This just happened on facebook

This just happened on facebook.

This person is 100% serious.

Other urls found in this thread:

everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/6-ways-men-dominate-space/?utm_content=buffer96c70&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They are assuming their premise is infallible by backing it up with buzzwords. Just fuck my philosophy up yo

Just call him a numale faggot and drop him. Then delete your jewbook. Then drink a giant cup of bleach for having a jewbook to begin with.

tell her to shut up
no arguments with the left side

I started replying then gave up

There's no arguing with people like this

That's pretty much what I did

he linked this article on his wall
everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/6-ways-men-dominate-space/?utm_content=buffer96c70&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

and I replied with a link to the definition of nu-male

I'll go drink bleach now

>construction of masculinity
>testosterone is just a social construct

Doing gods work leaf. If the bleach tastes bad, just follow it with a chaser of Drain-O

i dominate space

t. fat cunt

> person
You are doing it wrong, leaf.

Say " U should stop using violent words such as man or woman, we are all equal".

Oh fuck this was a guy? hahaha Tell him if he wasn't such a white knighting faggot he might have a girlfriend too. I can't believe a man would say this to another man and suggest that his girlfriend should pussy whip him for not being feminist enough. If you know this guy irl he deserves to get his ass beat. You are morally obligated to beat his ass, not just on your own honor, but in defense of all of decent society. At one point in history this would have resulted in a duel to the death.

This was a good thanksgiving for Facebook chimp outs.

>men oppressed by being male
If that isn't the definition of victimization complex, I don't know what is.

Get your gf on fb and have her reply that she's not attracted to men who aren't masculine. It usually shuts makes them go internalized misogyny, end with a "don't you dare tell her what to think", leftist btfo

Why blur the names you faggot.

You're letting him off too easy. You must absolutely humiliate him and let him know that if you're girlfriend ever starts acting like half the little bitch that he is, you would drop her faster than he would drop his girlfriend off at her bull's house.

The privilige of being a white male is to have my balls broken everyday because I'm a white male.

>picture in article shows a black guy
triggered

Idk but you better stick up for straight white male 1. That's what we really need more men trying to silence women. Are you even listening to what she's saying!?!? You and your friend make me fucking sick.

Because he doesn't want to dox himself. The SJWs would probably raid him worse than anyone else at this point.

The construction of masculinity is based upon taking the role of accomplishing things that suit men on a physical and mental level. It has nothing to do with oppressing women. Women were happier staying at home and cooking/nursing the children while men went out and gathered resources. Now they're miserable dumps because they're expected to go out and gather resources as much as men. Look up the studies. Parroting leftists like this don't know what they're talking about. They're restating what Professor Weinstein told them in Sociology class because "if it comes from an authority figure it must be right."

Kek'd you glorious leaf. Keep up the bantz and the red pills.

Nah he's a good guy

But I think he's buying into this SJW bs cause his gf is so into it

Just tell them that males are the superior race, and that gender doesn't exist only male/female behavior.

Here he'd just get pizzas and dildos sent to his house

The SJWs would try to get him fired and try to have him arrested

Redpill him then ya dingus but don't do it over Facebook

>It’s not about men actively choosing to be jerks or trying to be sexist and ableist (since the outcome of our manspreading not only takes up space under the guise of our needing more room, but also often makes space less accessible for some people with disabilities).

It's... ableist to take up space because a handicapped person MIGHT need to squeeze by? What. How long are those straws in that strawman?
Then it's ableist for fat people to take up two spaces, because a handicapped person might need that other seat.

there is: change the angle. once he has given in to answering any of your question do not let go and let him dig his hole.

The original question that was asked was simple - the reply was a set of meaningless buzzwords.

This is how you can recognize an SJW or anyone that went to University in Canada. They aren't capable of articulating thoughts in an ordered manner, so they simply regurgitate the buzz words that they were programmed to.

Take a look at someone like Prof Peterson. When he talks, he doesn't use long, convoluted words or arcane terminology. He speaks with simple words illustrating grand truths.

