really.

Some women try to dress to avoid male attention and need to wear deodorant under the boobs. Some women with large ones, all over. All over the boob. Sexy, right?

Most women hate compliments because most are from strangers, shallow, rude and poorly thought out.

Street harassment is totally okay if we’re allowed to pepper spray or shoot them.
Since women are the physically weaker sex and a random guy walking up to anyone, m/f, is threatening. Whoever they are. When they seem interested in taking things, willing or not, suspicions are confirmed.

It’s like lending a mugger your wallet. No, we don’t want to “talk”/give a #/”go out”.

We want to walk down a public street, in public, as an unmolested member of the public.

Huge ask, I know.

Walking down a street isn’t an invitation to impose yourself on anyone – man/woman/child.

Think how weird it would be to a man or child. No less weird to a woman.

This used to be standard protocol throughout the entire First World until the 20th century.

I think a lot of you would be shocked by how polite I am IRL. Self restraint is important.

Observation:

If you compare the way schoolboys harass and intimidate one another, it’s exactly the same with street creeps.
Invasion of personal space, cutting off avenue of escape, forced conversation, rude comments, stupid questions, illegal touching, acting like you’re the one with the problem.

[1] do that experiment, internet! Men could not last more than an hour.

The irritating fact of boob ownership is in winter, you lose heat from them.

WHO DESIGNED THIS?

Video: Spare feelings, save conflict

Well this is bullshit. False dichotomy much?
Polite is not correct or nice. Frank is not wrong or nasty. Feelings or facts, as seen?
Honest people aren’t rude. Hurting feelings is not rude, that’s a fool’s definition. Rudeness breaches a social code, agreed upon. If others disagree, such that you impose your own rules, there is no breach on their part, but possibly on yours. Force is rude, forcing people to accommodate your personal whims is rude. Honest people force the liars from their bubble, that is not rude, actually it’s a public service. Someone has to do it.
Polite people aren’t liars. They are naturally gentle and follow rules to avoid coarseness, not the truth, which they can handle with adroitness. If there’s a nice way to correct someone, they will. But polite people can be harsh, if need be or if treated poorly, as correction. The polite do not censor but treat with manners those who deserve them, rather than coming in unprepared.
Insincere people are neither honest nor polite, they are users of others playing off both groups. A third group. According to etiquette, the insincere are worse as liars than the possible rudeness of honesty. False modesty?
The other two demonstrate conscientiousness in different ways. The polite person treats you well for no reason or against reason, the frank person treats you as an equal, as a mark of respect, to even out any reason based on your true status for communication’s sake.
Due to class, the middle thinks it’s being nice when everyone else sees it being patronizing. Is it any wonder etiquette fell out of favour as the middle class grew? They love holding people to different standards and secretly bitching behind your back. The truly polite do not do this, forgiving any errors, nor do the frank, who will admit problems to resolve them. The middle class allow them to fester for gossip fodder.
Frank people expect frankness to save time and signal this by going first. Consideration is honesty. They must get things done and get along openly. Ego is accurate based on ability. People are adults and should be open to criticism if they deserved it. Doing your job is the minimum, nothing special. Duty doesn’t deserve special compliment and you won’t use them for special treatment either, pay with cash, not words. Learn by doing, not by hearing about it.
Polite people are shy and expect a slow drawn-out assessment based on subtle hinting but also mixed signals. Consideration is avoiding bad blood and conflict, including deniable mistakes. They must get along, whatever individualism threatens it. Opinions threaten vital reputation, needed for getting along with others. Awkwardness makes their subtle games difficult. Ego is based on what is nice and understated. People are soft and should be treated like children, which is as insulting as it sounds. Butter people up to get the reaction you want. They make up pointless rules to make themselves look better than the people too busy working to indulge in it. Their praise, even where false, changes lives, about as arrogant as it sounds. Polite people hedge, and liars do too. Tact is frank and polite.
“Your mother is a frequent lover.”
Notice how politics shares a root with polite and presumes its own correctness based on a popularity model, needed in democracy? The world doesn’t need more PC.

Also of interest
The douche in disguise. The fake nice guy (nice people are nice for it’s own sake, not as emotional blackmail). Beware of the over-agreeable, they don’t really agree with anything. Over-niceness is repressed rage, it’ll come out somehow. What a man is attracted to sexually is his true self, projected onto the partner.
Ayn Rand said “A man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions…. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer–because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement.”
Also “People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.”

Mill’s Liberty and do you have a right to ruin my life, indirectly?

I doubt those quibbling the scholar epithet (tongue-in-cheek, as you can plainly see) will claim to have noticed posts like this…

omg really wtf go away no audrey

I was reading around to a trounce a feminist at a cocktail party and this happens to be bizarrely applicable 150 years hence. I don’t usually read philosophy, most of being modernist trash. This selection is worth reading.

