JFL Mgtow community is falling apart

[downunderlegattacks]

Men already looksmaxx to the extent that women do, we groom ourselves, we shower regularly (obviously), we stay in decent shape, women don't put in half the effort into their looks than the average man does, they just wear tight fitting and/or revealing clothing and apply fake up. The average man puts in I'd say 50% more effort into increasing his physical appeal than women do.

So what you are advocating for is just more "man up" BS and double standards. Please tell me what "looksmaxxing" women do relative to what men do?

Women barely exercise or stay in shape these days

They use fakeup to hide their facial flaws rather work on their personality to compensate for them (which is the reason why men on average are funnier than women, because women don't need to be fun or entertaining, so they never learn how)

Etc, etc, etc.

Be specific, tell me how men are to be held accountable in relation to looksmaxing, tell me how we aren't already doing that, tell me what women are doing more than men, that makes then ALREADY accountable, because I'll tell you they aren't doing anything, men are already giving 100%, and you are basically saying its up to us to give 120%, while women give 50% and play life on "just exist" mode.



His Video Title: "The Response to This Video PROVES That Most MGTOW's Are Insecure, Damaged and INFERIOR MEN"

Man what a positive start to his positive perspective. Also that is literally how the title is formatted, the only difference between what I have here and what his video title is, is that I emboldened certain words, he literally had "PROVES" and "INFERIOR MEN" in all caps, I just highlighted it, that is the exact title of the video.

Now please tell me what about his perspective is "positive", I hate when people make vague loose end statements/arguments and they don't validate them at all, what about what he's saying is a "positive perspective" (we both know its not positive, but it will be amusing to see who try and rationalize this JFL)



The black pill is new in being acknowledged, but is the oldest and the original pill, because it is how reality actually works, every other pill (red and blue) are just watered down versions of the black pill that society formulated by extracting the things they liked and conveniently ignoring the things they don't.

The RED PILL is a watered down BLACK PILL
The BLUE PILL is a watered down RED PILL
The WHITE PILL is a watered down BLUE PILL

The white pill ("monk mode" BS) is the newest one, its like the blue pill but it takes it a step further where you just try and forget about the black pill completely and seperate yourself from the world so you can cope and ignore those problems.

Solid perspective on men already looksmaxxing above... I look at myself grinding day in and out compared to some tinder match who doesn't even try.

I think you make very logical sense. That being said I disagree that men regularly put above 100. The average guy does the same as a woman, but the majority of guys don't lift.
But you're right, even that is 120%.
I'll remember this point.

Positive compared to the daily race threads and LDAR that are advocated daily in here. Positive in that he disagrees but he's not just IT infiltrating us and scurrying off to his community. We can reach him, comment on his channel and engage him.

I personally think this kind of person benefits us more than IT cucks attacking DDOS'ing etc.

 

[NoMoreSlaving]

MGTOW is a coping movement for the bottom 99% of men

 

[catfishman23]

JFL if you think incels get along. You have people here hating on tallcels mentalcels whitecels etc. unles your an absolute 1/10 subhuman your gonna get accused of being a fakecel. Pretty aids tbh

But unlike mgtows we all can agree on one thing.

Alot of them are a bunch of woman worshippers

 

[BlkPillPres]

That being said I disagree that men regularly put above 100.

I said:

men are already giving 100%, and you are basically saying its up to us to give 120%, while women give 50% and play life on "just exist" mode.

I claimed we were already giving the default maximum, and you are saying we have to now do more than 100%. Never claimed we were already giving 100%, maybe I have a typo somewhere in my post alluding to that but I can't remember typing anything that says that.

You see this is why I quote specific sections and I respond to specific sections of a persons argument, so I don't make a mistake and so that they can't claim I am strawmanning then, and they are forced to clarify what they meant for that specific section.

The average guy does the same as a woman, but the majority of guys don't lift.

No, the average guy exercises moderately even if they live a mostly sedenrary life and have a bit of pot belly, men usually work their arms though since strength is expected of us. The average woman DOES NOT exercise much, in most cases DOES NOT EXERCISE AT ALL. They just wear tight clothes, maybe diet a bit, and use make up, that's it.

Positive compared to the daily race threads and LDAR that are advocated daily in here.

No what about what he's saying is positive, here are two choices:

1. Being stabbed in your leg muscle once
2. Being anally raped for 30 minutes

#2 being worse than #1, doesn't now make #1 by default the "positive option", both are negative, one is just worse than the other. I'd argue that his video, his perspective IS JUST ANOTHER NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF A DIFFERENT KIND.

