Peterson memes and the myth of the individual

The Left can’t meme, holy shit.

It’s like a goth phase for degenerates.

He’s the dumb person’s smart person.
And the best meme is obviously this:

Show me IQ by sexual partners or STD history, Peterson.

http://highexistence.com/16-jordan-peterson-memes-made-clean-room-laughter/

How to spot a cult, this line:
“There are those on the inside who “get it” and those on the outside who don’t.”

The modern navel-gazer picks over Disney instead of the Bible.
“In his Maps of Meaning course he spends over 4 hours deconstructing the movie Pinocchio,

so intellectual

digging a latrine for four hours would be more useful

these people are allergic to manual tasks

they’d watch paint dry than do something with their hands

why doesn’t he teach you how to read research papers?

so you don’t have to rely on anyone’s interpretation?

(he doesn’t think you’re smart enough – and he’s right)

drawing from the cartoon profound insights about religion, myth, society, Marxism, psychology, and religion.”

Marxism, yay! Theft is so deep.
If you want to torture me, set me up Clockwork Orange style in front of someone pontificating about Disney for hours like it’s the Holy Grail.
This is what the SJWs did first. If you twist things for kids, you can brainwash them. It’s the lowest effort manipulation.
Remember when the edgy people used to hate psychology professors?
The field isn’t different. They still hate you.

I’ve written about the distraction on menial work before, typical cult.
Clean up your room?
Clean up your country.

Jesus didn’t tidy a hut.
“You stop doing things that make you feel weak and aim for making your life better.”
FEEEEEEELS.

REAL SELF-IMPROVEMENT MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE SHIT.

It doesn’t stop.

The funny part of a cult is how the members have total cognitive dissonance, demonstrated in zero self-awareness.
They couldn’t have wasted months watching shit on the internet (I know I do!), no, it has to be life-changing.
If it were true, the signal value would be bad.
Logically, it must be partially false to pass the censors.
Spiritual bypassing again. Addicted to superficial “improvement”. No use repainting the wall when the building is about to collapse.
Look at the simple conflict of “stay out of the mainstream, you’re so special just the way you are” against “Climb the dominance hierarchy”.
What if the system is corrupt? Why support it?
Ah, academic professor, that’s why. Teenagers will hate their parents, never their favourite teachers. And you wonder why so many abandoned kids are socialists. They never replace the teachers with robots for this reason, the real reason. They teach state loyalty with emotional abuse (since teachers are instrumental supports designed to induce obedience in the helpless and always leave).
The people you see on TV (Channel 4 interview) or at the top of Youtube are finger puppets.
The internet is one big Punch and Judy show.
The alt right collapsed when the drama!!!!!1! people came in and started trying to be celebrities constantly cat-fighting one another for attention supply and doing nothing productive. Actively halting productive conversations with gossip.
It’s just as bad as the Kardashian brothel.
However, this was gold. You can allow 1% lolz. It can’t be 99% what you do.

“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.”
Liars can use common sense, Satan can quote Scripture, Peterson can sound lucid for once.
He’s using the Rules for Radicals technique there, I think. Hoist them by their own petard, hold them to their own standard. SJWs offend everyone so are they also banned? We now have political classes … we notice because they’re in flux. Christians, white people and capitalists (right-wingers) used to be on the bottom of the heap and rise. The left, atheist crowd object to the change in status but can only make noise, having no logical grounding to prevent their slide down.
The end of that video is what I just described, she slides silently down, virtue signalling corrupted.

He didn’t say the best thing: the right to liberty involves risk. If someone disgusts you, you have the right to avoid them. Freedom of association keeps the peace. Emotional appeals have no logical or legal basis. Everyone has emotions. The truth will be the truth no matter what you or I feel about it, bring up Creationists and evolution. Denial has no right to be respected when an individual tries to force society to ignore evidence in biology. It’s ideological fascism.

You cannot outlaw risk, it’s a fact of reality and there is no such thing as a right to be coddled by others. Infantilization is wrong. Entitlement is toxic. Outrage begins within and it is abusive to ask others to regulate your own emotions when you choose to seek out ideas that anger you. It’s an anger management problem.

This is why they don’t let me on TV.