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights;”

Such as the right to have a non-cheating spouse.
There is more respect for a girlfriend/boyfriend arrangement than a marriage nowadays.

“and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.”

Violating the spirit, not the rule. Common with narcissists. Technically, I did nothing wrong, they’ll say, because I did nothing illegal.
Good people will disapprove of bad people and this has never, nor shall ever, make us bad in turn. To be discriminating is a compliment. Judgement is a core component of thought.

“As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.”

Natural consequences are not oppression – common sense.
The problem being that modern man doesn’t stand the consequences. Deadbeat dads, rapists getting off on technicalities, being rude but toeing the line to antisocial, these things used to be dealt with, as they should. By allowing them to continue, we encourage others implicitly and the problems get worse. For example, without rap culture, men and women would be far less rude to one another in this century. Rappers talk about respect because they can’t get it. The entitlement mindset originates from these people, who think they can treat everyone like dirt because reputation is a white thing. Cat-calling is a black thing. Wolf-whistling isn’t insulting, it’s like applause. Anyone being rude to women in the street is acting black, whether they admit it or not.

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings.”

The manosphere’s PR problem that killed it.
PUA too.
Why’s it always the same people? They are deficient, pick a trait.
Degenerates and deviants are deficient people.

“Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself.”

IRL detour since you seem to like the gossip. It was aimed at me so it’s legit to bring up. Skip ahead to the next quote if you like, but this childish BS is the reason I don’t defend them from misogyny claims anymore.
Their first tactic upon being warned (so they can’t play naive later) is to project. Not SJW but bird brains nonetheless, they always project. They keep calling me a man, hilariously, because of the quality content I produce (they believe no woman can ever be smarter than them, screw statistics), and their White Knight instincts would kick in otherwise, and …what was it? The most shared one was the baseless caricature of a fat ugly woman in her 30s living in Moscow because I praised Putin once, can you make a random guess what the person levying it looked like?

evil smirk cheeky cavill

Not this, that’s for fucking sure.

Single. 30s. Fat. Ugly. Does nothing but sit behind a keyboard and bleat about the flaws in others. Instead of hiding from it like he would and expected, I trumpeted it, because it isn’t true. It serves to make the speaker look like a liar. I love how ugly people call beautiful people ugly (not that he’d know for certain but perhaps he sensed from my prose). We laugh it off, it’s confusing. You wouldn’t dare look in our direction in public and we both know it. Looks are a curse, a distraction from being taken seriously on any topic. We also have to put up with these losers negging us on the reg. It never works. Ever. Negging is an implicit admission that 1. they think we’re superior and 2. they’re insecure just by looking at us. Why would that work? I’ve never seen a proof. I think they’re ruining one another’s chances to scupper the competition because a lot of them turn into super-sweet charades of themselves around us. Ignore the data that beautiful people have higher IQs, we expect it. We’ve been accustomed to bitchy rumours since childhood (oh a random guy online says I’m stupid, I guess the psychometrics must’ve been wrong, puh-lease).
It isn’t true so it doesn’t hurt. They fail to understand this because the insults lobbed at them are generally entirely accurate, it’s the veracity that stings. Names don’t hurt, unless it’s descriptive, unless it hits home. They so spoiled by social media they think they can speak to people however they like (including cultural betters like upper class Europeans, Know your place, plebians) without being matched back, as if freedom of speech singularly applies to those Starting It. Their assumptions are wrong. Polite is not nice. We treat as we find. A doormat is disrespected by 3rd parties for weakness, women especially must verbally defend themselves moreso than men because we cannot do so physically. They understand none of this, however painstakingly you explain.

