It became apparent to me when I was analysing Peterson's advice. He talks a lot about cleaning your room, the context of his speeches and extremely condescending tone seems to imply that having a clean room is very uncommon among losers But mr. Peterson, my room is, in fact, squeaky clean!
Having bad hygiene and living in unclean environment is an obvious loser stereotype, but is there any data to back it up? Where does the assumption come from?
These characteristics are common among people suffering from depression, but loserdom and depression, while having some overlap, aren't exactly the same things - otherwise inceltears wouldn't be so keen to bully us. Misdiagnosing patients is a known epidemic: if you go to a psychiatrist, no matter how small your problems are, it's very unlikely that you'll leave his office without some diagnosis. I'm not edgy enough to assume normie depression doesn't exist, but I'll take a leap of faith and take normie symptoms with a pinch of salt - stopping to maintain basic hygiene is a great attention-seeking strategy.
The second obvious source are Hollywood movies. Using them as a basis for your perception of losers is as reliable as watching Nazi propaganda to inform yourself about the Jews. I believe they are the source of most inceldom stereotypes.
There's no reason to think basement dwellers' caves are any less clean than your typical normie room. I'd even argue that a basement dweller who spends all his time in this place, has more incentive to keep it aesthetically pleasing - he even has more time to clean it.
But why would you, despite lack of data, assume losers posses so many bad characteristics? People subconsciously don't like ugly people, but they won't say it aloud - it's still taboo. Therefore, to reduce the cognitive dissonance they choose to completely dehumanise their enemy. Admitting you don't like losers, because they're naturally ugly, is wrong, but if you equal them to devil's incarnates, despising them becomes admirable.
So what are losers like?
Notice how losers are never allowed to improve. Putting effort into fitting in the society would disprove their laziness and the theory that losers choose not to fit in, so their efforts must be based on some malicious intent. Just like in all propaganda: if a Jew is being nice to you, he obviously tries to scam you; if a loser is being nice to you, he obviously tries to rape you.
Trying to fit the masculine beauty canon, but fail due to bad genetics? Fucking neckbeard.
Trying to act nice to women, but fail due to lack of socialisation practice in childhood or being non-NT? Fucking niceguy, he's trying to rape me.
Trying to dress better, but fail due to bad fashion advice or lack of fashion sense? Fucking fedora.
Having fun to cope with your situation? Fucking manchild.
If you're ugly, you can't do anything good. There's an insult for your every behaviour and obviously you're always filled with bad intentions.
Having bad hygiene and living in unclean environment is an obvious loser stereotype, but is there any data to back it up? Where does the assumption come from?
These characteristics are common among people suffering from depression, but loserdom and depression, while having some overlap, aren't exactly the same things - otherwise inceltears wouldn't be so keen to bully us. Misdiagnosing patients is a known epidemic: if you go to a psychiatrist, no matter how small your problems are, it's very unlikely that you'll leave his office without some diagnosis. I'm not edgy enough to assume normie depression doesn't exist, but I'll take a leap of faith and take normie symptoms with a pinch of salt - stopping to maintain basic hygiene is a great attention-seeking strategy.
The second obvious source are Hollywood movies. Using them as a basis for your perception of losers is as reliable as watching Nazi propaganda to inform yourself about the Jews. I believe they are the source of most inceldom stereotypes.
There's no reason to think basement dwellers' caves are any less clean than your typical normie room. I'd even argue that a basement dweller who spends all his time in this place, has more incentive to keep it aesthetically pleasing - he even has more time to clean it.
But why would you, despite lack of data, assume losers posses so many bad characteristics? People subconsciously don't like ugly people, but they won't say it aloud - it's still taboo. Therefore, to reduce the cognitive dissonance they choose to completely dehumanise their enemy. Admitting you don't like losers, because they're naturally ugly, is wrong, but if you equal them to devil's incarnates, despising them becomes admirable.
So what are losers like?
- they have bad hygiene
- they're lazy
- they have no sense of style
- they're entitled
- they're hateful
- they're dangerous (remember: hate groups are generally based on fear; if you use context-less cherry-picked data to convince people the situation is either we kill them first or they kill us! , people are more likely to act amoral)
- etc. etc.
Notice how losers are never allowed to improve. Putting effort into fitting in the society would disprove their laziness and the theory that losers choose not to fit in, so their efforts must be based on some malicious intent. Just like in all propaganda: if a Jew is being nice to you, he obviously tries to scam you; if a loser is being nice to you, he obviously tries to rape you.
Trying to fit the masculine beauty canon, but fail due to bad genetics? Fucking neckbeard.
Trying to act nice to women, but fail due to lack of socialisation practice in childhood or being non-NT? Fucking niceguy, he's trying to rape me.
Trying to dress better, but fail due to bad fashion advice or lack of fashion sense? Fucking fedora.
Having fun to cope with your situation? Fucking manchild.
If you're ugly, you can't do anything good. There's an insult for your every behaviour and obviously you're always filled with bad intentions.