The Virgin/Chad thing was a cringe attempt of middle-class, spoiled American degenerates to pretend they have a conscience e.g. “saves Western civilization”, it actually says that. Next to “centrist” (cuck) and “Disney”. Just “Disney”. The left can’t meme, even when they’re pretending to be right e.g. “speaks the truth” is one “Chad” description. Find the average business major Chad at a festival and see how much shit they talk. They still listen to rap, FFS.
It’s embarassing.
The male equivalent of an SJW. Both are addicted to vice, an irrational sense of superiority from being degenerate, combined with intense emotions and without those intense emotions like a strong tap they collapse from withdrawal. Both are drama addicts.
These people are useless narcissists: http://highexistence.com/dark-side-of-following-your-dreams/

Both are movement poison, waiting for a powerful bandwagon to jump on.

A cuck will collapse (no conscience, nothing behind the verbal) and abandon your team as soon as you call them racist. Racist just means white person.

You can’t stop being white? It’s the white person’s “nigger”. Pets used to be called that with love, it had a variety of meanings. They’re so sheltered they don’t get that a word becomes its use and “racist” was a Marxist invention anyway; words can describe all sorts of things that don’t exist, you bloody unicorn. You don’t have to respect a thing because they made up a word for it, it’s linguistic intelligent design.

(If ID were true, genetic mutations wouldn’t exist, nor would genetic disease).

Denial doesn’t work. Reality exists!

The scientific use of it is a false flag to deplete attention away from the science per se.
The science is still there. DNA is on our side on this one. The word is in the long slow process of dying out among the ignorant who don’t believe in the science.

“Define who you are” – Peterson

oh but nationalism is bad?

Are you not your culture, Mr Myth Man?

Are you African culture too, with your globalism? Who’s your fave Orisha, Peterson? Or does he only study White culture? I’d like a comparison of Yemoja to Luna. Probability = 0.

(As you can guess, I could write a religion book better than Peterson and trust me, that isn’t saying much.. He doesn’t even mention The White Goddess book, haven’t seen it. It explains women in wheat fields as ancestral memory, imho. His view is narrow Greco-Roman Martian sensibility. Within the same pantheon and ignorance, at least appreciate Jupiter and Saturn!)

His lectures plot the same course of intellectual development for female students as male, that is a Gender Studies major’s wet dream.

And are you not beholden to your biology? Then you begin with huge limits e.g. IQ and true self-definition is a farce involving the long-dead American Nightmare.

“Strengthen the individual.” Fucking psychologists.
(They make more money treating 5,000 people for the same problem than telling them all at once and solving it forever. Remember that.)

I think, I drink, I judge.

If you’re new, welcome.

And if the given rationale for that particular mantra is to spare society the responsibility for individuals, that is the express purpose of authority (and taxation) and individualism is the enemy of nationalism. The basis of his brand of individualism cannot be nationalism (improving strength and potency of national symbols and culture). If it’s for the Greater Good of nation then why be opposed to nationalism, why not just skip to that bit?

LOGICALLY.

Save the nation, save all the individuals comprising it.

Any rebuttal? Anyone? If we’re shooting for pure utilitarianism… don’t be easy pickings.

The envious mob can chop up Hypatia. One great individual has no strength in a weak society that doesn’t deserve them.

It’s a myth of mere genius e.g. Galileo, that they cannot be murdered. A fairytale.

Fix the nation, correct the incentives or the tall poppies die and everyone else with them. Throughout history, they pluck off the “individuals” first. Divide and conquer.

What takes out your polymaths and geniuses will easily devastate the common herd.

You can have the tidiest room up to operating room standards and there are still invaders raping your little sister. Are you really a man?

They seek out myth because their life is a lie.

They seek out old culture in a grandiose pastiche because they are disconnected socially from the present and recent past (kin) and want the emotional boost of belonging like a drug without the duties to the in-group. His lectures go over well with kids because they’re dodging responsibility. It’s escapism.

They say they want “meaning”, they crave belonging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudade
You miss your unique place that is your birthright.

I know this because I’ve been there, the same position as you fifteen years ago.
Don’t waste fifteen years reading myths thinking they hold a key to Atlantis.

To put it in terms a Peterson cultist would understand, meditate on this:

You’re still alienated, surrounded by Disney VHS tapes.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Freud! Sexual theory, inversion

http://www.bartleby.com/278/1.html
I think people don’t read Freud because they assume they know what he will say.

Stay tuned for traps, queers, degeneracy and genetic aspersions.

