Everything you said after your first sentence is wrong, but that first one is very important. You'll notice that: Titanic, 50 Shades of Gray, and Sex In The City are popularly acclaimed by women, and aren't anywhere in this list. Recency bias is part of consensus thinking, and an older consensus just isn't necessarily ever useful given new and emerging environmental threats.
Women are never enemies of Nationalism, and Nationalism has a wildly important role in women being the starting point of families and communities. The social fabric that makes up a nation must be woven by women, and protected & ordered by men.
By being enemies of it, I think what he means is that women's natural tendencies are not for max benefit of the tribe, because their property is usually max approval. A d they don't care if this approval comes from within the tribe or without. If a bunch of foreigners thought their groups immigration policy was mean, and those foreigners (like one billion pajeets) was more than their own population, they'd side with the outsiders over their own because that gets them max approval. In the end, it's bad for the woman but they don't consider real world ramifications, only popular consensus. Nationalism benefits women. And women can support nationalism. But they aren't inclined to think in such terms.
I think I disagree with that assessment even more. Women are not going to socially approve of outsiders because the likelihood of those outsiders being a threat to them is inherently high. An outsider is literally outside the social networking consensus and social status we are talking about. Women do not have that kind of high out-group preference against their own social groups, let alone family units.
A nationalist social ordering has simply not been in most women's lives, and is actively disincentivized by society at large (and the government and corporations in particular). That propaganda and psychological conditioning is the effect that causes political results to skew the way they do.
You're confusing what you logically think women ought to want vs. what women actually do in reality.
You have a poor grasp on women because you're trying to rationalize women from the rationality of a man's mind. You clearly haven't observed women in the wild much.
Sorry but I don't think you understand women at all. If you don't think that women consider the opinions from without the group you are sorely mistaken. And if you think women put much thought into the dangers posed by outsiders, again, you are sorely mistaken. Some women, sure, granted
But to the first point, imagine a scenario where people are being loud in a movie theater and a woman doesn't want her bf/husband/dad to tell the offenders to be quiet because it'll be awkward or whatever. They don't even know these people and they're more concerned over the opinions of strangers than anything else.
This is because women place different weights in negative vs positive judgements. If someone holds a negative opinion about a woman (or even if they simply believe that is the case) that bothers them considerably more than positive opinions pleases them.
So basically, in gamer terms:
insults = -20 HP
compliments = +5 HP
Not being hated (even by strangers) is much more important than being liked by familiars. This is why women will get pressured into jabbing their kids or masking their kids or whatever stupid shit.
Men however don't generally care as much about the opinions of anyone outside their immediate circle.
By the way, this is echoed in the left vs the right as a whole
The right only cares about their smaller circles, immediate family, immediate community, nation. Whereas for the left is actually inverted, the care most about abstract sense of "being a citizen of earth", the. The global community, then their nation, then their region, etc etc with their own family basically being the least prioritized. Someone actually posted about that here half a year ago
Women are necessary for every movement and ideology because reproduction is necessary for every movement and ideology. But the psychology of women is a different matter entirely, and it can obviously be more or less hostile/conducive to a movement or ideology.
In the case of nationalism, women’s widespread advocacy for immigration and globalism is more than enough proof that they are, on average, enemies of nationalism. I’m not sure why you are so stupid as to disagree with this. I assume you’ve seen where voting projections fall in the absence of women. Are you struggling to understand how generalizations work?
I don't see women's psychology as pro-immigration and pro-globalism. In several European countries the populist right turned immigration into a women's safety issue, and the numbers of opposition to immigration match men's numbers. This is not a result of biology, but of psychological conditioning and heavy propaganda.
Women are being taught that globalism gives them community, and that immigrants are like infants. That is the psychological effect at play related to biology. Women don't have an innate out-preference. If anything, it's the opposite. But the infantilization of foreigners is what aligns them politically on the issue.
Giz-giz is also a jew-lover, so his primary interest is 'what's good for the jews', which is why he flips from astonishingly intelligent to borderline retarded when stuff like 'nationalism' comes up. Imagine a country without jews! Who would fuck all the children! Well Giztornik doesn't want that sort of world.
Because its not a list of "Greatest of All Time" but disparity between the two genders.
Gays are still men and love Sex in the City, which would remove that disparity level. Titanic has Kate Winslet tits that many boys in the 90s have nostalgia for.
I feel like people are missing that detail, this list is just ranking the things with the largest gaps rather than their "greatest of all time."
