JFL "You don't need a girlfriend you need to die"

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

I have no cred here or anywhere else. No one appreciates me for being a halfway crook, I'm a halfway crook just because that's how I roll.

But I'm not the only one here who calls out bad takes. You yourself called this place "disturbed and volatile." Is my callout wrong here? You need me to go dig up a pie chart showing that not very many women are on r/femcelgrippysockjail? Is that what you mean by "present evidence?"

Well, first of all, I appreciate you staying civil.

My problems with that particular claim is this:

You might remember the "#BringOurGirlsBack" campaign in 2014. Boko Haram had kidnapped 300 young schoolgirls from a city called Chibok, located in a local goverment area also called Chibok in Nigeria. This story went viral, causing protests globally.

Politicans and celebrities made use of the opportuinity as well.

In the end, there was enough attention on the whole ordeal that .. well, read for yourself.

That's nice and all, US military intervening to rescue children out of the clutches of a terrorist group, but the same group has been kidnapping boys for years and continued to do so after this incident as well. The number of boys kidnapped in the years following this incident was >10000. Seems they have more need for boy soldiers than they have for young girls.

In addition, shortly before this incident, again, a number of boys in the thousands had been killed, many of them burned alive, when Boko Haram set fire to schools in the area. In general, it seems that they let the girls in the schools they targeted leave unharmed most of the times.

It's almost as if pro-female bias is some innate feature of human nature and can be found in any place and most groups around the world. Even child-killing terrorists feel the need to practice some chivalary. They must have felt pretty virtuous making sure no innocent girls would come to harm.

Well, except in those cases where they did harm them, but the point still stands. They conciously expanded real effort to protect at least some girls out of some moral concerns that did not apply to the killing/kidnapping of young boys.


The point I'm trying to make here:

All those mentally well-adjusted citizens you interact with every day carry within them some of that same pro-female bias. As a collective, they have enormous amounts of power to affect positive change in the world. And the idea of 300 young girls being abducted was enough to unite them under a cause. Tens of thousands of boys being abducted and killed was not.

It's not like these people don't care about boys at all. Just, not quite as much. Not enough to elicit some real outrage in them. And about grown men they care even less. About us they might honestly not care at all.

Imagine being one of those boys being burned alive. Imagine if they could see these same terrorists who are about to kill them politely lead a group of girls out of another school to safety. Feel some of the anger this unfairness demands.

So, while the average citizen might not be "out to get us", many of them will also have zero interest in helping us. Us dying would not be enough to trigger a strong emotional response in them. Even if we were completly innocent. And children. And being set on fire.

So, the difference between these normal people and the mental case saying to us "You don't need a girlfriend, you need to die" is the gap between active sadism and passive indifference.

Obviously most people would not let a boy die if it was withing their power to safe him. They wouldn't want to think of themselves as child murders and they also wouldn't want to be seen that way by others. But if those two pressures abate our misery on it's own is not enough to motivate them into action. Not all of them. Not a majority. Not enough to make waves in the public concious.

Steelmanning is a rationalist practise. It's about taking the claims and arguments of your opposition and making them as strong as possible.

A lot of what get's posted on here is overblown or overly emotional or just not quite true (or just outright retarded). But much of those posts have some truth at their core, much of them are just a step or two removed from making a good point. Instead of making fun of the people who are supposed to be your ingroup, or at least before doing so, I think you should try to steelman what they are trying to say, because that's what you do for someone whose side you are on. I view your failure to do so as an hostile act and interpret it as a refusal to treat other incels as potential allies instead of random strangers. If our shared plight is not enough for you to feel at least a modicum of comradery, why are you even here, amongst people you feel no connection to?

 

[ClinicallyDeformed]

I hope these dumb subhuman foids get cancer and die a slow, agonizing death.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Well, first of all, I appreciate you staying civil.

My problems with that particular claim is this:

You might remember the "#BringOurGirlsBack" campaign in 2014. Boko Haram had kidnapped 300 young schoolgirls from a city called Chibok, located in a local goverment area also called Chibok in Nigeria. This story went viral, causing protests globally.
View attachment 929725
Politicans and celebrities made use of the opportuinity as well.
View attachment 929726View attachment 929730
In the end, there was enough attention on the whole ordeal that .. well, read for yourself.
View attachment 931477View attachment 931471
That's nice and all, US military intervening to rescue children out of the clutches of a terrorist group, but the same group has been kidnapping boys for years and continued to do so after this incident as well. The number of boys kidnapped in the years following this incident was >10000. Seems they have more need for boy soldiers than they have for young girls.