It’s like asking a Communist for a good book on capitalism. Psychodynamics is the natural enemy of postmodernism. Everything you do is loaded with meaning, nothing you say matters. It isn’t perfect but it has use. It digs down into motive, unlike, say, the gay triangle of CBT, where thoughts magically pop out of nowhere ~dynamic unconsciousness screams into the void~

“Degeneration.—This term degeneration is open to the objections which may be urged against the promiscuous use of this word in general. It has in fact become customary to designate all morbid manifestations not of traumatic or infectious origin as degenerative. Indeed, Magnan’s classification of degenerates makes it conceivable that the highest general configuration of nervous accomplishment need not exclude the application of the concept of degeneration. Under the circumstances it is a question what use and what new content the meaning of “degeneration” still possesses. It would seem more appropriate not to speak of degeneration: (1) Where there are not many marked deviations from the normal; (2) where the capabilities and the capacity to exist do not in general appear markedly impaired. 6  15″

Hello, DSM 5.

n.b. The ICD is the DSM only stronger. It’s a huge, honest list of insurance codes. They don’t pretend to care about you, pay the man and take your pills.

A momentary pause for memes that get funnier the more psychodynamics you know.

     

“Degeneration.—This term degeneration is open to the objections which may be urged against the promiscuous use of this word in general. It has in fact become customary to designate all morbid manifestations not of traumatic or infectious origin as degenerative. Indeed, Magnan’s classification of degenerates makes it conceivable that the highest general configuration of nervous accomplishment need not exclude the application of the concept of degeneration. Under the circumstances it is a question what use and what new content the meaning of “degeneration” still possesses. It would seem more appropriate not to speak of degeneration: (1) Where there are not many marked deviations from the normal; (2) where the capabilities and the capacity to exist do not in general appear markedly impaired. 6  15  That the inverted are not degenerates in this qualified sense can be seen from the following facts:  16  1. The inversion is found among persons who otherwise show no marked deviation from the normal.  17  2. It is found also among persons whose capabilities are not disturbed, who on the contrary are distinguished by especially high intellectual development and ethical culture. 7  18  3. If one disregards the patients of one’s own practice and strives to comprehend a wider field of experience, he will in two directions encounter facts which will prevent him from assuming inversions as a degenerative sign.  19  (a) It must be considered that inversion was a frequent manifestation among the ancient nations at the height of their culture. It was an institution endowed with important functions. (b) It is found to be unusually prevalent among savages and primitive races, whereas the term degeneration is generally limited to higher civilization (I. Bloch). Even among the most civilized nations of Europe, climate and race have a most powerful influence on the distribution of, and attitude toward, inversion. 8  20″

Nurture theorists got nothing on this man.

“Innateness.—Only for the first and most extreme class of inverts, as can be imagined, has innateness been claimed, and this from their own assurance that at no time in their life has their sexual impulse followed a different course. The fact of the existence of two other classes, especially of the third, speaks against the assumption of its being congenital. Hence, the propensity of those holding this view to separate the group of absolute inverts from the others results in the abandonment of the general conception of inversion. Accordingly in a number of cases the inversion would be of a congenital character, while in others it might originate from other causes.…..

The Relation of Bisexuality.—Since the time of Frank Lydston, Kiernan, and Chevalier, a new stream of thought has been introduced for the explanation of the possibility of sexual inversion. This contains a new contradiction to the popular belief which assumes that a human being is either a man or a woman.”

Unfortunately, Freud appeared to have predicted all this gender binary business.

“The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex.”

Sexuality is fluid down generations. Evolution. No naturalistic fallacy about bonobos here, plz.

“Psychic hermaphroditism would gain in substantiality if parallel with the inversion of the sexual object there should be at least a change in the other psychic qualities, such as in the impulses and distinguishing traits characteristic of the other sex. But such inversion of character can be expected with some regularity only in inverted women; in men the most perfect psychic manliness may be united with the inversion. …”

Lesbian neuroscience testosterone studies. 2D:4D ratios. The homosexual male’s femininity is a parody, a social role. They had no trouble hiding it when it was illegal.

He did write a whole book on Leonardo assuming he was homosexual, the reason moderns assume it, so he may be slightly biased in favour of the male purely because his own mother abandoned him to a nanny. We call this attachment issues in child psychology but it’s essentially Freud Pure.

“The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex.”