Because changing the definition of masculinity to effete doesn't mean you aren't an effete little bitch. Drop the kikebook mic. Then drop kikebook, it's for bitches

I've never once been told "check your privilege" in person, but I imagine if it happened, I'd end up decking them where they stand, man or woman. Nary a more irritating globalist catchphrase.

Many people in university/college gets the idea that speaking and writing old fashioned is somehow "academic". Using longer and more complicated words than are necessary makes them believe that what they're saying sounds smarter. But they only end up sounding like retards because most of the time they're not even using the words properly.

So what if I have a kikebook just to look at the shit MSM are putting out and keep touch of college, labour, and feminists groups?

But fat people ARE handicapped user

>MUH SOGGY KNEES
>CHECK YOUR WHITE PRIVILAEHARGAIHD
lmaodroppedfaggot.webm

this.

confabulation is endemic to leftist ideology. So convinced of their worldview that they cannot fathom other ideas, thus couldn't believe Brexit/Trump. Then when some perceptive liberals explain the difference facets of their defeat, the rabid leftists lump those liberals into the "apologist" camp.

Imagine being so brain-washed that everything can be reduced to reductionist shit so it fits in with their marxist-intersectional philosophies.

just tell them how things are. don't ask any questions.

Agreed. Intelligence isn't using long or words or being verbose. It's about being able to understand and express complex ideas.

I find the best way to enter / win debates especially with those people is to bring things down to the simplest, lowest level beginning with terms that are agreed upon by all. Only then can you find where their sticking point is.

Mentally, yes.

Check your Privilege user
You're oppressing me

I'm willing to accept that most gender roles are constructs, but the second they fall on victimization arguements, I want them to taste the back of my hand.

I'm not. Even if they are constructs, they are constructs because they linked to actual biological behaviours and needs.

Your girlfriend should just make a post to him saying she prefers masculine men because it makes her cunt dripping wet but nu-males are like fucking fags trying to turn straight.

it's not even "old-fashioned" english, considering most leftists in Canada hate the fact that we are a former Anglo colony and thus use UK English, aka the Queen's.

Academia/leftists/etc use pedantic language b/c they learned all their philosophical and political ideologies through convoluted articles and publications that purposefully obscure the message by assaulting the reader with complicated sentence structures, odd word choices, and an insistence on imbuing words and phrases with subject-specific jargon.

It is the first sign of not knowing what you are talking about: using jargon to sound convincing. The best at their jobs: Carl Sagan; David Suzuki; Brian Sewell, etc were all able to explain complicated theories in a way that translated to layman. That was the true sign of understanding.

>lowest level beginning with terms that are agreed upon by all.

this. the only time discussion works is if you're speaking with a non-rabid leftist who understands thoughtful and respectful discussion devoid of ad hom attacks is the only way. Coming to basic understandings at the simplest levels is always overlooked.

Tell her to stop being racist. She won't be able to handle it.

Shit like this makes it impossible to reason with these people. The funny thing is, Peterson said that the PC authoritarians are essentially the bible thumping rightwingers of the left.

But in all seriousness, marxism is an ideology designed to overthrow institutions, it's supposed to be a catalyst ideology. How marxism should work is that when the old system is overthrown, the new leader installs a non marxist form of control and purges out all the marxists. If Russia used marxism right in the 1920s, they would have transiitoned from feudalism to democracy. Communism is another form of anarchy/civil unrest but in a controlled form.

>priviledge
Is there a more anti-intellectual word in the modern lexicon?

HNGGH that's literally the best idea! I've also had lefties attack my marriage saying that because I'm a traditionalist I must basically be a wife beater. On a few occasions my wife has stepped in and shit all over them.

Don't give up, that's why they've gotten as far as they have
Say something like "and masculinity built everything around you" or women were happier under men (women suicide statistics go here)"

It sounds fucking stupid but just do it, he might not admit it, but others will follow your lead

your post gave me cancer.

I never had a problem with women but now after reading that I almost wanna punch one in the face.