1. His perspective is negative in relation to removing female agency and placing all the blame on men, while utilizing PUA talking points
2. LDAR and race perspectives are negative in relation to being "self defeatist" in nature and not offering men solutions, which can lead to depression and suicide

#2 being worse than #1, doesn't now make #1 by default the "positive option", both are negative, one is just worse than the other.

Positive in that he disagrees but he's not just IT infiltrating us and scurrying off to his community. We can reach him, comment on his channel and engage him.

I refer back to earlier points, him being more "reachable" doesn't make him positive, he's just a more engagble negative opponent. But what is the end result of engaging a man who uses shaming language like him.

Incel: "You are using some very blue pilled illogical talking points, they don't make sense, you are just removing female agency and placing all the burden on men"

Him:

1. Can simply ignore and not reply
2. "LOL who cares what you INFERIOR incel losers that can't get laid think, we as men just need to "up our game" and become better for women"

Being able to engage a biased idiot, is no different than being unable to engage a reasonable intellectual, the end result is the same. Based on his own words I can tell he is not reasonable at all, he is just larping, he doesn't even grasp basic red pill concepts, he's extremely blue pilled, and no wonder, he's good looking enough that he would not have to give a fuck or care about the issues incels have faced.

I personally think this kind of person benefits us more than IT cucks attacking DDOS'ing etc.

I personally think being stabbed in the leg once is better than being anally raped for 30 minutes, I guess we should all accept being stabbed now huh lol. I hope you realize this kind of argumentation is inherently fallacious, you are propping up a "greater evil" that really has nothing to do with the issue and then comparing to the issue and claiming it isn't that bad.

It would be like if a criminal was in court being held for attempted burglary, and then he pulls out a photo and tells the judge - "look at this guy in the image here, he is a child rapist, he has raped 3 prepubescent girls who are now undergoing therapy, I personally think attempted burglary is an insignificant crime relative to what he's done"

Judge: "Ok, but that there's no relevance here, the case at hand is your crimes, not the crimes of worse criminals"

 

[GetFucked]

most MGTOW are coping, but the rest are divorced rightfully pissed off men

 

[downunderlegattacks]

I said:


I claimed we were already giving the default maximum, and you are saying we have to now do more than 100%. Never claimed we were already giving 100%, maybe I have a typo somewhere in my post alluding to that but I can't remember typing anything that says that.

You see this is why I quote specific sections and I respond to specific sections of a persons argument, so I don't make a mistake and so that they can't claim I am strawmanning then, and they are forced to clarify what they meant for that specific section.



No, the average guy exercises moderately even if they live a mostly sedenrary life and have a bit of pot belly, men usually work their arms though since strength is expected of us. The average woman DOES NOT exercise much, in most cases DOES NOT EXERCISE AT ALL. They just wear tight clothes, maybe diet a bit, and use make up, that's it.



No what about what he's saying is positive, here are two choices:

1. Being stabbed in your leg muscle once
2. Being anally raped for 30 minutes

#2 being worse than #1, doesn't now make #1 by default the "positive option", both are negative, one is just worse than the other. I'd argue that his video, his perspective IS JUST ANOTHER NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF A DIFFERENT KIND.

1. His perspective is negative in relation to removing female agency and placing all the blame on men, while utilizing PUA talking points
2. LDAR and race perspectives are negative in relation to being "self defeatist" in nature and not offering men solutions, which can lead to depression and suicide

#2 being worse than #1, doesn't now make #1 by default the "positive option", both are negative, one is just worse than the other.



I refer back to earlier points, him being more "reachable" doesn't make him positive, he's just a more engagble negative opponent. But what is the end result of engaging a man who uses shaming language like him.

Incel: "You are using some very blue pilled illogical talking points, they don't make sense, you are just removing female agency and placing all the burden on men"

Him:

1. Can simply ignore and not reply
2. "LOL who cares what you INFERIOR incel losers that can't get laid think, we as men just need to "up our game" and become better for women"

Being able to engage a biased idiot, is no different than being unable to engage a reasonable intellectual, the end result is the same. Based on his own words I can tell he is not reasonable at all, he is just larping, he doesn't even grasp basic red pill concepts, he's extremely blue pilled, and no wonder, he's good looking enough that he would not have to give a fuck or care about the issues incels have faced.