Kinsey hasn’t got shit on Freud.
~confetti~

“A spokesman of the masculine inverts stated the bisexual theory in its crudest form in the following words: “It is a female brain in a male body.” But we do not know the characteristics of a “female brain.” The substitution of the anatomical for the psychological is as frivolous as it is unjustified. The attempted explanation by v. Krafft-Ebing seems to be more precisely formulated than that of Ulrich but does not essentially differ from it. v. Krafft-Ebing thinks that the bisexual predisposition gives to the individual male and female brain cells as well as somatic sexual organs.”

Sounds epigenetic.

“These centers develop first towards puberty mostly under the influence of the independent sex glands. We can, however, say the same of the male and female “centers” as of the male and female brains; and moreover, we do not even know whether we can assume for the sexual functions separate brain locations (“centers”) such as we may assume for language.  33  After this discussion, two thoughts, as it were, remain; first, that a bisexual predisposition is to be presumed for the inversion also, only we do not know wherein it exists beyond the anatomical formations; and, second, that we are dealing with disturbances which are experienced by the sexual impulse during its development. 11  34  ”

Number of abuse victims studies. Sheer quantity, cannot be ignored.
And have you ever met a gay guy that loves his father?
Fuck you, Dad!” the lifestyle crisis.

Traditionally, all fathers asked of their sons was to produce another heir….

crude compensation or coping mechanism
another thrilling round of-

“The Sexual Object of Inverts.—The theory of psychic hermaphroditism presupposed that the sexual object of the inverted is the reverse of the normal. The inverted man, like the woman, succumbs to the charms emanating from manly qualities of body and mind; he feels himself like a woman and seeks a man.  35  But however true this may be for a great number of inverts it by no means indicates the general character of inversion. There is no doubt that a great part of the male inverted have retained the psychic character of virility, that proportionately they show but little the secondary characters of the other sex, and that they really look for real feminine psychic features in their sexual object. If that were not so it would be incomprehensible why masculine prostitution, in offering itself to inverts, copies in all its exterior, to-day as in antiquity, the dress and attitudes of woman.”

The original ‘are traps gay?’

To round off by repeating one section considering our current knowledge of the microbiome and the possible role of Gay Germ theory.

“It has in fact become customary to designate all morbid manifestations not of traumatic or infectious origin as degenerative. ”

How about you read the thing before taking an SJW’s word for it?

Their definition of homophobia and privilege are also deeply Freudian.

the r in Refugees Welcome signs + funnies

Look at the facial expression in the Bible quote. That’s an atheist going to Hell for blasphemy.

Spliced with photo of actual ‘refugees’. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Hopefully the Manchester attack, nail-bombing little girls has redpilled these feminists.
Somehow I doubt it. This is the one that started it all.

This one in particular triggers me, the way to kill it is with apathy: So?

So was Jack the Ripper, so was Hitler, so is Trump. Tired of whataboutism.

“they are us, we are them”

true

Meanwhile, actual refugees

Yeah, let’s not save these people waving round the white flag of Christendom.

Are they welcome in YOUR home? Why not?

JK Rowling has yet to take in any ‘refugees’ that someone offered to pay to fly to her homes!

She is irrelevant. Like…

Emma Watson hasn’t spent a night in the Calais camp alone, without security.

Locks are racist! No borders? No walls! Let’s all live in pagodas! 

Now a series of triggering memes and funnies.

It’s been a while. 120 funnies. Some repeats. A few serious.

about as real as her hair

Going by her Coco the Clown makeup, I think they do.

The People do not consent to open borders. The native people.

Everyone into Lord of the Rings.

All harassment is bad but sexual harassment is the worst.
It’s the First World, fucking act like it.
Recently, a German woman was beaten by a ‘migrant’, because she told him not to call her a bitch.

Tesla’s expression, my fucking sides.

He never said that but yes. Fitness is in adaptation.

Just like consciousness. You can’t touch it or test it. It’s unfalsifiable. It’s the scientific concept of spirit.
It isn’t scientific though.

Sexual orientation theory is BS. There’s only behaviour – which hole is your goal?

SJW’s playbook.

The alt-lite treats the J-word as their N.

And strange brown men on the street.

The temporary alliance of SJWs and Muslims is simple: the sexually entitled support the sexually entitled.
Also take down White Man but obviously, SJWs aren’t white or men, typically.

“Women used to be ladies”

The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.