My wife thinks nu-males are disgusting. She likes to brag to her coworkers that her husband looks like a rugged convict...she says it as a compliment lmao...shes just 25 so her female coworkers are really into male-beauty product using skinny jeans guys. Im a roofer so the weather roughs a guy up.

Top tier post, I agree, lets be leaf-friends. The truth is that they hide their lack of substance behind flowery words.

We need, as the Bard said "More matter, with less art."

When I teach something advanced like radio-wave propagation or the heterodyne process, I simplify it to the level of my students in order to help them learn, not to stroke my ego.

Must come to basic understandings.
Then must proceed with yes or no questions.

Through this process you determine the exact point at which your beliefs diverge, and you can begin to examine why this is.

I BELIEVE IN THE BIG PATRIARCHY IN THE SKY

Have had a few roofer friends. Most were tough as nails (no pun intended). I am not particularly rugged looking but am tall, fit and work with my hands a fair bit (military). Compared to my wifes stoner family and my nu-male siblings there's a big difference.

>spouts that shit
>assumes she's your girlfriend in 2016
I'd be upset too, Canada. How dare Xe.

They're assuming such a thing is made up instead of biology.

Military is a lot more masculine than being a roofer haha...Im just sunburnt and my hair is exposed to wind all the time. I have stoner family and nu male relatives too. Not a lot in common with that type. I read their comments on cuckbook and just baka at their pussification.

>tfw you're the racist uncle

>trump is a threat to all colored people and gays and anyone not Christian and will kill everyone
what the fuck is wrong with these idiots, where are they all getting this? I thought Alex jones was a nutter but he's right, these people are channeling something, it's like every left-leaning person I know is suddenly speaking in tongues, even mild left leaners I know on fagbook and irl are belching forth torrents of bile as if the lord of the flies is speaking through them
I am genuinely beginning to believe that Satan is a real force at work in the day-to-day world. It's like the apocalypse is at hand

>Hey fags, make sure to ruin thanksgiving for your family! Remember, its not about your family spending time together, its your chance to virtue signal! Make sure to make everyone very uncomfortable!

I dont even give a fuck about thanksgiving, but goddamn this is deplorable.

kek, I was a TA last year for history students and the course was focused on art and I told them that I confidently believe that contemporary art is inherently meaningless not b/c of aesthetic ethos but b/c it is a money-laundering operation for shady characters, which explains why UAE princes are buying up art.

looking to get into the army as an NCO with an MA. I know recruiters are liars above all, but you think uncle Syrup will fuck me?

>Canada
Not surprised, desu

The point is that they can't make rational aguements without falling into fallacious reasoning. no one wins arguments by inserting themselves into the negative outcome. They are shit at persuasion.

Nah man. The army is 90 percent sitting around, 8% pt and 2 percent actually doing our jobs. It's pretty savagely boring. Even in Afghanistan it was dull the majority of the time staring out into the desert.

Addendum: I also know hard-left Japanese and they are surprisingly mild about Trump, they're happy that TPP is gone but they're nervous that a more severe trade deal might be coming, however they were ecstatic about how the Abe administration was made to look like a bunch of literal retards by sucking up to the Obama administration and selling out the Japanese people only to have their new BFF get BTFO and so now they're stuck between a big angry orange man on one side and a sea of angry little yellow men on the other.

I'm studying politics at uni and the amount of fucking meaningless buzzwords are off the charts, shit like post structuralism is utter nonsense.

Spot on again. Contemporary art is a catastrophe. I don't think I would survive very long in post secondary.

Uncle Syrup?

The army is pretty whack right now thanks to the liberals. But it's sort of always been that way. Don't join out of misguided patriotism though do it for yourself.

The CAF hasn't fought a war directly for Canada since Korea. Even Afghanistan was questionable, although it did have a good effect. Join for personal betterment, and the many other benefits. Overall it was a good choice for me as it dragged me out of a torpor.

I can answer pretty much any questions you have about it.

>And why would you insult men who wish to redefine masculinity because it oppresses them too?
Translation:
>I'm a little whinny bitch who hates men because Chad beat me up at school and got laid with girls I was too much of a pussy to even try to talk to them

True enough.