In addition, shortly before this incident, again, a number of boys in the thousands had been killed, many of them burned alive, when Boko Haram set fire to schools in the area. In general, it seems that they let the girls in the schools they targeted leave unharmed most of the times.

It's almost as if pro-female bias is some innate feature of human nature and can be found in any place and most groups around the world. Even child-killing terrorists feel the need to practice some chivalary. They must have felt pretty virtuous making sure no innocent girls would come to harm.

Well, except in those cases where they did harm them, but the point still stands. They conciously expanded real effort to protect at least some girls out of some moral concerns that did not apply to the killing/kidnapping of young boys.


The point I'm trying to make here:

All those mentally well-adjusted citizens you interact with every day carry within them some of that same pro-female bias. As a collective, they have enormous amounts of power to affect positive change in the world. And the idea of 300 young girls being abducted was enough to unite them under a cause. Tens of thousands of boys being abducted and killed was not.

It's not like these people don't care about boys at all. Just, not quite as much. Not enough to elicit some real outrage in them. And about grown men they care even less. About us they might honestly not care at all.

Imagine being one of those boys being burned alive. Imagine if they could see these same terrorists who are about to kill them politely lead a group of girls out of another school to safety. Feel some of the anger this unfairness demands.

So, while the average citizen might not be "out to get us", many of them will also have zero interest in helping us. Us dying would not be enough to trigger a strong emotional response in them. Even if we were completly innocent. And children. And being set on fire.

So, the difference between these normal people and the mental case saying to us "You don't need a girlfriend, you need to die" is the gap between active sadism and passive indifference.

Obviously most people would not let a boy die if it was withing their power to safe him. They wouldn't want to think of themselves as child murders and they also wouldn't want to be seen that way by others. But if those two pressures abate our misery on it's own is not enough to motivate them into action. Not all of them. Not a majority. Not enough to make waves in the public concious.

Steelmanning is a rationalist practise. It's about taking the claims and arguments of your opposition and making them as strong as possible.

A lot of what get's posted on here is overblown or overly emotional or just not quite true (or just outright retarded). But much of those posts have some truth at their core, much of them are just a step or two removed from making a good point. Instead of making fun of the people who are supposed to be your ingroup, or at least before doing so, I think you should try to steelman what they are trying to say, because that's what you do for someone whose side you are on. I view your failure to do so as an hostile act and interpret it as a refusal to treat other incels as potential allies instead of random strangers. If our shared plight is not enough for you to feel at least a modicum of comradery, why are you even here, amongst people you feel no connection to?

You presume people just "don't care" about boys. I see that there's an anti-male bias, but it's not a "Secretly I don't care about boys" bias. If anything it's an "I'm unaware that boys have it that bad" bias. When you're talking about people who get behind trends like #BringBackOurGirls.

And above all, it's a social bias. People aren't born with it.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

You presume people just "don't care" about boys. I see that there's an anti-male bias, but it's not a "Secretly I don't care about boys" bias. If anything it's an "I'm unaware that boys have it that bad" bias. When you're talking about people who get behind trends like #BringBackOurGirls.

And above all, it's a social bias. People aren't born with it.

I disagree on both accounts. How did people get to know about these girls? Some people read about the situation. And they were moved enough to tell others. The knowledge spreads like an infection because it has a high virality.

So, why did that never happen with any of the stories about these boys? There were countless.

Because they were less likely to be shared. Why? Because they were less triggering.

I could write another wall of text about situations in which normal people were eager to actively harm men or supported others in doing so. Vulnerable men like the homeless or sexual abuse victims.

These stories have a strong emotional component. Why don't they go viral? You think people don't care because they don't know, I think it's the other way around. They don't know, because they don't care to know. If these stories had as much potential to evoke emotions in the general population, some newspaper would have written about them and made some money. If people in general cared about this, it would spread amongst them. Instead, these are slides of some MRAs instagram page.

And while nowadays feminism undoubtedly makes everything worse for us, a significant part of the pro-female / anti-male bias is evolutionary in origin.

Let's go back to a time when the social climate was more male-favored. Let's go back to the days of the Titanic.

First, deaths by class. Poor people died more often than the wealthier folks. Middle and upper class died in similar amounts, but there is still a clear advantage for the richest, most influential passengers.

Now, the same with both sexes.

The difference between men and women is far greater than between millionaires and beggars. Why is that?

Because the men, the strongest individuals on the sinking ship, gave their lives to save the women and children. They chose to freeze into a popsicle voluntarily. And if you had been on that ship as a man and if you had tried to take one of the spots on the rescue boats reserved for a young foid, the other men would have forced you to give it up. At least I would bet on that.