Everything you said after your first sentence is wrong, but that first one is very important. You'll notice that: Titanic, 50 Shades of Gray, and Sex In The City are popularly acclaimed by women, and aren't anywhere in this list. Recency bias is part of consensus thinking, and an older consensus just isn't necessarily ever useful given new and emerging environmental threats.
Women are never enemies of Nationalism, and Nationalism has a wildly important role in women being the starting point of families and communities. The social fabric that makes up a nation must be woven by women, and protected & ordered by men.
By being enemies of it, I think what he means is that women's natural tendencies are not for max benefit of the tribe, because their property is usually max approval. A d they don't care if this approval comes from within the tribe or without. If a bunch of foreigners thought their groups immigration policy was mean, and those foreigners (like one billion pajeets) was more than their own population, they'd side with the outsiders over their own because that gets them max approval. In the end, it's bad for the woman but they don't consider real world ramifications, only popular consensus. Nationalism benefits women. And women can support nationalism. But they aren't inclined to think in such terms.
I think I disagree with that assessment even more. Women are not going to socially approve of outsiders because the likelihood of those outsiders being a threat to them is inherently high. An outsider is literally outside the social networking consensus and social status we are talking about. Women do not have that kind of high out-group preference against their own social groups, let alone family units.
A nationalist social ordering has simply not been in most women's lives, and is actively disincentivized by society at large (and the government and corporations in particular). That propaganda and psychological conditioning is the effect that causes political results to skew the way they do.
You're confusing what you logically think women ought to want vs. what women actually do in reality.
You have a poor grasp on women because you're trying to rationalize women from the rationality of a man's mind. You clearly haven't observed women in the wild much.
I don't think I'm wrong.
Sorry but I don't think you understand women at all. If you don't think that women consider the opinions from without the group you are sorely mistaken. And if you think women put much thought into the dangers posed by outsiders, again, you are sorely mistaken. Some women, sure, granted
But to the first point, imagine a scenario where people are being loud in a movie theater and a woman doesn't want her bf/husband/dad to tell the offenders to be quiet because it'll be awkward or whatever. They don't even know these people and they're more concerned over the opinions of strangers than anything else.
This is because women place different weights in negative vs positive judgements. If someone holds a negative opinion about a woman (or even if they simply believe that is the case) that bothers them considerably more than positive opinions pleases them.
So basically, in gamer terms:
insults = -20 HP
compliments = +5 HP
Not being hated (even by strangers) is much more important than being liked by familiars. This is why women will get pressured into jabbing their kids or masking their kids or whatever stupid shit.
Men however don't generally care as much about the opinions of anyone outside their immediate circle.
By the way, this is echoed in the left vs the right as a whole
The right only cares about their smaller circles, immediate family, immediate community, nation. Whereas for the left is actually inverted, the care most about abstract sense of "being a citizen of earth", the. The global community, then their nation, then their region, etc etc with their own family basically being the least prioritized. Someone actually posted about that here half a year ago
Women are necessary for every movement and ideology because reproduction is necessary for every movement and ideology. But the psychology of women is a different matter entirely, and it can obviously be more or less hostile/conducive to a movement or ideology.
In the case of nationalism, women’s widespread advocacy for immigration and globalism is more than enough proof that they are, on average, enemies of nationalism. I’m not sure why you are so stupid as to disagree with this. I assume you’ve seen where voting projections fall in the absence of women. Are you struggling to understand how generalizations work?
I don't see women's psychology as pro-immigration and pro-globalism. In several European countries the populist right turned immigration into a women's safety issue, and the numbers of opposition to immigration match men's numbers. This is not a result of biology, but of psychological conditioning and heavy propaganda.
Women are being taught that globalism gives them community, and that immigrants are like infants. That is the psychological effect at play related to biology. Women don't have an innate out-preference. If anything, it's the opposite. But the infantilization of foreigners is what aligns them politically on the issue.
Giz-giz is also a jew-lover, so his primary interest is 'what's good for the jews', which is why he flips from astonishingly intelligent to borderline retarded when stuff like 'nationalism' comes up. Imagine a country without jews! Who would fuck all the children! Well Giztornik doesn't want that sort of world.
I'm a Nationalist. You are a Race Communist. We are not the same.
Because its not a list of "Greatest of All Time" but disparity between the two genders.
Gays are still men and love Sex in the City, which would remove that disparity level. Titanic has Kate Winslet tits that many boys in the 90s have nostalgia for.
I feel like people are missing that detail, this list is just ranking the things with the largest gaps rather than their "greatest of all time."