ItjOKBM

Another kept trying to call me rude because he randomly tried to start a BDSM roleplay/sexting session around how he’d spank me. My relatives would kill him for that, or at least beat him to a bloody pulp, but over the internet he figured he was safe from any reproach or call-out. I’m a lady, and he knew that, and knew I’d never be comfortable with those sort of things. Ever. Even from a husband I’d suspect there’s something wrong with them, repressed rage. Clinically disturbed people enjoy the sadistic discomfort of others and their social harm often presents as insidious boundary-pushing like this. Without permission, any of this, I want to assert, I randomly get pages of explicit material ordering me to do various things, that I would happily report to the police as harassment, when it was a clear fetish he was getting off on and this was about the third or fourth time he’d mentioned it. Previously, I’d made it clear I didn’t care for those topics, personal ones, and assumed it had registered after an apology. I ignored the attempt and took the High Road, the highest possible road although I came to regret it, hoping it was a drunken mistake but knowing better, and we haven’t spoken since, good riddance to bad rubbish. I didn’t reply, you can’t get more feminine than that. You’d think these people would stop trying to cause social harm at this point. Didn’t stop him from setting his friends on me like a 13yo schoolgirl and they’re persisting in randomly trying to start drama up again, to try and use my reaction against me (while decrying it when Anita does it). Yeah, I’m the problem here, right? You keep coming back to my material, I remind comments who emptily complain on their behalf. I’d initially met both parties with sweetness and sympathy (my regular politesse) I soon found they didn’t deserve, so I withdrew it quietly, and this American-spat nonsense is their way of trying to get my attention again and in a twisted way, back on speaking terms. It won’t work because I’m more intelligent, yet that’s hardly saying anything. Once you’ve ruined your reputation as worthy of politeness, it’s gone, like virginity.
Back to liberty. That was too wordy, sorry.

It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming.”

In Europe, you aren’t. Not among the old vanguard. New Money is easily offended. Their position is new and must be defended by offense. The upper class, moneyed or by blood, are wonderfully un-PC, note the Queen’s recent comments on rudeness of the Chinese only this week. It’s in our culture to express the truth. Nice and nasty. Nasty truth is a public sport, see Blackadder.
To a woman on an official visit, Prince Philip said “I would get arrested if I unzipped that dress!”.
Real genuine English people are like this. We don’t pull punches.
SWPL and other Americans think we should be push-overs because they believe Hollywood and they’re sanctimonious tosspots i.e. I heard “You have a Queen, you should be polite!” from a tourist who grabbed me.

Where do you get this? Americans don’t get to use the word rude to us, okay? Odds are you infringed on a dozen rules of etiquette before we said something, you deserve it. Take ya medicine.
You guys have the Puritanical speech culture, not us. Our monarch is famous for swearing in private. Bess is brutal.
We dragged Cromwell’s corpse through a street to gamble, swear like sailors and celebrate Christmas.

“We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates.”

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

“We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit—who cannot live within moderate means—who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences—who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect—must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favourable sentiments; but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.”

One of my favourite parts. “He has no right to complain.” The proof of wrong is in the mirror.
They won’t respect themselves, they shouldn’t expect respect. This simple and the way people are raised with common sense.
People who self-abuse (food, sex, rest, things required for life taken to extremes) or are self-destructive in behaviour get no sympathy from the silent majority. First time, certainly, fifteenth? Get out of here. They always say the same thing, that we’re deliberately hurting them and making it worse. No, we’re cutting off the enabling teat, the milk of human kindness. Tough love.

Remember when oppression was used in the correct context? Ostracism and shame work because they crave popularity, being feeble individually.

Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury—these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment.

And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.

A reputation isn’t unjust if your actions earned it.
He did X, is not a slight, it’s a fact.
Therefore he is Y type of person, has some grounds to it.
Z, we must avoid his rot, may be fair too, if a danger is presented and the warnings are clear.
People have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient cause, and resentment disproportioned to the provocation; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross more than one’s share of advantages; the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;—these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character:”

Real deviants. Who harm their social group.
Devaluation is something they get off on, little known fact.
It’s like a list of flaws commonly found in adjacent parts of the internet. The anger outs them. Like their SJW enemies, they cannot take a joke. The narcissism of small differences.

If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him.

This only works after the first time, or first few times, to be liberal. If they ignored the proscriptions passed down in childhood, why would they listen as a selfish, closed-minded adult? Better to mock them and how they deserved it, for correction. Gentle but effective.
Even excessively liberal judges give stiffer sentences to repeat offenders.

He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shall not treat him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not interfere benevolently by showing interest or concern for him. It is far otherwise if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe.”

No clemency.

Degeneracy is a character defect. A core fissure of flaws. It cannot be scrubbed out, they’ll keep sucking the marrow from the good until the leech is detached from its host, and this leaves nothing of aid for the other good people. As we see in compassion fatigue, goodness, compassion and charity are a finite resource. They are natural nomads because nobody will put up with them, frequently abandoned by their family, most of their friends, or they have a psychopath’s rotation that last about two years because they too, have it up to here. If only people came with dust covers and reviews. If evidenced, Peeple would’ve been a fine idea. It would reintroduce the social considerations of a high trust society where word gets round.

“The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connexions, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.

Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead. And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government?

Act like a child, claim paucity of agency or naivety, have the restriction in freedoms OF a child.

“I fully admit that the mischief which a person does to himself may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term. If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance.”

