JFL Deflecting and dodging. Female mindset 101

[clocked]

Hello, Yesterday i made a post about a very soy user who recently discovered the blackpill and has been hellbent on trying to disprove it, to no avail.

Recently hes made another post and the comments are pure gold

All he is asking for is for someone to help him disprove this nuke of a blackpill. Discounting his limited understanding of women and dating apps it seems he gave IT an easy way out, instead they decided to dodge the conversation as a whole, despite consistently telling their members that no incel would ever listen to their reasoning and are delusional.

Heres some of the responses

Okay, Great. Lets break this down

muh anecdotal evidence!! also seems to be ignoring the fact that this man has likely already come to these conclusions as a result of real world socialization.

(also when incels use anecdotes its false according to them but then they basically tell him to soy up and use it to cope whenever someone exchanges pleasantries with him JFL)

“She” then proceeds to tell him that some people are awful and use “science” to back them. If she is implying our sources and independent research is incorrect why not simply debunk it, which is all this incel in denial is asking for.

One of “her” last pieces of advice was to essentially take the bluepill and dont give a fuck what anyone says, refuting studies and anecdotal evidence alike.

Yes goyim. you do not need to listen to these people that hate us. You dont need proof or evidence. just take the bluepill and forget about this evil people. jfl

 

[Liu KANG]

Get ya dox on

 

[clocked]

Get ya dox on

just might

 

[clocked]

in other words, “I only pick fights i know i can win or that has no opposition”

 

[Liu KANG]

just might

Gowan!!!

 

[Sloth Vs Koala]

It's in their nature to gaslight

Get ya dox on

 

[clocked]

It's in their nature to gaslight

this retarded hole is 16. lol guess it starts young

 

[KING NOTHING]

Yes goyim. you do not need to listen to these people that hate us. You dont need proof or evidence. just take the bluepill and forget about this evil people. jfl

Foids can’t argue for shit.
The final card up their sleeve is plugging their ears and going lalalalalala.

 

[GeckoBus]

Hello, Yesterday i made a post about a very soy user who recently discovered the blackpill and has been hellbent on trying to disprove it, to no avail.

Recently hes made another post and the comments are pure gold
View attachment 1218761

All he is asking for is for someone to help him disprove this nuke of a blackpill. Discounting his limited understanding of women and dating apps it seems he gave IT an easy way out, instead they decided to dodge the conversation as a whole, despite consistently telling their members that no incel would ever listen to their reasoning and are delusional.

Heres some of the responses
View attachment 1218764

Okay, Great. Lets break this down

View attachment 1218765
muh anecdotal evidence!! also seems to be ignoring the fact that this man has likely already come to these conclusions as a result of real world socialization.

(also when incels use anecdotes its false according to them but then they basically tell him to soy up and use it to cope whenever someone exchanges pleasantries with him JFL)

View attachment 1218767
“She” then proceeds to tell him that some people are awful and use “science” to back them. If she is implying our sources and independent research is incorrect why not simply debunk it, which is all this incel in denial is asking for.

View attachment 1218768
One of “her” last pieces of advice was to essentially take the bluepill and dont give a fuck what anyone says, refuting studies and anecdotal evidence alike.

View attachment 1218770
Yes goyim. you do not need to listen to these people that hate us. You dont need proof or evidence. just take the bluepill and forget about this evil people. jfl

DARVO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This book lists out common tactics in short form, quick read 100% worth it:

182 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Cant go from description to prescription, another common normie error:

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

fact/value collapse is another one. A fact does not contain value judgements. But normies often take it that way.
Here is an example.
"You are a pedophile!" - Pedophilia is a technical term denoting attraction to prepubescent children. As such, it is not automatically negative in a moral sense. However, the description becomes prescription, aka value judgement because culturally pedophilia is seen as a moral evil.
I am not supporting pedophilia, i am just using it as a krass example because it sticks.

Same goes for incel claims about society or women. These claims are not inherently negative, but are minconstrued as such because people critiquing us are ideologically driven. By assuming neutral findings about women are somehow "misogyny" they ironically support our position without realizing it, and reveal their ideological bias, which they ironically accuse us of having.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Immedieatly block these if they bring them up:

- appeal to authority
- appeal to popular consensus
- appeal to nature "it is natural, therefore it is good"
- this one:

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- also accusing you of having no credentials is another one

Pretty much all fallacies are non-sequiturs - they are non-followers, aka the premise does not lead to the alleged conclusion.
Always examine the premise, the presupposition and then ask yourself if the conclusion "naturally" follows. It usually does not at all.
For most of these issues you can just ask "why?" a few times and they wont be able to answer.
This is where we encounter another problem, which is the munchausen trilemma:

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, when you ask why a few times you either end up with
a) circular reasoning
b) infinite regress, aka question begging - they give you another unjustified claim that they then have to answer for, dodging ur quesiton
c) fideism, faith, "it just is"


This is a problem that never disappears no matter what. If you follow all of the above, you can dismantle most arguments or claims instantly, especially the trilemma thing. Just ask why a bunch of times, ask how they know and how they established that and boom.
This thing lays out the problem in philosophy about claims being hard to justify in general a bit more.

https://www.patristicfaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The_Contingency_of_Knowledge_and_Revelatory_Theism.pdf

 

[Liu KANG]

DARVO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This book lists out common tactics in short form, quick read 100% worth it:

182 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Cant go from description to prescription, another common normie error:

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

fact/value collapse is another one. A fact does not contain value judgements. But normies often take it that way.
Here is an example.
"You are a pedophile!" - Pedophilia is a technical term denoting attraction to prepubescent children. As such, it is not automatically negative in a moral sense. However, the description becomes prescription, aka value judgement because culturally pedophilia is seen as a moral evil.
I am not supporting pedophilia, i am just using it as a krass example because it sticks.

Same goes for incel claims about society or women. These claims are not inherently negative, but are minconstrued as such because people critiquing us are ideologically driven. By assuming neutral findings about women are somehow "misogyny" they ironically support our position without realizing it, and reveal their ideological bias, which they ironically accuse us of having.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Immedieatly block these if they bring them up:

- appeal to authority
- appeal to popular consensus
- appeal to nature "it is natural, therefore it is good"
- this one:

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- also accusing you of having no credentials is another one

Pretty much all fallacies are non-sequiturs - they are non-followers, aka the premise does not lead to the alleged conclusion.
Always examine the premise, the presupposition and then ask yourself if the conclusion "naturally" follows. It usually does not at all.
For most of these issues you can just ask "why?" a few times and they wont be able to answer.
This is where we encounter another problem, which is the munchausen trilemma:

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, when you ask why a few times you either end up with
a) circular reasoning
b) infinite regress, aka question begging - they give you another unjustified claim that they then have to answer for, dodging ur quesiton
c) fideism, faith, "it just is"


This is a problem that never disappears no matter what. If you follow all of the above, you can dismantle most arguments or claims instantly, especially the trilemma thing. Just ask why a bunch of times, ask how they know and how they established that and boom.
This thing lays out the problem in philosophy about claims being hard to justify in general a bit more.

https://www.patristicfaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The_Contingency_of_Knowledge_and_Revelatory_Theism.pdf

High iq

 

[Emba]

DARVO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This book lists out common tactics in short form, quick read 100% worth it:

182 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Cant go from description to prescription, another common normie error:

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

fact/value collapse is another one. A fact does not contain value judgements. But normies often take it that way.
Here is an example.
"You are a pedophile!" - Pedophilia is a technical term denoting attraction to prepubescent children. As such, it is not automatically negative in a moral sense. However, the description becomes prescription, aka value judgement because culturally pedophilia is seen as a moral evil.
I am not supporting pedophilia, i am just using it as a krass example because it sticks.

Same goes for incel claims about society or women. These claims are not inherently negative, but are minconstrued as such because people critiquing us are ideologically driven. By assuming neutral findings about women are somehow "misogyny" they ironically support our position without realizing it, and reveal their ideological bias, which they ironically accuse us of having.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Immedieatly block these if they bring them up:

- appeal to authority
- appeal to popular consensus
- appeal to nature "it is natural, therefore it is good"
- this one:

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- also accusing you of having no credentials is another one

Pretty much all fallacies are non-sequiturs - they are non-followers, aka the premise does not lead to the alleged conclusion.
Always examine the premise, the presupposition and then ask yourself if the conclusion "naturally" follows. It usually does not at all.
For most of these issues you can just ask "why?" a few times and they wont be able to answer.
This is where we encounter another problem, which is the munchausen trilemma:

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, when you ask why a few times you either end up with
a) circular reasoning
b) infinite regress, aka question begging - they give you another unjustified claim that they then have to answer for, dodging ur quesiton
c) fideism, faith, "it just is"


This is a problem that never disappears no matter what. If you follow all of the above, you can dismantle most arguments or claims instantly, especially the trilemma thing. Just ask why a bunch of times, ask how they know and how they established that and boom.
This thing lays out the problem in philosophy about claims being hard to justify in general a bit more.

https://www.patristicfaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The_Contingency_of_Knowledge_and_Revelatory_Theism.pdf

thanks bro