Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know many women who possess many more masculine qualities than many men and vice versa. That said I love women, except the ones I hate, just like with men.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I know many women who possess many more masculine qualities than many men and vice versa. That said I love women, except the ones I hate, just like with men. Wow, how did you read the post so quickly?!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I know many women who possess many more masculine qualities than many men and vice versa. That said I love women, except the ones I hate, just like with men.

Originally posted by Kurk
Wow, how did you read the post so quickly?!

Funny.

And No. The Concept of this thread is SEXIST AND RACIST!

You failed to point out that all the EVIL is committed by Only WHITE MEN!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Funny.

And No. The Concept of this thread is SEXIST AND RACIST!

You failed to point out that all the EVIL is committed by Only WHITE MEN! It is sexist, but how so racist? I personally don't believe white men are any more evil or good than non-white men. American-raised men tend to be more 'evil' than say Japanese men because our society is drive far more on masculine values.

Originally posted by Kurk
Wow, how did you read the post so quickly?!

I read it all, already.


You asked lots of questions.


Men, in general, lead, innovate, etc. because we are competitive as f*ck and all the other things listed and then some. Women are the same but this is a probabilities game. When you have a collection of traits that add up into a sum that is greater than the parts. On average, women are not as aggressive or competitive as men. They also possess more of other traits, on average, that men do not.



The two human sexes are not the same. We are not equals. We are different.



To address another question, yes, I think men do too much warring. We are too violent. I think our egos are too big. It's like the men are more extreme. I am not wrong about this...men are more stupid and more intelligent than women if you look at the intelligence distribution. I think there's more than just intelligence that could be put onto that distribution that shows the contrast.


Summary: it's a game of number and probabilities.

Ohhh...This is just an ANTI Men Thread that the Left Loves so much. That makes YOU an Evil Person.

But then Japan has a much Higher Suicide Rate amongst men then the U.S. Which probably means that the Leftist Agenda is working there.

You are assigning qualities as masculine that correspond with men, but are not necessarily caused by biology.

I am a high testosterone producer, but the only quality on the list that is caused by this is aggression.

I share some of the "masculine" traits on this list, but this is due to socialization, i.e. conforming to the set of social expectations for people with male bodies.

I also share some of the "feminine" traits on this list, and I would argue that they are not altogether feminine, i.e. there is nothing about having a female body that produces these traits, nor are they exclusive to people with female bodies.

This is some gender-realism nonsense.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Ohhh...This is just an ANTI Men Thread that the Left Loves so much. That makes YOU an Evil Person.

But then Japan has a much Higher Suicide Rate amongst men then the U.S. Which probably means that the Leftist Agenda is working there. But can you really equate Karoshi in Japan (death by overwork) to white men in the states committing suicide?

I can find an article stating how almost all the women who lost their low-skill jobs in the past 30 years managed to increase their skillsets and find a better paying, higher quality job while less than half the white men were able to do this. The rest resorted to working even crappier jobs rather than going back to school or whatever.

I am sure you could. On the Interweb You can find Articles to say pretty much anything you want.

That could just be the Leftist Fascist Universities and the like NOT Letting Men get the same educational opportunities as the women because of the Lefts' "Anti-Men" Agenda. I bet I could find an article about it.

Humans are the reason. People, with or without penises. The ones with are simply louder about it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are assigning qualities as masculine that correspond with men, but are not necessarily caused by biology.

I am a high testosterone producer, but the only quality on the list that is caused by this is aggression.

I share some of the "masculine" traits on this list, but this is due to socialization, i.e. conforming to the set of social expectations for people with male bodies.

I also share some of the "feminine" traits on this list, and I would argue that they are not altogether feminine, i.e. there is nothing about having a female body that produces these traits, nor are they exclusive to people with female bodies.

This is some gender-realism nonsense.

I'll piggyback off your point:


Girls with CAH exhibit more masculine behaviors:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1688/20150125



Which this could imply that gender behavior is a very complex system of genes, epigenetics, parents, siblings, other involved relatives (grandparents), friends, and culture.


But it would seem, without conditioning and behavioral adjustment, people will generally gravitate towards sets of behavior that fit their genes and epigenetic influences.

I have known some pretty Loud Women.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll piggyback off your point:


Girls with CAH exhibit more masculine behaviors:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1688/20150125



Which this could imply that gender behavior is a very complex system of genes, epigenetics, parents, siblings, other involved relatives (grandparents), friends, and culture.


