Serious First step is socio-tribal warfare with foids

[SmhChan]

Have you ever seen a starving individual blamed for their starvation? It's always the Govt held responsible for the plight of that individual.

Then why are men held responsible if foids don't desire them? Why is it okay to tell them that it's their fault, muh personality? Isn't it disrespectful to foids that men are told to persevere against foids' wishes? Well, obviously not, because of the perceived of value of male labour. So it isn't in their best interest to free men of the guilt they forced on them.

Honestly, I'm not frustrated by that, rather the fact we haven't come up with appropriate non-mansplaining responses to these social-gaslighting. Foids don't hesitate to jump the shark and engage in socio-tribal warfares with men with their twisted (intentional) interpretations. I remember one regarding AI-Women, where foids accused men of not treating foids like humans because men are drawn to AI-Women out of desperation. But let me ask you this, would anyone ever accuse a starving person of treating food like garbage because they are forced to scavenge for it in the trash bin? Us men should latch onto each and everything to paint every foid behavior as hypocritical and immoral that doesn't benefit men.

 

[lu.jones]

Have you ever seen a starving individual blamed for their starvation? It's always the Govt held responsible for the plight of that individual.

Then why are men held responsible if foids don't desire them? Why is it okay to tell them that it's their fault, muh personality? Isn't it disrespectful to foids that men are told to persevere against foids' wishes? Well, obviously not, because of the perceived of value of male labour. So it isn't in their best interest to free men of the guilt they forced on them.

Honestly, I'm not frustrated by that, rather the fact we haven't come up with appropriate non-mansplaining responses to these social-gaslighting. Foids don't hesitate to jump the shark and engage in socio-tribal warfares with men with their twisted (intentional) interpretations. I remember one regarding AI-Women, where foids accused men of not treating foids like humans because men are drawn to AI-Women out of desperation. But let me ask you this, would anyone ever accuse a starving person of treating food like garbage because they are forced to scavenge for it in the trash bin? Us men should latch onto each and everything to paint every foid behavior as hypocritical and immoral that doesn't benefit men.

I’ve been saying this for years!.

Starvation is a great comparison. If they bring up rape ask them “ would you eat be force fed or starved” they genuinely won’t know what to say because it’s genuinely a great comparison.

Incels are also being denied a biological need . We evolved to mate. That is the purpose of life.

 

[SmhChan]

STARVATION IS THE ANSWER IF NOT ONE OF THE. I have heard stories of mothers choking their own kids during draughts.

There was an foid-asslicking piece of shit .is user the other day comparing foids getting raped to one getting robbed because foids use their bodies to get ahead. Another being foids wanting a 'trad' man but there's no boundary to that expectation.

Everything is amped up to the extreme. If men adopted this way of the foids and these sack of shit soys, they would just be adapting. Men should pull it to the extreme to the other end. Yeah, foids can use their bodies all they want to get out of starvation.

Incels are also being denied a biological need . We evolved to mate. That is the purpose of life.

We are way past having conversations like this. There's no decency in society. If pushed to the extreme in arguments, you know what their ultimate argument would be. "Well you can live without sex." Quality of life, depression, mental health, everything goes out of the window and you'll hear the phrase, "it's your personality". It's a diabolical cycle with them. Force is the only thing they understand. But the first is this, tribalism against foids which is needed to overhaul men's way of thinking and for men to explore all the 'hidden' possibilities to combat.

 

[lu.jones]

STARVATION IS THE ANSWER IF NOT ONE OF THE. I have heard stories of mothers choking their own kids during draughts.

There was an foid-asslicking piece of shit .is user the other day comparing foids getting raped to one getting robbed because foids use their bodies to get ahead. Another being foids wanting a 'trad' man but there's no boundary to that expectation.

Everything is amped up to the extreme. If men adopted this way of the foids and these sack of shit soys, they would just be adapting. Men should pull it to the extreme to the other end. Yeah, foids can use their bodies all they want to get out of starvation.