Don’t tell the MGTOW/MRA that fathers are responsible for their families too. In fact, as men, the gender roles posits more responsibility than women could ever require.
You see why I go on about fake moral authority? If you can’t mind your own business, your hypocritical advice is unwarranted and unwelcome. You are fit to have an opinion but not to dispense it. Would you take diet advice from the obese? Why take advice on morality from a pervert, one who perverts the rules of decency – and for fun?
These people dispense pretty words on doing what you like without attention to duty. In a society, you have duties. Deal with it.

“In like manner, when a person disables himself, by conduct purely self-regarding, from the performance of some definite duty incumbent on him to the public, he is guilty of a social offence.”

Few vices are entirely private.
You used to be able to fine cheating spouses and their lovers. You want the cream? Pay for the pussy. They expect to have the benefits of the husband (cooking, cleaning, rutting) without the duties, see a pattern in the entitlement?
The problem with society isn’t stupid people. It’s that we, the rest of us have to live with them and make allowances for them like children, then we are expected to show sympathy to hedons. Ancient hedons were more like modern stoics actually, they had clear limits and rarely indulged, except when they did, they weren’t guilty about it. That’s the reason. Not that vice or indulgence is innately a good. The ancients, however tawdry their society, never went to this extreme of dopamine-drowned stupidity.

If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences. Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendancy which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penaltieswhich cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals,”

Nanny State.

“in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and frustrate the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped authority,”

Too many edgy people using insults without a place.
The Right isn’t exempt from false pride.

“and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins; as in the fashion of grossness which succeeded, in the time of Charles II, to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans.”

Reverse psychology.
Stupid people do it constantly, thinking they’re so clever.
They want me to be good, so I’ll be bad, I’ll show them being bad is good! They can’t trick me into doing what’s bad for my self-interest!

High time preference personified.

We have a saying you Yanks might like.

“Leave ’em to it.”
It means we let them go and get themselves into trouble, but we won’t rescue them.
We won’t lift a finger. We absolve ourselves of responsibility for them.
I think one of our cultural misfires is self-help. It makes people determined to misbehave. You can’t self-help unless you’re a therapist.

“With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.

They out themselves, as with liars who make things up about their imagined enemies.
If you’re in the right, you won’t need to lie.

These people used to keep it to the underground. It was never out, in the open and public. They could never brag and the media derided them (they love salacious gossip like the Americans now). Those who aren’t ashamed of past misconduct are as bad as the Kardashians, they twist it into a point of pride. Again.

facepalm leslie howard

As if they’re whiter than white, more good than the people who’ve been good this whole time.

“There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings…But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

“These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others.”

Ironically, those ‘philosophers’ slag off women for being emotional, irrational and having no ability to argue.
Projection Parade. The lust lies.
Here’s the SJW pseudologic:

“The Secretary, however, says, “I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.””
“So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.”

Nope, you are 100% fully responsible adult. Responsible for oneself. Nobody else is more responsible for you, than you.

For those who signal all they like about degeneracy;

“It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized.”

Sorry America.

“So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people.

If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization.

A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it.

If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.”

The Black Pill.

If you admire or fear your inferiors, they win.

Elsewhere he wrote about suppression of opinion, and noted there are three beliefs: false, half-true and entirely true.

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Ironically, I got that one from wikipedia.
Similar text wall, same chapter as top, here: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html

Choices connotes consequence.
If you consent to a choice, you consent to the risk of bad consequence, and you must accept it as gladly as you would have done the good, to take your lumps because welcome to adulthood, everyone does.
R-types have one thing in common. They want to be celebrated for existing.
Even their opinions, in their grandiose mind, are worth a living. Hang market demand.
However, a logician would correctly assert that one should place like opinions in a book and charge for that instead. The readers would get a higher quality for a cheaper price, a physical product, the author more money, yet the frauds on places like Youtube never do this because people wouldn’t read their books. Why? People want their free opinion to laugh at them. You don’t pay the village idiot to be a clown because he isn’t trying, it isn’t work for him.

I sourced these third party quotes.

millnaturalconsequences millnaturalconsequences2

As well as this, a little later is the jape.

Spencer’s hedonism committed him to the view that life is worthless in the absence of pleasure or happiness.” pp.104 Hayek on Liberty, Third Ed.
I have never seen a better definition of hedonism or the r-mindset. Kudos, Sir.

They want freedom – from consequences.

laughing lol haha liar liar

That’s a good one.

Link: Politesse, Briton to American

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/poet-robert-nichols#.Vs4zU_mLTZ6

When Americans insult me for rare candor, I must laugh. You beg for the truth and complain when it’s served. It would be unwise to expect your cultural forebears to have the same equitable spirit that formed your union.

We will either tell you a thing or refuse to comment. Never complain, never explain?

The middle class lie. They think they’re subtle.