But it would seem, without conditioning and behavioral adjustment, people will generally gravitate towards sets of behavior that fit their genes and epigenetic influences. Pretty much my point in post 2 of the thread.

Oh Look. An article.

CNN Makes article about The Patriarchy. Yes. It is Full of SHIT!

I believe men are, but not like you think.

I believe men are obsessed with attacking other men, and that's behind a lot of the SJW crap you hear about.

No real proof, but anecdotally, I can't help but notice how many elite whites usually talk about topics like feminism, racism, or any other "-ism" as a contrast against "basement dwellers", "neckbeards", rednecks, or otherwise other white guys they think are beneath them.

These same guys also regularly crow about what a sexy lad they are (I know one group that called themselves "The Sexy Lads" on another board, and always bagged on "Geekville"

Men only go to War just to get away from the women.

How many genocides have been led by women?

What about extermination campaigns (where an entire city is razed to the ground and all people slaughtered)?



I cannot think of any.



Not saying women are better or less violent. But it would seem the most extreme of human atrocities are not ever committed by women.


Edit - I google searched this. I could not find an example. I know many women have been military leaders but I am not finding the atrocities under a female. I thought I could find SOMETHING under Cleopatra. Or Mary I (Bloody Mary). But, naah...nothing like their male counterparts.

Kurk is still being weird. Nice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How many genocides have been led by women?

What about extermination campaigns (where an entire city is razed to the ground and all people slaughtered)?



I cannot think of any.



Not saying women are better or less violent. But it would seem the most extreme of human atrocities does not seem to ever be committed by women.

That could be because men held the reigns of power, though. One only need have worked under a woman, to see how they're as evil as anyone..

Indirectly, women have certainly manipulated men towards committing acts.. I forget the names now, but there was a famous Roman general who turned on his own emperor and had him arrested. This was because his wife insisted this Caesar's military victories was cutting into their social status...

Behind every Evil Man there is an even MORE EVIL Woman.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How many genocides have been led by women?

What about extermination campaigns (where an entire city is razed to the ground and all people slaughtered)?



I cannot think of any.



Not saying women are better or less violent. But it would seem the most extreme of human atrocities are not ever committed by women.


Edit - I google searched this. I could not find an example. I know many women have been military leaders but I am not finding the atrocities under a female. I thought I could find SOMETHING under Cleopatra. Or Mary I (Bloody Mary). But, naah...nothing like their male counterparts.

Well it doesn't appear there were that many female leaders so it's going to be skewed don't you think? Not saying

I will say I was surprised to see how many women run brothels or are involved in sex trafficking rings. I think given the chance, they would do their fair share of terrible things.

#NotAllMen

#JustAllWHiteMen

Women are just as evil as men are, worse yet, their more sneaky then men.

How many disputes started because a woman whispered in their husbands ears?

If Women did rule the world. I do belive there would be Less and Fewer Wars, but I do believe Assassinations would be way, WAY Up!

No, we aren't.

Originally posted by SquallX
Women are just as evil as men are, worse yet, their more sneaky then men.

How many disputes started because a woman whispered in their husbands ears?

I remember seeing women whine at the idea of an all female lord of the flies. Saying women would never behave that way.

That shit is f*cking laughable lol. Women are so catty to each other...they tear each other down far more often than men. It is true a female lord of the flies would look different: the women wouldn't survive as long.

It's true that women tend to be more hostile to other women than men are to other men.

While I believe it's more societal - men aren't islands unto themselves - I do think guys have caused a majority (not all) of society's problems however, that being said, guys have also been the cause of most of humankind's innovations, advancements, thinking and improvements. While they've driven most of the negatives in history, they've also been the drivers of most of the positives. It's not a great example, but did anyone see that season of Survivor where the contestants were divided by gender? The men got more done, logistically speaking (camp, awesome shelter, fire, food, water), but they also had contentions within the group; while the women had a rudimentary roof hung between trees as their shelter, and half of them basically sat around on the beach. Men, in their role as hunters and providers, got more done with their goal oriented mindset. The down side of this goal oriented mindset is clashing with other men who may have different goals. Women, as carers and supporters, got less done within the camp but they had a relatively more harmonious relationship within the tribe. Now, I'm not saying that women are less capable or less intelligent but perhaps the motivation to "do better" and "have more" may be more prevalent in males; and this drive creates conflicts.

Are women more prone to manipulating b/c they also tend to have higher social intelligence than men?

