4 types of simps
(media.scored.co)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Simps really are the biggest detriment to course correction.
They continually enable women when they shouldn't (i.e., the White Knight), or enable the institutions that give women power so they can take advantage of the situation for their own hedonistic benefits (i.e,. the Pickup Artist and the Sugar Daddy), or worst of all, allow themselves to become groomed through goonery to keep degeneracy alive and well (i.e., Antifa Gooner).
Each of these types are so prevalent in normie spaces, I have to applaud OP for making it.
The thing is, there is one other type of simp: the Passive Simp.
These are the guys who recognise we have a deep rooted societal problem, but every time someone suggests "We need to get women under control by limiting their freedoms and unearned rights!" they will vehemently stand against such suggestions by saying "that's exist and misogynistic!" They will stand on the plinth of falsehood, declaring "Feminism isn't bad, just the third and fourth wave. Women just wanted rights and there's nothing wrong with that!"
That kind of mentality -- oftentimes adopted by the normies, the tradcons, and many so-called "moderate" Conservatives is why ground keeps being ceded to the Liberal Progressives. These men cannot come to grips with the fact that so-long as women are allowed sexual freedoms, corporate freedoms, political freedoms, and voting freedoms, the situation between the gender divide will never, EVER heal (there's a very long explanation as to why that is, but I don't have the patience nor time to get into that).
I don't think the explanation is all that long. It all boils down to the fact that Chad chasing is the only thing they do when they're given rights which kills any incentives for the betas to invest in society. Women's rights are as destructive to societal trust as non-white invaders.
So true
Actually the biggest detriment to course correction is people who don't actively pursue the spiritual life, but that's perhaps a larger scale.
This is very true; but trying to get people to recognise that is even more difficult than getting them to recognise the simpidemic.
I know, that's why I've literally been working on it since I first caught a small glimpse of what was happening, when I was still a young child.
We will be making people understand soon.
Something tells me that wasnt included because most people here belong to it
There are plenty of bad actors here who fit that bill. You always know when that brigade is buzzing around because their vote manipulation makes leftist astroturfing look like a high IQ operation. Still this board is better than most right wing spaces on the woman question, which is admittedly damning with faint praise. There are plenty of guys here with reasonable takes on this topic.
Some of us want to have children and believe in the power of Western Culture--what it once was rather than what it has been driven into being. I have a wife and children and a job and all that shit because it's the only effective way to build the future. It doesn't mean I think women should be voting or that men should bend the knee to women's interests; in fact men and women should probably not interact much at all except in domestic matters. But making babies, discharging the biological imperative, working for the good of my nation: All require marriage.
It's fascinating that on one thread you talk about Moral Objectivism being the "pinnacle of human achievement" yet here, we are back to "what's good for you is fine but don't yuck my yum".
The basic question is: when you get to the end of your life, what will you have to show for it? For most of us, it's not going to make a difference on the grand scale. This mostly will boil down to 3 paths.
One, I stayed single and lived for myself (lived out my morals or for a sense of achievement counts too)
Two, I got married and worked on the next generation (yeah, some people get married and are abusive scum, but we are talking about goals. No one strives to do that)
Three, I stayed single and worked for the next generation
The last path is an extremely difficult path reserved for very few, highly capable men. Very very few people have the talent, the foresight, the tenacity, and the sacrificial outlook to achieve it. Most men NEED a wife and family to get them thinking about how they can improve the next generation (because they are just thinking about taking care of their kids).
Yeah, my whole argument can be undone by saying "I don't think advancing the next generation is a good aim". But that puts you outside the confines of this discussion. And outside the thought process of thousands of generations of men.
Yeah I do, because I just end it when people are unreasonable.
Ignoring everything he said to only address the part where you think you can be a petty bitch. Talk about unreasonable LMAO
I am not sure that it would be wrong of me to levy a moral judgement on the men who avoid marriage for all the (very real) reasons you've listed any more than it would be wrong of me to avoid levying a moral judgement on the women who have constructed this hellscape. In fact, I lament both--that women have been granted so much leeway and have selfishly demolished the foundation upon which their own well-being rests and was constructed and that men make the seeming rational decision to avoid the whole affair.