I personally think being stabbed in the leg once is better than being anally raped for 30 minutes, I guess we should all accept being stabbed now huh lol. I hope you realize this kind of argumentation is inherently fallacious, you are propping up a "greater evil" that really has nothing to do with the issue and then comparing to the issue and claiming it isn't that bad.

It would be like if a criminal was in court being held for attempted burglary, and then he pulls out a photo and tells the judge - "look at this guy in the image here, he is a child rapist, he has raped 3 prepubescent girls who are now undergoing therapy, I personally think attempted burglary is an insignificant crime relative to what he's done"

Judge: "Ok, but that there's no relevance here, the case at hand is your crimes, not the crimes of worse criminals"

The whole leg stabbing thing is a huge strawman. So is the whole judge thing.

You are not making a good point, because you just amplified everything into absurdity and think you are making a good point.

You are not. You're just arguing for the sake of it. In fact, your being malicious.

There is no way you could make stupid comparisons like you just did in good faith.

By your same stupid ass logic, I could say that I could make something really good out of this, and make a crazy outcome in the opposite direction.

While you have really good ideas, your way isn't always the right way, and that's not to leave it in some gray area, but not everything is about autistic arguing over a forum. Some things have to be put into practice.

 

[BlkPillPres]

The whole leg stabbing thing is a huge strawman. So is the whole judge thing.

Please explain how, again notice you are doing something I keep pointing out, you make statements and claims and feel no need to validate it, you assert it as true as though its true because you say it, while when I argue I give examples, analogies, I go into detail, I explain myself. You're just making claims, please tell me how what I said is a strawman argument, it should be easy to validate since you obviously know what a strawman argument is and why my argument is such a thing

>Inb4 cop out argument where you say you're done arguing

At that point you're just being disingenuous, if you are unwilling to validate a statement then don't make it, don't make arguments you can't or are unwilling to defend, its disingenuous to ask me throughout this entire interaction what I think and to respond to you, and then when I ask/hope for the same, you give vague responses that are not validated. You are expecting of me what you yourself aren't doing, who is being malicious then.

I think you are confused about the criteria of what makes an argument a strawman argument, to summarize, a strawman argument is a mischaracterization of someones argument, what I did was create an analogy and used extremes of examples for the analogy but I did not mischaracterize or misrepresent your argument I can just as easily remove the examples, and use "neutral" variables and my argument is all the same.

1. Injury A
2. Injury B

Just because injury B is worse than injury A doesn't mean injury A is something good, it is still an injury.

There is no way you could make stupid comparisons like you just did in good faith.

I'll be awaiting your answer as you why it isn't in good faith and why my argument was a strawman (which we both know you aren't going to answer and your next response is going to be a cop out - "I'm done arguing" cliche escape tactic)

I am arguing in good faith, the comparisons weren't stupid, I can make the same comparison just using variables like I did above, the level of "neutrality" in an argument is not relevant, what is relevant is the logic in the argument, the logic is the same whether I use extremes/offensive examples or neutral variables

By your same stupid ass logic, I could say that I could make something really good out of this, and make a crazy outcome in the opposite direction.

I don't even know what you're saying here and I'm actually confuseds as to what you even mean, again why are you so afraid of using examples, give me an example of what you could say using my "stupid ass logic", i'll never get people who argue like you do, if you are so sure about what you're saying then validate it, giving examples proving what you say should be second nature.

your way isn't always the right way

I don't think I'm always right, but you have to see this is an ironic claim to make when you can't even state what "my way" is with examples, I'll be waiting for my points to be addressed (but lets be honest, you won't address them, just by the tone and the way you replied, alludes to this being your final statement in this exchange)

Anyways good day, but you are truly wrong in this argument, and you've yet to validate anything you say or even try to explain it.

 

[Deleted member 15752]

Not a shock anymore

 

[downunderlegattacks]

Please explain how, again notice you are doing something I keep pointing out, you make statements and claims and feel no need to validate it, you assert it as true as though its true because you say it, while when I argue I give examples, analogies, I go into detail, I explain myself. You're just making claims, please tell me how what I said is a strawman argument, it should be easy the validate since you obviously know what a strawman argument is and why my argument is such a thing

>Inb4 cop out argument where you say you're done arguing

At that point you're just being disingenuous, if you are unwilling to validate a statement then don't make it, don't make arguments you can't or are unwilling to defend, its disingenuous to ask me throughout this entire interaction what I think and to respond to you, and then when I ask/hope for the same, you give vague responses that are not validated. You are expecting of me what you yourself aren't doing, who is being malicious then.