These men might have laughed at the modern version of female rights and female emancipation, but they would die for them anyhow.

That is not just socialisation. And it's not just love. Unless you want to make the case that women don't love their men. It's innate human nature. The sex with the more rare sex cells and the ability to literally carry your genes into the next generation simply was more valuable in an evolutionary context and our human instincts evolved to match that.

From my perspective, your view on normies is way too optimistic. They are far worse than you give them credit for.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I disagree on both accounts. How did people get to know about these girls? Some people read about the situation. And they were moved enough to tell others. The knowledge spreads like an infection because it has a high virality.

So, why did that never happen with any of the stories about these boys? There were countless.
View attachment 932073View attachment 932070
Because they were less likely to be shared. Why? Because they were less triggering.

I could write another wall of text about situations in which normal people were eager to actively harm men or supported others in doing so. Vulnerable men like the homeless or sexual abuse victims.
View attachment 932129
View attachment 932132View attachment 932135View attachment 932147View attachment 932149View attachment 932150
These stories have a strong emotional component. Why don't they go viral? You think people don't care because they don't know, I think it's the other way around. They don't know, because they don't care to know. If these stories had as much potential to evoke emotions in the general population, some newspaper would have written about them and made some money. If people in general cared about this, it would spread amongst them. Instead, these are slides of some MRAs instagram page.

And while nowadays feminism undoubtedly makes everything worse for us, a significant part of the pro-female / anti-male bias is evolutionary in origin.

If it were evolutionary, you wouldn't have it within yourself to care about men either. This is social. You're not above humanity. If it were evolutionary, you would not have these posts to show me. There would be no men's rights activists because the men's rights activists would all have a biological compulsion to treat themselves as second class.

The truth of the matter is, most people don't go digging for news stories. So most people don't hear about things like men's suffering. If they had, they might've cared. It's the fault of the original story finders, it's the fault of people who, when they do find men suffering, decide that they still don't care. It's not the fault of the people who happen to be supporting one cause, but are not aware of all causes everywhere.

Let's go back to a time when the social climate was more male-favored. Let's go back to the days of the Titanic.

First, deaths by class. Poor people died more often than the wealthier folks. Middle and upper class died in similar amounts, but there is still a clear advantage for the richest, most influential passengers.
View attachment 932158

Now, the same with both sexes.
View attachment 932159
The difference between men and women is far greater than between millionaires and beggars. Why is that?

Because the men, the strongest individuals on the sinking ship, gave their lives to save the women and children. They chose to freeze into a popsicle voluntarily. And if you had been on that ship as a man and if you had tried to take one of the spots on the rescue boats reserved for a young foid, the other men would have forced you to give it up. At least I would bet on that.

These men might have laughed at the modern version of female rights and female emancipation, but they would die for them anyhow.

That is not just socialisation. And it's not just love. Unless you want to make the case that women don't love their men. It's innate human nature. The sex with the more rare sex cells and the ability to literally carry your genes into the next generation simply was more valuable in an evolutionary context and our human instincts evolved to match that.

From my perspective, your view on normies is way too optimistic. They are far worse than you give them credit for.

Again, that's social. And "male favored" is a reductive way to put it. That era was punctuated by chivalry. It was the social construct of chivalry that made men follow "Women and children first."

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

If it were evolutionary, you wouldn't have it within yourself to care about men either. This is social. You're not above humanity. If it were evolutionary, you would not have these posts to show me. There would be no men's rights activists because the men's rights activists would all have a biological compulsion to treat themselves as second class.

The truth of the matter is, most people don't go digging for news stories. So most people don't hear about things like men's suffering. If they had, they might've cared. It's the fault of the original story finders, it's the fault of people who, when they do find men suffering, decide that they still don't care. It's not the fault of the people who happen to be supporting one cause, but are not aware of all causes everywhere.

The difference is a difference in degrees, not a black/white absolute difference. We care for other men, because we evolved to care for the memebers of our group/tribe, because we needed to care for our sons and brothers, because trusting your hunting partners can be the difference between life and death, because every male stranger you encounter in the wild is, in addition to a lethal threat, also a potential future ally.

It's not like these people don't care about boys at all. Just, not quite as much. Not enough to elicit some real outrage in them. And about grown men they care even less.

Again, that's social. And "male favored" is a reductive way to put it. That era was punctuated by chivalry. It was the social construct of chivalry that made men follow "Women and children first."

