They use this so often and with 0 empathy. And with complete smugness.
Why are they so close minded?
Why are they so close minded?
herd animals
They protect their matrix from red pills. They love this soyciety.
NTs are herd animals, they swim with the social consensus and because they always go with the mob its power keeps them safe, it's not a threat to them since they will always make sure they are on the "right" side.
It's also an easy way to climb the social hierachy by becoming part of the group that punishes others for violating social norms. Put others down, exercise power, improve your own relative position. Women in particular rely on the group for safety and support and are most vulnerable to reputational aggression since they don't really have to fear physical violence as much as men do.
Reading this made my blood boil.
well, sorry to make your day worse
It’s fine I’ve been drinking since last night. It’s the alcohol not ur fault.
Only certain types of censorship
They are not wired to seek truth. They seek the comfort in consensus and conformity. They depend on their group and community a lot for survival. Incels are lone wolves who've been ostracized from their groups so they have no incentive to conform. Also, incels are naturally more truth seeking.
Normies like mob rule
I was like wtf but then I remembered the soy state of society.
Regarding the OP, my personal take is that most people outright despise thinking. I have the ability to talk to my mom for however long I wish, and there are topics that just make her unhinged (critiquing my slave owner Zelensky, for example). It's really hard for me to internalise such a sentiment, but normies just don't value an honest conversation for its own sake, or for exploring reality, or for mutual understanding, or for challenging oneself.
If one wants to see a typical censorship-inducing normie, look no further than Asmongold - although in his case, he at least gets hefty monetary compensation for being a cuck.
That said, I have started getting an impression that liberals and normies are not tautological. There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people holding liberal views, and they don't challenge themselves because alternative views aren't conducive to their existence - either monetary or are just outside the scope of their expertise. For example, remember the Blitzchung incident? Normies in America are forbidden to hate Negroes, Mexicans or Jews, but they go rabid with hatred against Chinese, so Blitzchung is a hero to them. But when I said in Grubby's Discord that praising Blitzchung is effectively referencing the Century of Humiliation which killed hundreds of billions of Chinese people, he didn't ban me. A flimsy example, I know, but it's not like I have extensive experience.
Even in the past women would be conquered, rather than killed. It was always men that were the ones most in danger of being killed by other humans as well as by animals, since we both fought each other over access to females and fought nature in order to secure recources to court women with.
This is a complex issue. What about domestic violence, and what about Vercingetorix killing off his women in the besieged Alesia? And what about violent child rearing practices such as female circumcision and foot binding (although granted, it might be female-on-female violence lmao)?
Some people feel uncomfortable when they encounter dissent. Namely foids.
www.psychologytoday.com
The Gender Gap in Censorship Support
Research suggests women favor inclusivity over academic freedom.
God I hate foids.Some people feel uncomfortable when they encounter dissent. Namely foids.
The Gender Gap in Censorship Support
Research suggests women favor inclusivity over academic freedom.
Lol literally
They instinctually will not go against the herd, the very idea is nauseating as doing so in the cavemen times could get you killed or exiled out of the tribe which is basically death anyway, it hits in primal areas of our mind very powerfully.
They also just think they are correct on issues too, yes a man can be a woman jfl
You really got to respect the people on this forum, able to resist the primal herd mentality and the desires for sex too.
People will throw shade at the term sheeple, but it really perfectly encapsulates humans.
In the caveman times our survival mechanisms were creating tools to survive by means of intelligence but even then you could not hunt a mammoth with just a spear by your lonesome, our wits went hand in hand with our herd for survival
On an evolutionary scale, domestic violence and individual interpersonal cruelty and weird tribal rituals (btw, most tribes also have violent/risky/painful initiation rituals as a ride fo passage for boys to take their final steps into adulthood and become recognised as men) don't really matter enough to leave a mark. The graph I posted before suggests that in recent history, strong + well-organized groups of human males (warbands) were dominating/killing the other males around them at scale and monopolising access to women in their areas.
fuck this is too high iq for my retarded brain
sheesh u seriously are one of the highest iq users
They definitely love censorship those normscum are the only people who'll go under people's commentate you've been reported or are you on xyz's radar.
stop it, you're making me blush
I mostly just reguritate what I have read smarter people (who often work / do research in those field) argue for. Though that's in a a sense also a sign of intelligence I guess, work smarter not harder and all that.
You can't be an expert in all the interesting fields (I for example am not an expert in anything, I didn't even finish university) but you can try finding some experts whose judgment you trust from all areas you are interested in and then just frankenstein together a world view by combining all their output into one.
Fair enough lol.stop it, you're making me blush
I mostly just reguritate what I have read smarter people (who often work / do research in those field) argue for. Though that's in a a sense also a sign of intelligence I guess, work smarter not harder and all that.
You can't be an expert in all the interesting fields (I for example am not an expert in anything, I didn't even finish university) but you can try finding some experts whose judgment you trust from all areas you are interested in and then just frankenstein together a world view by combining all their output into one.
Under people’s commentate?
W
Are you a holhol-cel?
holhol?
W
I replied to the wrong guy. apologies
W
are you Ukrainian?
W
Have we ruled out the possibility that pre-historical men were being killed off by non-human animals or infectious diseases? What does the archeological evidence suggest?
and afterwards the remaining men successfully hunted enough game to feed themselfs as well as a multiple women per male? infectous diseases shouldn't specifically target men and if hunting parties were dying very frequently you would expect the entire group to starve / die out. Indenpendently of that though it would still remain true that women ultimately were not the primary target for lethal violence from the men around them, neither from the men of their own tribe nor from the men of enemy tribes. It your tribe gets conquered, your men get killed, but your women get taken. They survive and pass on their genes, they have less incentives to care about the stability and success of your tribe, they are rewarded more for caring about themselfs and their position first and foremost while ignoring what that does to the cohesion and morale of everyone around them, because in the end they will not have to pay the ultimate price.