That would kill me. The amount of made up terms the left uses in an attempt to sound smart is pathetic.

Again, I refer to Prof Peterson. He tackles complex issues in his videos, but he does so with simple language. This is learning.

lol well i got news for you he doesn't look at you as a 'good guy' he looks at you as sub human because you disagree with his bullshit, he's going to now bad mouth you to everyone you mutually know

Hurry up and fucking wait.
That describes it pretty well - when I first arrived at the mega in st jean they had us stand in one of the hallways for a good 4 hours before we got our introductory lecture - still carrying all our bags and shit from the flight, at something like 4am. I'm pretty sure we had to wait because our warrant officer wanted to sleep more.

The following week, our """platoon""" of 12 people proceeded to do everything in 1/10th the time it takes your typical platoon, so we had a lot of dicking around doing nothing to do. Someone in administration finally wized up and integrated our group into our sister platoon so that we could hurry up and wait with a proper amount of people.

the best response is to laugh at and mock these people mercilessly

Academia is quite insular in a way each generation seems to accept bollocks because they think it is intellectual.

What's hard left in Japan? Do they want open borders and shit? Or are they just straight up commies?

STOP THE PRESSES

A FACEBOOK POST

Japan has like one of the largest commie parties m8.

>being manly is built on the oppression of women

>being strong relied on the oppression of women
ok

Ah the mega. So many '''''''fond'''''' memories there.
Seems like a long time ago now, but it's only been 8 years.

That's because intellectualism moved from a means to an end.

OMG ITS HAPPENIENG!!!

...

>The point is that they can't make rational aguements [sic] without falling into fallacious reasoning. no one wins arguments by inserting themselves into the negative outcome. They are shit at persuasion.

Let's unpack this.
1. Is the intent to win the argument, persuade, or tell a story that is useful to be believed? Let's assume it's the latter.

2. Is there any connection between rationality and the tools of rationality and finding stories that are useful to be believed? It is rational to look out for yourself if your intent is survival, but you can do more against the constraints of survival with collective action, but you won't act collectively if everyone just looks out for themselves. How does rationality find the answer if you have to act irrationally to get to the story of collective action that is useful to be believed?

3. Which brain are you using? We have many: the instinctual, the emotional, and the inferential are the most prominent, but only the inferential has a story of the story. You don't have emotions about your emotions, or instincts about your instincts, but they are all stories, because if they weren't then your actions would be indistinguishable from a story of randomness.

So let's look at that inferential brain that can have stories of stories, and stories of stories of stories.
You say putting yourself in the negative is a fallacy, but why? Changing perspective changes the story, as does changing the narrative objects. Why is it any more a fallacy to look at women as equals for the purpose of individual freedom than it is to look to another man? Why is the perspective change a fallacy just because it contradicts with your story of male dominance?


You really said it all when you said, "They are shit at persuasion."

But that is where you lost all credibility as a clear thinker.

Bottom line: you just project your own stupidity when you think you see it in others.

MODS MODS MODS

All those words, but you didn't really say anything. Most importantly, you wrote the whole thing on the presumption that he/she meant 'to tell a story that is useful to be believed.' I don't think that was it.

YOU'RE FUCKING A WHITE MALE

They don't care about the hole and logic, when they notice it, they just revert to the starting sentence and start buzzword insults.

They are completely brainwashed.

Well if I didn't say anything then why did you get the point? The point of all stories is to find the one that is useful to be believed.
Just because everything is a story, doesn't mean that some of them aren't useful to be believed, and just because a story is useful to be believed doesn't mean it isn't a story.

You get lost in the story and neglect the usefulness part, but that is the only thing that is going on.
The intent of the person defending the woman's point of view and the intent of the person defending the man's point of view has to do with them trying to find the story that is useful to be believed.

Because when stories are useful to be believed, you no longer think of them as stories:

You think they are reality.

It's a literal communist party but it's not primarily open borders as far as I know, it's anti-US military base, anti-US influence, pro-farmer, anti war, anti nuclear power...
I'm not really sure what it's pro-, to be honest.
All the twitter posts I ever see are anti-something.