^ I believe that's a woman's weapon of choice. Men have to develop a higher sense of emotional intelligence to see through and recognise when they're being manipulated. A majority of men don't develop this sense. Women, however, see when other women are doing this so it could lead to contentions between the sisterhood.

lol none of you are in Kurk's league

Kurk putting Putin's troll army to shame, playing 4d chan while you all are playing yahoo answers

Originally posted by Kurk
A while back when I said I was indulging in classical feminist theory, someone (can't remember the username) warned me that like Exar Kun or Count Dooku, two individuals who thought they could master the dark-side of the force without being drawn into its grasp in order to use their opponent's weapon against them, I would fall victim to these powerful feminist theories. Well, unfortunately it seems to have happened.

Well, to begin with the list of problems is the fact that you actually consider the philosophy of Star Wars to be a well founded one. Instead of the 3rd grade philosophy that falls apart upon even an iota of scrutiny. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!" Obi-Wan said while make an absolute statement. Guess Obi-Wan just admitted to being a Sith.

Originally posted by Kurk
Men are insecure/frustrated beings who feel oppressing women (who don't have these issues) and other less masculine males is the only way to feel relieve themselves of these feelings. All societies in history were built off this notion.

The idea that women don't have insecurity or frustration is insane. If that were the case then Elizabeth Bathory aka the Blood Countess or the Mad Monarch of Madagascar wouldn't be figures in history. Bathory killed 650 young girls, brutally. Not ordered guards to do it. She tortured them and murdered them. The Monarch (Ranavalona) killed 75% of her population. Those are two examples out of many, many more. So the idea that this is a uniquely man-only quality and that women are free from this is absurd.

Originally posted by Kurk
Anyway, is masculinity the root of most of society's problems?

No. If that were true then these stats wouldn't exists:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes

I can keep going. All facts come from the Center for Disease Control, Justice & Behavior, and the National Principals Association Report. If you want to explain that masculinity is the root of problems then you're gonna have to explain why the absence of a masculine figure leads to young men being worse off on average.

Originally posted by Kurk
Do you agree that men by nature feel the need to oppress other individuals; or at the very least express their agression?

No. Men, by nature, need purpose and meaning through responsibility. Life is suffering and suffering can make you resentful, murderous, and then genocidal, if you take it far enough. Responsibility. That's what gives life meaning. The message we're giving to young boys is you're pathological and oppressive which leads many to abandon responsibility. And rightfully so. If you're not even going to give credit for boys bearing responsibility then why should they play? It's a bad idea. It leads to self contempt and nihilism.

Originally posted by Kurk
Are the masculine qualities of emotional suppression, "toughness", stoicism, aggression, overconfidence, competitiveness, low agreeableness, etc antiquated in the 21st century?

Likewise are the feminine qualities of compassion, empathy, high agreeableness, sociability, etc more conducive to a safe and securer society?

No and no. You need both. If you had nothing but compassion then you do nothing to discipline those who require it. And empathy is one of the worst things you can bring to the table when writing laws and policies. And high agreeableness means you can't say no. That's bad. You need the ability to say no because otherwise you cannot negotiate on your behalf. And if you can't negotiate on your behalf then you will constantly lose and that can lead to resentment.

Originally posted by Kurk
Thinking back to historical events, it seems that almost every conflict was caused due to a manifestation of masculine traits:

Misunderstanding due to hindered communication skills; low agreeableness, ego-stroking, the pursuit of power, overwhelming need for control, etc.


You're conflating the hyper masculine with the masculine and simply demonizing the idea of the masculine while ignoring the fact that Europe's queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics paper (authored by Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish). But you want to attribute all the negatives to men and only give the positives to women.

Holy shit my dude, do you also watch and read Dr. Jordan Peterson? Because everything you just said is pretty compelling.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Holy shit my dude, do you also watch and read Dr. Jordan Peterson? Because everything you just said is pretty compelling.

I studied psychology at university. So it comes from Piaget, William James, Carl Rogers, Yung, and the like. I've seen Peterson on Joe Rogan and from what I've heard I really like him.

Originally posted by gauntlet o doom
While I believe it's more societal - men aren't islands unto themselves - I do think guys have caused a majority (not all) of society's problems however, that being said, guys have also been the cause of most of humankind's innovations, advancements, thinking and improvements. While they've driven most of the negatives in history, they've also been the drivers of most of the positives. It's not a great example, but did anyone see that season of Survivor where the contestants were divided by gender? The men got more done, logistically speaking (camp, awesome shelter, fire, food, water), but they also had contentions within the group; while the women had a rudimentary roof hung between trees as their shelter, and half of them basically sat around on the beach. Men, in their role as hunters and providers, got more done with their goal oriented mindset. The down side of this goal oriented mindset is clashing with other men who may have different goals. Women, as carers and supporters, got less done within the camp but they had a relatively more harmonious relationship within the tribe. Now, I'm not saying that women are less capable or less intelligent but perhaps the motivation to "do better" and "have more" may be more prevalent in males; and this drive creates conflicts.