TLDR; read bolded.

It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).

Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.

Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.

“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”

It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.

Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.


Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.


Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?

Especially those in other time periods.

^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.

Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.

In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.

Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.

This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?

Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.

Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.

Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.

The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.

Everything you know is wrong.

Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.

Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!

Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Casual or modest, pick ONE.

I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.

This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!

He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?

The problem is male demand.

Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.

You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.

You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?

More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.

Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?

Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…

Which fork, Forney?

They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.

Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.

The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.

This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.

These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?

Are you quite sure?

They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.

Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.

Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.

However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.

Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.

You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.

Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.

Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.

I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, ..do you?

Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.

Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.

Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.

We mock idiots like you.

Video: How to get offended

Status signalling, the modern fainting couch. Pass the salts, Ruth!

It’s a tantrum, pick the most trivial thing and nag anyone around you about it because Power is evil. It’s weirdly fascist to argue who should get what from a position of equality.

PC, the never-ending euphemism treadmill and doublespeak of modern sin.

A very passive aggressive censorship.

A self-righteous indignation.

Look up the definitions of bigot and gaslighting and see if you can spot a difference.

There is no right answer to get.

You should know what you did.” [1] followed by what they hope is a stern, disapproving, matronly expression. I have experienced that. They deny Burden of Proof habitually. Any personal responsibility, really. The ‘I can’t believe you just said that’s [2] of the world.

1 The correct answer is I am not a telepath, adults talk about things, Sue. Now do you want your rattle or will you just throw it out the pram again? Also acceptable is Okay, Mom since it’s creepy and Freudian, like them.

2 The correct answer is I can believe that. like they are the dumbest person you ever met (they’re certainly a candidate). Alogia works excellently on SJWs, considering most of them have thought disorders and intellectual disabilities and do it themselves [3]. Two walls, talking. Have fun chiding yourself.

3 In before ‘that’s abuse’: they start it, they know what stonewalling is, they intend to humiliate you like a sociopath and it is unprompted, a coward’s mode of attack. Treat them like the emotional children they are and give them a taste of their bitter medicine. Ultimately, this is why ignoring them works, since they dearly crave attention.

Mansplain Bingo

mansplain-bingo

really mansplaining refers to debate practices done incorrectly or in bad faith
it’s all about the pretentious people appealing to their own authority
in lieu of proof/s
they lack honour but go on to disrespect their opponent while refusing to let them leave
trans. intellectually dishonest bullies
aka It can’t be antisocial if I use big words! Stop crying! Stop hitting yourself!
they assume an authority above the other speaker without anything to back it up
it’s just extremely more typical for the male to bitch with rationalizations to feel intellectual

it’s a logical fallacy to wield the terms and ideas of logic incorrectly
their own emotional high rests on their opponents’ ignorance of correct form
like kicking sand in their eyes in a fight
they’re low
they need to cheat because they’re scum

no parties involved can commonly articulate this because neither of them fully know the rules

in short, in response to one stupid person/group, you get the REAL triggered group

they pretend to be offended by lies, but it’s really personal -like, REALLY personal

the opposite of gentlemanly (correct form) making them instant losers

going “achtually” when nobody invited them, they don’t know what they’re talking about (man card is not a valid qualification on STEM topics) and sperging out

in a woman it’s called being a gossip, being a bitch, whining, being nosy or nagging
they try to pass all those off as proof of masculinity and veracity (fooling no one, causing temper tantrum)

it’s entirely fully 100% bitchy men pretending to be smart

starting on the idiots they perceive as slightly lower in the chain

throwing a tantrum when you point it out

very delta/gamma

not men, but boys, too easily triggered to be masculine

when arrogant men and women bump noggins, but project their faults as an innately sexual thing

buy hey, I just believe in Burden of Proof

Most things are not obvious. Otherwise, a debate would be redundant.

eyeroll marilyn monroe rlly really uhuh hmmm oh

My personal favourites are;

you’re too dumb to explain it to (or, Occam’s razor, you can’t do it cos you’re poorly informed and therefore wrong) but also I don’t even understand you and that’s your fault (incredulity)

If I repeat myself maybe it’ll make it sound like I have a valid point.

If you call me out on any of my bullshit, somehow ad hominem.

Autistic shrieking as they gesture at both wikipedia and the common dictionary of non-technical terms.

If you make my beliefs look stupid, I will get so defensive I can only call it a strawman but cannot explain why.