We are way past having conversations like this. There's no decency in society. If pushed to the extreme in arguments, you know what their ultimate argument would be. "Well you can live without sex." Quality of life, depression, mental health, everything goes out of the window and you'll hear the phrase, "it's your personality". It's a diabolical cycle with them. Force is the only thing they understand. But the first is this, tribalism against foids which is needed to overhaul men's way of thinking and for men to explore all the 'hidden' possibilities to combat.

“You can live with out it” id really like to see the stats on incels killing themselves .

We need a census on incels. Foids will never empathise with us , they are incapable of that. But if they understood us better then people might pitty us

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Foids tend to bandwagon political causes and social movements because they're much more hiveminded than men are. There's plenty of evidence to support this idea that foids are simply a lot more likely to be conformists.

 

[SmhChan]

Foids tend to bandwagon political causes and social movements because they're much more hiveminded than men are.

water.

There's plenty of evidence to support this idea that foids are simply a lot more likely to be conformists.

not water. If they were conformists, there wouldn't be so many political changes. They are conformists they way dictators are conformists in their era.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

not water. If they were conformists, there wouldn't be so many political changes. They are conformists they way dictators are conformists in their era.

In the instances where there is political and social change, foids aren't normally the ones in charge of spearheading and driving that historical force. They still tend to be followers that only take action after being compelled and inspired by leaders that tell them what to believe in and do. But that's from all the examples I can think of, no doubt I missed out on more.

 

[SmhChan]

They still tend to be followers that only take action after being compelled and inspired by leaders that tell them what to believe in and do.

That's men too. Why else would allow themselves to be manipulated into being meat-shields in wars?

Idk, about other things but as foids saw they could be economically independent, they flocked in thousands, against the social norms, to push and adopt feminist ideas. For fuck's sake they went around insulting men for draft-dodging which was instigated by a foid. For rampant feminist influence in politics, foids did take the charge, against the social norms. That's why the feminist movements are marked by numbers like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on, implying the changing landscape.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

That's men too. Why else would allow themselves to be manipulated into being meat-shields in wars?

Idk, about other things but as foids saw they could be economically independent, they flocked in thousands, against the social norms, to push and adopt feminist ideas. For fuck's sake they went around insulting men for draft-dodging which was instigated by a foid. For rampant feminist influence in politics, foids did take the charge, against the social norms. That's why the feminist movements are marked by numbers like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on, implying the changing landscape.

The difference is that certain men still took the reins and initiated movements and causes for social change even if most of them were dispensable cogs and expendable tools. I would expect a similar number of examples of foids being able to do the same if they had the same propensity for conformity as men do, but the overwhelming initiators of political upheaval throughout recorded history were male from my experience.

This suggests that even if both are inclined to follow herd animal instincts, especially for the average representatives of both sexes, there were still more men that disliked conforming to the current systems of exploitation and entrenched power structures to begin leading uprisings against the current social hierarchy, than there were women with grievances that were capable of doing the same thing. If you average out a median for the levels of conformity when looking at both sexes as a whole and not just on a case by case basis examining each male and female individually, men can be interpreted as less conformist and more rebellious than women once you consider what I stated above.

 

[SmhChan]

The difference is that certain men still took the reins and initiated movements and causes for social change even if most of them were dispensable cogs and expendable tools. I would expect a similar number of examples of foids being able to do the same if they had the same propensity for conformity as men do, but the overwhelming initiators of political upheaval throughout recorded history were male from my experience.

This suggests that even if both are inclined to follow herd animal instincts, especially for the average representatives of both sexes, there were still more men that disliked conforming to the current systems of exploitation and entrenched power structures to begin leading uprisings against the current social hierarchy, than there were women with grievances that were capable of doing the same thing. If you average out a median for the levels of conformity when looking at both sexes as a whole and not just on a case by case basis examining each male and female individually, men can be interpreted as less conformist than women once you consider what I stated above.

