Thanks, this post is dynamite! It's just the right combination of arrogant and fucking dumb.
>I was debating at first whether I should even make this post, but I hope this will help articulate a quasi-counterargument for those who are "on the fence".
You know he's got faith in himself when he describes it as a "quasi-counterargument".
>Now, I'm going to state a point that's going to garnish me a lot of criticism, but you'll eventually see how this strengthens and supports my overall argument down the reasoning.
SPOILER: actually, nope, this plot point gets completely dropped after the next two sentances lol
>TBP isn't wrong about everything — in fact, they're generally partially correct on some things, more so than the manosphere generally credits them to be.
>However, here's why their partial credit is effectively irrelevant in the aggregate argumentative scope and theme of argument between the two opposing parties.
"aggregate argumentative scope and theme of argument between the two opposing parties" is the most rediculously tortured phrase I've seen in quite some time. You'll note that he hasn't actually said what bloopers are right about at all, because it doesn't matter and this is entirely a totemistic gesture, a spell that's supposed to make you think "he's clearly
not an extremist, he said they were right about
some things, this means he's worth listening to!"
>They ALWAYS attack the lowest-hanging fruit and/or some emotional vent/rage post on some manospherian blog.
/u/Sinister_Hand
already nailed the response to this. Thanks for posting this rotten apple lying on the ground!
>Now, I'm not advocating we, TRP, or any other part of the manosphere censor these posts; in fact, I encourage them. The manosphere is one of the few places men can have unapologetic discourse about women and human nature, especially female nature. Men need an environment to release their anger and negative energy, that's why I fully advocate it.
hahaha it's simulatenously "releasing anger and negative energy" (and not worth taking literally) and "unapologetic discourse about [...] female nature" (and worth taking literally). Schrödinger's shitpost!
>However, it is the pseudointellectuals who populate TBP who are being intellectually dishonest in claiming that these posts alone are what the core (i.e. what is representative of said group's ideals and principles) of the manosphere and especially MGTOW is about.
"How dare they think what we spend 95% of our time talking about represents the core of our beliefs!"
>I mean for fucks sake, when are they even going to REMOTELY address that over half of all marriages in Westernized nations end in divorce?
It's a pretty common manbaby canard so, yeah, I'm sure it's been addressed countless times. My take is you're making an
extremely
loaded argument and your assumption that divorce rates are a reasonable Relationship Satisfaction Index
or whatever the fuck you're using them as a proxy for is somewhere between questionable
and utterly hilarious and/or contemptuous
>When are they going to address the fact that 80 percent of women initiate said divorces?
Second verse, same as the first: loaded arguments based on all sorts of assumptions like the initiator of the divorce being "at fault" for the divorce.
>When are they going to address the fact that 97 percent of alimony is paid by men? When are they going to address the fact that in ~86 percent of child custody cases, mother's retain primary custody of children?
When is TRP going to address $FEMINIST_ISSUE_1 and $FEMININST_ISSUE_2?
These biases are pretty much entirely an artifact of the traditional TRP Donna Reed 50's sitcom conceptualization of a nuclear family, so laying blame at the feet of feminism (which has spoken out about this as being bullshit, this is literally what we mean when we throw around "toxic masculinity") is pretty fucking
misguided
>When are they going to address the fact that women lie about their past sexual partners by a factor/multiple of 3 less than what their actual sexual partner count is?
I think your misogyny is showing, Mr. "there are two kinds of women:
sluts
and lying sluts"
>When are they going to acknowledge the fact that whenever an article or blog post comes out about female infidelity, they almost always implicitly shift all of the blame and responsibility to the man who got cheated on?
So why are we being held to a higher standard than you hold yourselves to? Coz all y'all assuming everything is a woman's fault 24/7. I guess, thinking about it, the answer is "implicit biases, same as you clownshoes"
>When are they going to address the fact that men don't have obnoxious physiological requirements stated in their Tinder profile, but an abundance of women do (e.g. He must be at least 6'2")?
>When are they going to address the fact that women perceive the vast majority of men to be "below average" in physical sex appeal?
Wow, is this were the telephone game that started with that OkCupid clickbait article ended up?
>When are they going to address the fact that women on average are only a significant net deficit on the tax base?
Oh I haven't heard this one before can anyone clue me in on some detail it's probably going to be as good as the bit where feminism/women gets blamed for being ineligable for the draft.
>When are they going to address the fact that women make-up only 20 percent of STEM despite inflated acceptance rates and scholarships being thrown at them simply for haeing a vagina?
So, what's supposed to be argument here? That women being "only 20 percent of STEM" currently is some kind of obvious proof that women can't
lift
STEM? It's not like we murdered the existing workforce when they started pushing trying to get women. It was 12% in the 70's, if you look at college majors/newgrads the gap closes to ~40% women/60% men. So, yeah, it looks like it's working to me.
>When are they going to accept the fact that the vast majority of women will only consider marrying a man who earns a higher income than they do?
hahaha "you're all just financial/emotional vampires that are right about some things
that will not be named
just confess!" I don't think I can logic my way out of this one if only I had a dick to do my thinking for me. Hey, wait a minute, Dick, what do you think?
o< : the dude's froot loops
quack quack
(Dick's my pet duck)
>How do they think their personal interests and emotions alone can debunk entire sub-fields of Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology and their respective findings?
I don't know how to break it to you but EvoPsych and EvoBio are the 21st century versions of Phrenology and Eugenics, they're crackpot pseudosciences that pull "scientific" explanations for bigoted garbage out of their asses and are about as respectable as Homeopathy or maybe Accupuncture.
>When will they recognize the obvious implications from data such as women are more likely to orgasm during intercourse with a wealthy man as opposed to a non-wealthy man?
Did they test if women can tell if the guy's just faking being wealthy?
>When are they going to address the fact and its various implications that for the majority of human history, roughly three women reproduced for every one man?
Source:
Angry male monthly. And what about the
implications? (I'm never getting that scene from It's Alway Sunny out of my head, ever, am I?)
>When are they going to leave their infantile delusions that humans are monogamous and that only a small minority of women cheat?
Wait when the fuck did we start advocating monogamy I missed that meeting?
>When are they going to accept that due to fundamentally different reproductive functions, women and men will always implicitly be seen as functionally different for different roles
The word you wanted there was "inherent" not "implicit" :)
>AND THERE IS VALID REASON (not the "MISOGYNY" they constantly bitch and cry about) behind it?
Nope. See your problem here is you're trying to argue against the definition of the word. Mysogyny means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women," whether or not you feel those opinions are
valid
is orthogonal here. Even if we take at face value the concept that contempt against women (#yesallwomen) is valid, it's still, by definition, mysogyny. You belive it, embrace it bro! Come out of the closet, you'll feel a lot better (at least it worked for me)!
