Found this in the wild
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Like the rest of these comments, they don't even land. Being a faggot, I have to paraphrase GoT: "You let that little girl shame you?"
I don't think the problem with men is that they feel insufficiently victimized by BS.
It isn’t about victimization genius, it’s about catching logical fallacies couched in emotional language
It isn't, but if it were, then the logical fallacies should have been mentioned.
Are we looking at the same infographic?
Logical fallacies are things like 'begging the question', 'strawman', not 'The Peter Pan Charge', which no one has ever heard of, and won't ever be heard of again.
This is just accusations that (some) women level that the author does not like.
It could have been done better, but even then "OH MAN A LOGICAL FALLACY :OOo SEE! SEE! THEY'RE NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!" doesn't exactly cut it when someone is deadset on humiliating you.
Most of these are attempts to frame you unfavorably, put words in your mouth to get you to backpeddle, or end a conversation entirely. If it is a woman, literally all you have to do is be smug and dismissive - and say "Yes" to any accusation that your position is disagreeable or faux pas. They can't stand it.
You cannot be humiliated without your own consent.
If I go to some black guy's house while he's leaving it and say "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER", should he feel humiliated? A lot of blacks are, but I think that's exactly the problem. You're putting too much power in the hands of other people.
You might pose the (correct) counterargument that an individual doing that is regarded by society as being a rather sad and pathetic creature, while the "man-shaming" comments by some women are regarded as acceptable (though that would just be online). But even then, what purposes does this serve? I don't get it.
I'm not sure why not TBH, the first step to standing up for yourself is feeling sufficiently wronged that you want to start a fight.
There is strength in numbers and it feels like I've been playing without any creep support (DoTA reference, not an insult) for years now. At this point I don't really care how undignified they have to be about it, as long as someone starts finally rousing some men to stand shoulder to shoulder I'm not gonna complain.
Then some ghetto blacks do great by physically attacking people who call them 'nigger'. Now, I know you don't mean violence, but what is more empowered: someone who has a meltdown over a word, or someone who brushes it off like the dust on his boots?
Undignified. That's the word.
Well that dignity won't last forever if you don't have the means to stop anyone taking it from you. And dignity can indeed be taken if you're powerless enough.
Lifelong dignity is only attainable for the strongest or most powerful individuals. For everyone else it's a luxury that must be discarded in the face of varying degrees of need.
It seems to me that you're seeing dignity as a cause where I see an effect, the man who can bush it off seems stronger because he is stronger, and that is what lets him brush it off. Brushing it off is not the source of his strength, it's merely a demonstration of it. It is something to aspire to which can inspire people to work harder to better themselves, but itself does not make you stronger.
In direct competition it's a handicap, it can lead you to squandering your strength on frivolous notions whilst the opposition takes home the tangible prize. The benefit of risking that handicap is earning even greater respect if you are able to win regardless, as well as the greater personal growth you get from a hard-fought victory than an easy one. But if you misjudge your capabilities that liability that will make you lose.
In any conflict with actual real stakes, losing will leave you in a weaker position than where you started. So if your interest is in the greatest total empowerment of your fellow man, I believe you shouldn't try to encourage weaker or less fortunate men to value dignity over all other considerations. Instead more as a bonus objective to pursue after you're confident in succeeding in your primary goal of winning in practical terms
Can your dignity be taken without your consent - barring things like torture?
Interesting point, but let's try a hypothetical. Imagine for a moment that someone who is 'stronger', instead of brushing it off, got really upset. We all agree that if you start crying at what someone says, that's not a good look. But if you get angry? Or upset? Also not a very good look. I'm for retaliation, but as a cold calculation rather than as whiny, being upset, etc.
I think there is inherent weakness in allowing the words of others to affect you. Note that this is applicable in today's culture. In medieval times, if you insulted a man, you'd be in big trouble - because that was a shame culture. And anyone who did not retaliate would be faced with accusations that he's a 'wussy loser' in today's terminology.
I encourage dignity because I view that as winning. I don't see how getting upset over what some shrewish woman says contributes to that. Particularly if they're saying it to get a reaction. What bothers them most of all if they are not taken seriously. So just don't take them seriously and demean them, for example by calling them 'little girl' or something.
Just for clarification: are we calling internet or real life?
Not even trying to hide your immense faggotry anymore are you? Bravo, at least you are making progress.