I think you are confused about the criteria of what makes an argument a strawman argument to summarize, a strawman argument is a mischaracterization of someones argument, what I did was create an analogy and used extremes of examples for the analogy but I did not mischaracterize or misrepresent your argument I can just as easily remove the examples, and use "neutral" variables and my argument is all the same.

1. Injury A
2. Injury B

I'll be awaiting your answer as you why it isn't in good faith and why my argument was a strawman (which we both know you aren't going to answer and your next response is going to be a cop out - "I'm done arguing" cliche escape tactic)

I am arguing in good faith, the comparisons weren't stupid, I can make the same comparison just using variables like I did above, the level of "neutrality" in an argument is not relevant, what is relevant is the logic in the argument, the logic is the same whether I use extremes/offensive examples or neutral variables



I don't even know what you're saying here and I'm actually confuseds as to what you even mean, again why are you so afraid of using examples, give me an example of what you could say using my "stupid ass logic", i'll never get people who argue like you do, if you are so sure about what you're saying then validate it, giving examples proving what you say should be second nature.


I don't think I'm always right, but you have to see this is an ironic claim to make when you can't even state what "my way" is with examples, I'll be waiting for my points to be addressed (but lets be honest, you won't address them, just by the tone and the way you replied, alludes to this being your final statement in this exchange)

Anyways good day, but you are truly wrong in this argument, and you've yet to validate anything you say or even try to explain it.

The thing is man, while you are very intelligent, context matters too. You post these really long replies and I want to sit down and reply at length, I can't. I'm on my phone, watching a movie with friends.

Sure it's a cop out, and it's my fault that I can't be as engaged as you.

The being said, there needs to be a middle ground. You definitely have use in these spaces, but there has to be people who interact with others like faceandlms etc. I think that's the problem with you. If we get into it in your way, there would be zero positive interaction and creative content.

I'll look over this and contemplate on the train ride to work tomorrow.

Thank you for your content, as always. We may disagree, but I still appreciate your presence on this forum.

 

[rabitter]

The age of the average MSTOW is probably 18, these people have no actual experience with women

Cope.

Most MSTOW are divorced boomers like @Leucosticte

I'm on my phone, watching a movie with friends.

Literal Chad.

BAN BAN BAN

 

[BlkPillPres]

I'm on my phone, watching a movie with friends.

Ironically this is another good example of how leaving out details and not clarifying/validating statements can be a negative. You could be watching the Halo movie with few guy nerd friends at home, or you could be watching Captain Marvel at a movie theater with a small group of friends consistent of evenly the same amount of men and women and you are all "paired up".

By default anyone reading is going ot assume the worst one, because we get a lot of fakecels being revealed these days

 

[Spec Carrot]

Naturally, it was always going to collapse. It was built around the idea that the supporters of MGTOW were going to spend all their free time becoming Academic, philosophical and cultured. They promoted it as a movement that would lead to a better quality of life because followers would hit the gym, learn multiple languages, study the poetic, literary, philosophical and scientific greats and learn an instrument...the reality is the majority were just fat, lazy neets that predicated their sense of worth off of the IDEA that they could chase such pursuits. Then they started fracturing by consuming pseudo-intellectual rubbish such as Jordan Peterson and other snake oil salesmen.

It was doomed to fail from the offset due to the fundamentally flawed idea that self improvement will lead to a happier and more fulfilling life. A miserable, lonely person will simply became a miserable, lonely person that now also speaks Spanish and has a basic understanding of Plato. Redpill mentality is broken and forces a person to think that issues in the world and their life can be solved or masked by pointless endeavours of pretentious enlightenment. Blackpill is the way forward.

 

[Michael15651]

JFL if you think incels get along.

Yeah, there's more division here than ever. At least we have something we all believe in.

 

[catfishman23]

Naturally, it was always going to collapse. It was built around the idea that the supporters of MGTOW were going to spend all their free time becoming Academic, philosophical and cultured. They promoted it as a movement that would lead to a better quality of life because followers would hit the gym, learn multiple languages, study the poetic, literary, philosophical and scientific greats and learn an instrument...the reality is the majority were just fat, lazy neets that predicated their sense of worth off of the IDEA that they could chase such pursuits. Then they started fracturing by consuming pseudo-intellectual rubbish such as Jordan Peterson and other snake oil salesmen.

