I think most people will agree with this statement on what bar a woman must pass in order to be loved by her husband.
Do two things.
-
Support your husband generally, aka have his back and generally encourage him rather than undermine him or tear him down
-
Respect him, show him respect as a man.
That's it. If a woman does that, 99% of men will love that woman.
It's not exactly a high bar.
Forget love, women don't even pass the bar to be LIKED by men in the modern day. How crazy is that, with a bar that low for unending, soul-mate forever love, modern women are STILL some of the most unlikable and disliked creatures to have ever walked the planet.
No I'm not impossible1, but the old him before dresdonfirebomber wasn't always wrong on everything either.
Imp is a liar. He knows exactly what he is doing.
LOL yeah that's exactly what I think when I see him post--someone who's totally on the ball and not the least bit deranged.
That is because you are a newfag. He was part of the MGTOW psyop. The Tate types try to get White men to chase nons, the monk types try to get men to abstain, and the imp types try to get men to hate women. All of them have the objective of lowering White birthrates.
Man I don't know what to tell you. I'm not new, I've been reading years of this community--since something like 2014 or 2015...whenever all the GG stuff hit reddit on KIA prime. I'm not saying this because I'm behind on the reading.
I simply disagree, strongly, with your analysis of intent. I doubt very much Imp has the social grace to be in any way any part of a "psyop." I watched him devolve over years, and nothing he ever did or said implied to me he was a part of anything grander than a single sick, sad person. This is clear from his nigh-total lack of engagement on the forums he's moderated. Tiny king of lonelytown; Friends: 1 (sometimes).
Anyways, not actually relevant here. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is only useful in limited circumstances to say that when caught in a lie, it can be safely assumed that nothing else the person says can be relied upon.
When the subject is saying true things, for instance, "Men get the short end of the stick in family court," that is a demonstrably, obviously true thing to say. Calling "Falsus in omnibus" when that's the context is just silly. And that's the kind of true thing that OP was clearly referring to. You want to "broken clock is right twice a day" this, that's the kind of aphorism I'm there for. "Falsus etc." no.
Sure, but you still have to go over every single thing he said and review it, and see what his objective was in saying it. Far faster to just reject everything he said.