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.”

White people + danger + Adam and Eve

An example of how criticizing white people can be funny (because it’s true), fine (because it’s put in a polite way) and not anti-white.

I’d argue that adventuring spirit is the reason we had Empires.

And for That’s Not Sexist Because It’s In the Bible.

I already know this but it’s well put. I find it funny when fake manosphere Christians bring up Eve like that’s a real point. Are you missing a rib too? And Lilith is Jewish. There’s no such thing as Judeo-Christian because Nietzsche came up with that to trash-talk two religions at once et cetera et cetera…

It’s good to explain to these people what really happened – according to the Bible they do not read except in snippets on wikipedia.

A man did something he knew would make God mad – and the woman got blamed for it. I’ll take World History for $100.

Based on a literal reading of this fact, women can educate themselves with as much knowledge as they want with God’s blessing aka only men are forbidden from knowledge. Probably because you know, what they do with it.

~nukes going off in the distance~

So, if we’re being pedantic like many male theology students, Christian only universities should be women’s only universities, right?

Or do we only apply the one-sided stuff when women get the short end of the passage (like explicitly mentioning female virginity because it was written by horny men)?

Double standards are fine if there is a sound reason given at the same time (so in this case, in the Bible, preferably same gospel). In that case, I think it’s presumed men would be virgins upon marriage based on the rarity and expense of prostitutes. Nowadays all you need to do is buy them a drink.

Yet it never mentions whether it was OK if she lost her virginity to the man she was marrying….

hmm did not know nice surprised hot

It kinda reminds me of the hypocrisy (always wrong) of the hijab/niqab/burka – if it’s really about modesty, the men would wear them too.

Like old nun clothing, matched up to priest clothing. Fair standard. No free rides here, sinner.