W
The Killing of a few thousand women is insignificant compared to the killing of millions of men during Caesar's gallic campaign. Ritualistic body modifications are nothing compared to the violence regularly inflicted upon men in those cultures. For instance, a Han Chinese woman would never have to face the whip of a government overseer, the machetes of a bandit, or the cavalry charge of a barbarian horde.
Don't incels here demonstrate group think in some areas, too? I'm not too well-versed, but things like "autists can't be incels" or the cumskin on subhuman action so commonly seen here can be examples thereof.
[Sounds Mongolian] Yes, I'm Jewkrainian, but I'm not rabid (again, probably too autistic).
So what you're saying clitoris-cutting is a right of passage that the boys have been robbed of? Wait, that's based.
all day every day. no offense, but this is no intellectual stronghold by any means of the imagination
Well, if you ignore all one line posts, it's not too bad. It's just there is a mass of one-liners everywhere.all day every day. no offense, but this is no intellectual stronghold by any means of the imagination
Interesting, would probably agree. Still, I have an issue with calling those societies "gynocratic" as women usually didn't have a choice? Unless you subscribe to the notion that women secretly controlled everything.
They are gynocentric in that ultimately all male struggles revolve around competition for women, be it with other men within your own group or with the men of outside tribes against your own. Women sit back and let things happen to themselfs. They are less free, but that is because they are more cared for. Men are free because ultimately no one cares if you die, they might prefer it if you did because that would mean on less competitor / lesser man in the partner pool.
Women experience lower selection pressures because there is one part of the whole passing on your genes process that they basically can't fail, that being the "find a willing partner" aspect.
Men are the sex that is nature's guinea pig, we have the high variance because men need to take risks to stand out, we have to roll the dice, both in risky behavior and in risky genetic variance in the hopes of hitting it big and having a big payout aka many many children.
Individual societies might not be "gynocratic" in the common sense of the word, but nature as a whole is most certainly gynocentric. They are blessed with the more valuable sex cells and everything else follows from that.
W
Indeed, true gynocracy has never been tried because society cannot function without men, great and average, doing the heavy lifting.
I guess, my real question is whether gynocentrism can be a term if women do not have subjectivity. Is our civilisation petroleum-centric because it revolves around petroleum? Is petroleum-centricity of the same category as monarchy or one-party-state?
Western feminism is a product of the European man's Christian delusion about human rights. In the end, I'm somewhat confused whether this talk of gynocracy is not coming out of a place of envy. Because how can one be envious of an [in]animate object? And if we go deeper, males are just as much objects in Nature's hands, and it's useless to object to it - unless suicide, of which I am a proponent.
You can only blame women (not saying that you do, I'm confused anyway) if you unironically want a world of the Jewish prophecy in Isaiah 65:25 about lions eating straw. A decent idea for sci-fi, such as Yudkowsky's HPMOR, but ultimately out of reach for the time being.
Giga-IQ posts. Do you know of any YouTube videos or podcasts that explain these ideas directly from the experts? Or search terms?
I didn't really get much from youtube, it's mostly specific people and twitter groups.
Many of those people will be highly triggering for users on here because they usually are good on one or two topics, but rarely do I agree with them on everything. So they might be left leaning or in some other way annoying to the average incel.
One person I have posted on here before that I still read everything of is
Hostile sexism is live and well, but mostly in favor of women
It's OK to be male
www.emilkirkegaard.com
Hiding sex differences: not a myth
Russell Warne has a new post: Implications of average group differences for the design of intelligence tests He writes: The implication is that if test creators can force an average difference to disappear for one pair of groups (i.e., males and females), then any differences or lack of differen
emilkirkegaard.dk
I posted one example from his substack and personal blog. If you follow him for on twitter (as a practical example), you can see the people he interacts with, both directly on twitter and the people whose books & research he cites.
After that, you go through the accounts of those people, see if you like what they post, see who they interact with and repeat the same steps again. That was how I found a lot of interesting thinkers online.
Maybe I make a list at some point, but for now that's too much work
Understanding Greater Male Variability
The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis (GMVH) suggests that males exhibit greater variance than females in their cognitive abilities. I present some relevant empirical findings and make a suggestion for how the hypothesis should be conceptualized and evaluated.
inquisitivebird.substack.com
Thanks, appreciate itis maybe more applicable for the specific topic, though not super easy to readUnderstanding Greater Male Variability
The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis (GMVH) suggests that males exhibit greater variance than females in their cognitive abilities. I present some relevant empirical findings and make a suggestion for how the hypothesis should be conceptualized and evaluated.
I save every interesting piece of information in one folder that I have never once sorted out, so finding any individual piece takes me a while since I have to go through this amount of garbage
Do you think foids should have the right to vote?Some people feel uncomfortable when they encounter dissent. Namely foids.
The Gender Gap in Censorship Support
Research suggests women favor inclusivity over academic freedom.
@OutcompetedByRoomba
I don't know if they "should" but I would prefer it if they didn't. Well, if everything else stays the way it is now I think we would be better off without women being able to vote.
In a completely differend world where female nature is out in the open, people aren't in denial about race and sex realism and so on, in an fairly optimised world I suspect women having the right to vote becomes neutral or maybe even a net positive. One thing women are less shit about is them being more unwilling to let their country start a war.
But as things stand now, the worst of female nature is running rampant and they already have far too much influence on things, both through the innate advantage of being the more desirable sex and through decades of feminist propaganda and brainwashing. Taking their right to vote away right now would be a step towards a more fair balance of power.
Similar threads
LifeMaxxer
Users who are viewing this thread