I think you glossed over the economical independence point. Males couldn't be bride-husbands. For foids', their need to survive outweighed whatever their 'grievances' were. They are willing to have grievances and still whore themselves out even in the present. I think you can connect the dots.

Edit: I think I should expand a tad. Historical times cannot be compared to now. Especially in first-world countries you don't see men causing any upheavals despite having literal fascists laws. I have read pieces on the plights of men during WWI and II. What we interpret as male-disagreeableness could very well be them succumbing to militant rules of dictators of the past. I'm not gonna expand on why males lashed out against dictators, and not foids. Very self-explanatory.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

I think you glossed over the economical independence point. Males couldn't be bride-husbands. For foids', their need to survive outweighed whatever their 'grievances' were. They are willing to have grievances and still whore themselves out even in the present. I think you can connect the dots.

Edit: I think I should expand a tad. Historical times cannot be compared to now. Especially in first-world countries you don't see men causing any upheavals despite having literal fascists laws. I have read pieces on the plights of men during WWI and II. What we interpret as male-disagreeableness could very well be them succumbing to militant rules of dictators of the past. I'm not gonna expand on why males lashed out against dictators, and not foids. Very self-explanatory.

If being dependent on others for your safety in effect produces the same result as conformity brought upon by non coercive means, it doesn't detract from them still conforming as an act in the first place. If the consequences of the action are still the same, does having a different intention matter if there's no tangible difference in the outcome?
I agree we can't compare historical times to the present for first world countries where the circumstances and conditions are vastly different from what they were in the past, but that doesn't mean this holds true for the rest of the globe where conditions haven't deviated nearly as much from the past to as a significant degree as in the West.

 

[SmhChan]

If being dependent on others for your safety in effect produces the same result as conformity brought upon by non coercive means, it doesn't detract from them still conforming as an act in the first place. If the consequences of the action are still the same, does having a different intention matter if there's no tangible difference?

Depending on men wouldn't give them economical independence as opposed to 'conforming' to feminists movements. Conversely, men conform to feminist movements against their best interests under oppressive governments because they value their life in society.

I agree we can't compare historical times to the present for first world countries where the circumstances and conditions are vastly different from what they were in the past, but that doesn't mean this holds true for the rest of the globe where conditions haven't deviated nearly as much from the past to as a significant degree as in the West.

Take it from a third-worlder, the quality of life has vastly improved all over the world. Men and foids alike in third-worlds are actually more conforming to corrupt and violent governments. The only disagreeable males in those societies are bottom-of-the-barrel ones while 'ottom-of-the-barrel' foids can still whore themselves out.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Depending on men wouldn't give them economical independence as opposed to 'conforming' to feminists movements. Conversely, men conform to feminist movements against their best interests against oppressive governments because they value their life in society.

Take it from a third-worlder, the quality of life has vastly improved all over the world. Men and foids alike in third-worlds are actually more conforming to corrupt and violent governments. The only disagreeable males in those societies are bottom-of-the-barrel ones.

I'm curious how much of a factor being economically self reliant plays when it comes to influencing females to stay invested in society and not voice their complaints and decide their situation is suboptimal enough to protest. Because if anything, from my personal experience, the foids in countries that give them the most financial autonomy and security tend to be the one of most vocal groups in said countries, who are the loudest about preserving the status quo nowadays and defending the establishment from any movements that could threaten it with civil strife or even remote chances of violent overthrow. Despite the fact they always complain how much men oppress them in the same societies and explicitly exclaim at the top of their lungs they're dissatisfied with the patriarchy they live in. Just look at how feminist SJW types are NPCs that bend over backwards to be apologists for mainstream corporations and media.
When it comes to the third world, from what the opinions of others living in those states I've viewed, it varies. Some are heavily atomized, deracinated and depoliticized societies with populations that have little political or social consciousness as they've been conditioned to display learned helplessness. Those sound like the places you're describing. It's the locations that are already unstable and with power vacuums that tend to be most dynamic and fluid with change.