Japan also had some pretty serious hardcore communist radicals back in the 60's and 70's, hijacked some planes and all but eventually they purged themselves into oblivion as most communist radicals do

You are literally the example of something we discussed above. Using too many words and obfuscation when you could simply state things clearly.

Furthermore, you are clearly implying that there are only 'stories' which seems to me to be a very relativistic point of view. There cannot be more than one truth, there is only one story.

Now, how people perceive that may change, but the truth does not.

In particular, the term 'useful to be believed' is clunky and vague. You should avoid using it, just a tip.

If you give up on the Platonic ideal that there is a reality you can know, (which ironically requires you to accept a metaphysical place you cannot sense), and instead accept that you recursively created a representation of your narrative universe that corresponds to the world you cannot know, but is useful to be believed because it doesn’t stop, then you have to ask how the story of that process of creating the narrative universe itself is created and:
1. Whether it can self-create; and
2. Whether the process of creating stories biases your story.
The second one talks to Sophistry, or Rhetoric. It is hard to see yourself in a story when the viewpoint of a story is always from the perspective of an outside. How do you get outside the outside?

You have accepted Platonism. You will lead a life of confusion and disappointment because you believe there is a truth that is independent of the intent of the story.

Even in your Bible, in the 10 commandments, talks about this as a sin.
1. no God above me: the world is unknowable and undivideable.
2. No false idols: the narrative is never the world or true
3. Don't name God: the narrative is never the world. It is a representation you recursively made.
What that really means is that you are in a recursion, and you cannot see the recursion from outside of the recursion without being in a recursion otherwise nothing would change from state to state to tell you that the state existed. When you understand this you see the futility of all rhetoric, including logic, to tell you anything that is useful to be believed, but at least logic keeps track of the stories that are and are not useful to be believed for their particular intent, whereas instinct and emotion cannot.

Exactly as I suspected. A combination of relativism and nihilism.

I cannot disagree strongly enough. It is the firm acceptance of truth that grounds us in our existence, in an otherwise confusing and disappointing world.

You are essentially posting babble that is meaningless my friend. You can postulate and posture all you like, but regardless of what part of the elephant the blind man touches, they are all still touching an elephant.

You cannot just take the 10 commandments and recreate them to your meaning. I mean, I suppose you can, but you've missed the simplest most true elements behind them.

'No gods before me'. There is only one God, there is only truth.

Your belief will lead you through doubt and permanent indecision.

On the contrary. I do not live in doubt; I live through doubt.
There is no bigger rhetorical lie than truth. The concept of truth obfuscates perspective and quashes dialog. It is nothing but a refusal to change the story out of laziness or the confusion of the intent of the narrative with an illformed desire.

If you don’t know it is a story because the story doesn't stop that simply means it is ‘useful to be believed’. That is the passive voice of what C. S. Peirce said.

Truth is control. Truth is a lie. Truth is the sin the bible outs by saying the only truth is that the world decides whether your story is useful to be believed, not the rhetorical tricks that fool.

I am happy. I am the world.

Relativity is a story. Truth is a story. Purpose is a story. Cause and effect is a story about the comparison of a story that didn't happen with one that was supposed to happen but didn't happen. Statistical inference is myopia. All of this is sophistry and platonism which is confusion.

People believe the most useless things that the world stops every time. Why? Because they don't realize they are living in a representation they can change to one that works.

Oh, and you create the elephant in your mind by sensing the sense of the senses.

There is no elephant. only the story of the elephant you recursively update with your senses until it is useful to be believed.

Heh. Relativism to such an extreme that it refuses to acknowledge even objective truths. I'm sure that's a fun way to live, but no thanks. I will continue to perceive the order and flow of the universe around me, and watch God's hand on all of it.

If you can't see any of that, I feel bad for you.

But thanks for the talk, I learned a bit about some more arcane philosophical ideals.

Agreed
I never read a book b4 army. After first deployment never went anywhere without a couple in my ruck

>and so on and so forth
Good chuckle, says a lot

Books don't require batteries. Sold lol.