Want to go looking for how many civilisations developed a social code based on the idea that women should follow a reversed (from our perspective) form of chivalry and put men first? Give their lifes for them?

You sound like you are infected with leftist race (and even sex) -denial memes. The central pillar of human civilisation is genetics, not socialisation. Culture is to a significant degree the result of genetic predispositions. The social construct of chivalry is the result of innate instincts which were formed by evolutionary incentives. It were general instincts, which can even be observed in animals, that motivated these men, far more so than their conditioning.

Some male crickets will apparently put the lives of their mating partners ahead of their own. When a mated pair is out together, a male will allow a female priority access to the safety of a burrow, even though it means a dramatic increase in his own risk of being eaten. That's according to infrared video observations of a wild population of field crickets (Gryllus campestris) reported online on October 6 the Cell Press journal Current Biology.

"Many people probably think that 'chivalrous' behavior is exclusive of humans or closely related mammals, linking it in some way to education, intelligence, or affection," said Rolando Rodríguez-Muñoz of the University of Exeter. "We show that even males of small insects, which we would not define as intelligent or affective, can be 'chivalrous' or protective with their partners. Perhaps it shines a light on the fact that apparently chivalrous acts may have ulterior motives. Did Sir Walter Raleigh throw his cape onto a muddy pool in front of Queen Elizabeth just because he was a nice guy? I think not."

The results are contrary to the usual interpretation of male guarding behavior as an attempt to manipulate females and prevent them from mating with rivals. However, the male crickets in this case are rewarded for their risky behavior, as their extended stays with females win them more offspring. Still, the new findings suggest that conflict between the sexes is not inevitable, the researchers say.

Most previous studies of cricket mating behavior had been conducted in the lab. Those findings had led researchers to conclude that male crickets coerce females into remaining with them to prevent the removal of their spermatophore (a small package of sperm that males insert into females) or to keep the female from mating with other males.

In the new study, Rodríguez-Muñoz, Amanda Bretman, and Tom Tregenza watched what happens in the wild as field crickets live their lives by marking and genotyping individual insects. They found that lone female and male crickets suffer similar rates of predation, but when a pair is attacked, the female's chances of survival increase as the male's chances drop. In compensation for their increased predation risk, paired males mate more frequently and father more of their partner's offspring.

Tregenza said males do tend to stay farther away from burrows when females are around, but that didn't seem to be enough to explain the findings. "It looks like males really wait until a female is under cover before getting themselves to safety," he said. "Guarding seems to be their top priority."

In effect, the male crickets trade a longer life span for greater success in fathering offspring with each of their partners.

If you strongly disagree with these statements, I don't think there is any chance we will ever see eye to eye.

 

[FrothySolutions]

The difference is a difference in degrees, not a black/white absolute difference. We care for other men, because we evolved to care for the memebers of our group/tribe, because we needed to care for our sons and brothers, because trusting your hunting partners can be the difference between life and death, because every male stranger you encounter in the wild is, in addition to a lethal threat, also a potential future ally.

How many of these cause supporters have you yourself talked to? Unless you wanna say women are also hunters, I guarantee you will find a woman who will agree that men face a pro-woman bias when it comes to the majority of social issues. But you gotta go out and have the conversations.

Want to go looking for how many civilisations developed a social code based on the idea that women should follow a reversed (from our perspective) form of chivalry and put men first? Give their lifes for them?

You sound like you are infected with leftist race (and even sex) -denial memes. The central pillar of human civilisation is genetics, not socialisation. Culture is to a significant degree the result of genetic predispositions. The social construct of chivalry is the result of innate instincts which were formed by evolutionary incentives. It were general instincts, which can even be observed in animals, that motivated these men, far more so than their conditioning.





If you strongly disagree with these statements, I don't think there is any chance we will ever see eye to eye.

Civilizations build social constructs. Those constructs tend to be centered around "Women are weaker," yes. But that's probably because of the biology that makes women physically weaker. Civilizations have noticed that throughout time and followed that as a pattern for their society.

 

[GhostedPhantom]

A WOMAN ISNT GONNA FIX YOU

Bitch if our problem is literally us being WOMANLESS, then obviously, a WOMAN can fix it.

 

[fastnbulbous]

Women are getting out of control, they must be put in their place

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

Lmao, I remember there was a "femcel" that I saw on YouTube, she was crying, saying that there was a time she had a crush on a guy and the guy had a crush on her but she was scared to tell him that she has a crush on him due to the low self esteem she has because she was often bullied. Lmao

bullying women is sacred

 

[jbwbeliever]

ofc no way reddit gonna ban femcel sub