It was doomed to fail from the offset due to the fundamentally flawed idea that self improvement will lead to a happier and more fulfilling life. A miserable, lonely person will simply became a miserable, lonely person that now also speaks Spanish and has a basic understanding of Plato. Redpill mentality is broken and forces a person to think that issues in the world and their life can be solved or masked by pointless endeavours of pretentious enlightenment. Blackpill is the way forward.

Yea alot of red pillers have no personal agenda, they seemed to not know or promote what they understand.

Like the black pill, many others here have different goals and different view points.

Like @FACEandLMS

 

[downunderlegattacks]

Please explain how, again notice you are doing something I keep pointing out, you make statements and claims and feel no need to validate it, you assert it as true as though its true because you say it, while when I argue I give examples, analogies, I go into detail, I explain myself. You're just making claims, please tell me how what I said is a strawman argument, it should be easy to validate since you obviously know what a strawman argument is and why my argument is such a thing

>Inb4 cop out argument where you say you're done arguing

At that point you're just being disingenuous, if you are unwilling to validate a statement then don't make it, don't make arguments you can't or are unwilling to defend, its disingenuous to ask me throughout this entire interaction what I think and to respond to you, and then when I ask/hope for the same, you give vague responses that are not validated. You are expecting of me what you yourself aren't doing, who is being malicious then.

I think you are confused about the criteria of what makes an argument a strawman argument, to summarize, a strawman argument is a mischaracterization of someones argument, what I did was create an analogy and used extremes of examples for the analogy but I did not mischaracterize or misrepresent your argument I can just as easily remove the examples, and use "neutral" variables and my argument is all the same.

1. Injury A
2. Injury B

Just because injury B is worse than injury A doesn't mean injury A is something good, it is still an injury.



I'll be awaiting your answer as you why it isn't in good faith and why my argument was a strawman (which we both know you aren't going to answer and your next response is going to be a cop out - "I'm done arguing" cliche escape tactic)

I am arguing in good faith, the comparisons weren't stupid, I can make the same comparison just using variables like I did above, the level of "neutrality" in an argument is not relevant, what is relevant is the logic in the argument, the logic is the same whether I use extremes/offensive examples or neutral variables



I don't even know what you're saying here and I'm actually confuseds as to what you even mean, again why are you so afraid of using examples, give me an example of what you could say using my "stupid ass logic", i'll never get people who argue like you do, if you are so sure about what you're saying then validate it, giving examples proving what you say should be second nature.


I don't think I'm always right, but you have to see this is an ironic claim to make when you can't even state what "my way" is with examples, I'll be waiting for my points to be addressed (but lets be honest, you won't address them, just by the tone and the way you replied, alludes to this being your final statement in this exchange)

Anyways good day, but you are truly wrong in this argument, and you've yet to validate anything you say or even try to explain it.

"Let's unpack this"
JK.

The whole leg stabbing thing is incredibly sophistic. I called it malicious because it's extremely "gotcha!"

It's absurd because it's just there to prove your point in an outlandish way.

There is no cope or cop out. I think I can compare you to an academic. In that framework and space you thrive, the space where only ideas manifest and we argue ethics and morality and what not. For sure you bring up great points. I'd say you are right a lot of the times.

But that's not life. You are not persuasive, or accommodating in any sense. "I don't want to be! I want the truth!"

And you will be here forever arguing with other incels forever. Forever the libertarian/atheist type that spends all his time arguing in the vacuum of this form or incel spaces.

So while you remain super consistent, and engrossed in the blackpill intellectual world, you don't engage others, you're outright hostile, and any argument that's presented outside of the way you want it will get a huge wall response. Just doesn't do shit to be honest. It has use, but some people choose not to be in that kind of world.

It's why @FACEandLMS, brendido and others will be more successful than you. That's not to talk shit, but you don't bring new people or spread black pills to newer users because they have to be attracted first and truly have to understand everything before your extremely cemented and inflexible ideas can be accepted.

"Vague...cop out..."
Because that's how the world outside the forums is lol. Just because you are right on a forum doesn't mean the world will magically change or that you get anything out of it.

Some people have different goals and ideas and your method doesn't work.

I'm 100% sure you will disagree and have great points, but you should learn to accept that being hostile (you don't even accept/are hostile that others can operate outside your framework of life. You view it as hostile, when people are being pragmatic) doesn't always work and people have objectives outside the forums.

 

[ManletHalfCurry]

MSTOW