Don't forget listening to their fat wife fuck Tyrone in the next room over. Those sorry fucks love calling men who didn't fall into the trap losers and it's the highest form of praise they can lavish on our life choices.
My least favorite simp is the one who goes "you know who's really to blame? it's the men" whenever there's a news story of a woman doing something retarded. Another variant of this is, when discussing the evils of feminism and how it poisons society, they will say that "we" are to blame because "we as men allowed this" -- as if any of us had anything to do with anything or had any power over the situation in the first place.
It's funny to see how they are against all "sexism" but will get pissed if they see men are not protecting or serving women.
You're correct about the first clause -- mean attempting to siphon blame away from women. They do need accountability.
However, you're absolutely way off the mark on the statement about feminism poisoning society. It didn't come out of nowhere, it didn't gain power in a vacuum, and trying to displace blame is engaging in victimhood mentality. The stats bear this out.
Up to 33% of White men voted Labour the last election:
Up to 37% of White men voted for Democrats the last election:
That's not an insignificant amount of men supporting incumbents who represent parties who want you dead. Men ARE to blame for choosing to be race traitors and choosing to support parties who actively want to destroy society. One third of all men actively CHOOSE to exercise their power to support people who want heterosexual White families gone.
For multiple election cycles for the last half century, a significant portion of men have been supporting these regressive policies. Every man who helped vote in incumbents who support regressive policies are to blame; and before women and joggers had any political power in first-world Occidental nations, White men stood and supported those parties and policies that opened the door for cretins to take office.
When people say men are to blame, that's exactly what they mean and they are 100% correct. Until men stop supporting the people who want you dead, this will continue to be a problem.
Phrasing it as "men are to blame for..." implies that all men in general are to blame. Of course some men are cucks and traitors, but that's their choice, not mine.
Glad people have woken up to the “pickup artists” and “sugar daddies”. Men who have many of their qualities from those two categories have infected right wing men for too long. You can’t maintain a society with a bunch of men who only see women as sexual objects vs potential partners for a family, nor can you build an economy based on selling courses (lol).
I'm more concerned about the destructive incentives than the fact that men are rationally responding to them.
Correct, there are simps on both sides, although only the right has men who are not simps.
PUAs are proof that even men can hit the wall, complete with seething about being unable to find a good mate for their children.
I just love it how only the soviet soliders raped german women, but not the other way around.
Not to forget the American, British and French…
idk if that was sarcasm or not, but:
In a 1946 survey by the US army, they asked French women who was better, German , British or American troops. Germans topped the poll by quite a lot. They were polite said French women, they tried learning French, the rapefest that came with the GIs was noticeable :/ Needless to say that didn't get published at the time (it was supposed to be about how much better the US was to UK, with Germans thrown in).
Not to say they didn't rape Russian women, but that's a different topic and it was FAR less than the Russians raping everyone & everything.
Well, by the German ideology at the time French were not 'sub-people', or bringers of the worst ideology ever (trust me, I agree on tha part, but I am asured the Slavs were the bigest victims, not the perpetrators of communism), so I imagine that they (Germans) didn't traet Franch the same way as they did Soviets (Slavs to be precise) who were dehumanised by the propaganda and agenda. Also, French didn't put as much resistance, thus didn't produce much casualties to Wermacht and thus did not generate as much of the hatred in hearts of the occupiers. Comparing Eastern and Western front in that sencess is thaught-lazy to say at least, and camparing the horrors of war that it brings in one place to the other is mixing apples and oranges. Also, the same propaganda that was dehumanasing Germans a few decades ago is now appointed thowards the Russia. By the same people.
France didn't murder millions of German speaking pacifists in concentration camps a few years before either. Stalin did. The French were eager to turn over their Jews, even the Englishmen of the Channel Islands did it. Russia had killed off a lot of their Jews or sent them running :/ so there weren't many left to hand over, and few Russians ever did.
Stalin was J, not Russian. As was Lenin, and Trotsky, and all the way to the present day since they killed Nikolai II.