Men caused most of societies problems, but there is a huge asterisk there. Women, for a long long time..didn't have the kind of power and opportunities men had. This doesn't mean if the roles were reversed they wouldn't have messed up society just as badly. They just weren't given the chance to do so. So what you said is true, but not in the context of "this is the case cuz women are just better".

And I did see some Naked and Afraid, I remember one girl whining about being expected to do as much work as the men.(And like good cucks, they allowed her to not pull her own weight).

I hate the type of people who want equality only when it benefits them. Feminists will go on rants about how there aren't that many female CEO's. You ever seen one rant about how there aren't enough women in construction or working in the sewers? Or picking up garbage?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Holy shit my dude, do you also watch and read Dr. Jordan Peterson? Because everything you just said is pretty compelling.

Oh! And that glorious Cathy Newman interview.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Oh! And that glorious Cathy Newman interview.
Yeah that was great, really helped him ascend further up the Lobster Dominance Hierarchy

Yes, they are.

Because women are generally irrelevant in society.

Hope i helped.

Originally posted by JKBart
Yes, they are.

Because women are generally irrelevant in society.

Hope i helped.

https://i.imgflip.com/1na0ci.jpg

Originally posted by JKBart
Yes, they are.

Because women are generally irrelevant in society.

Hope i helped.

This.

And also ; Men invade Women invite.

Masculinity is invasive, femininity is invitational. It's amusing how the most fundamental biomechanical sex differences play out similarly in the bedroom and on the geopolitical world stage. Female leaders are more likely to deride their own nations by inviting a swartheswarm of migrants and opening her country's thighs (and sometimes her own thighs) to receive the impudent cock of a dusky totem.

https://i.imgur.com/1ZBNvCf.jpg

You don't know shit robtard. Jim basically left the red-pill/Manosphere/Game blogosphere almost basically lives a cosy existence in a nondescript home in the tri-state area with his Mid-atlantic Americana wife who drives a volvo with five seats in the back. Jim was the sole writer of "Roissy". The Chateau Heartiste is written by 10-15 (sometimes more) different content aggregators, including yours truly.

Originally posted by Kurk
It's true that women tend to be more hostile to other women than men are to other men.

Assuming that is true, then wouldn't there be more fighting if Women ruled everything?

Originally posted by JMANGO
You don't know shit robtard. Jim basically left the red-pill/Manosphere/Game blogosphere almost basically lives a cosy existence in a nondescript home in tri-state area with his Mid-atlantic Americana wife who drives a volvo with five seats in the back. Jim was the sole writer of "Roissy". The Chateau Heartiste is written by 10-15 (sometimes more) different content aggregators, including yours truly.


Fact: Your plagiarism has been exposed again and your incel rage is hilarious.

I mean, given that your ability to process information doesn't allow for basic terminology or definitions. I'm guessing that you didn't understand.

Ziggy is the product of eating Stephan Molyneux, shitting him out, then eating that shit, and shitting it out once more. That's Ziggy.

Originally posted by Robtard
https://i.imgur.com/1ZBNvCf.jpg

Bingo, they are:

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I know many women who possess many more masculine qualities than many men and vice versa. That said I love women, except the ones I hate, just like with men.

European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently. Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Isabella I of Castile waged war with Muslim Moors and killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands or tormented to death.

Wu Zetian was one of the most ruthless rulers of China who even killed her own infant daughter and killed anyone who threatened her rule. Queen Mary I of England killed thousands of Protestants.

It wasn't that hard of a task to find comparable cases of women-led genocide and wars. I can add to the list if that would help.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently.

Citation? I could not verify that and I only found evidence to the contrary.


Originally posted by ESB -1138
Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population.

I found nothing that supports this and see that she was responsible for the killing of Christians that amounted to probably less than 100.


Originally posted by ESB -1138
Isabella I of Castile waged war with Muslim Moors and killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands or tormented to death.

I don't find that factually supported, either:

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=howard&book=isabella&story=moors




That's not genocide, that was the contemporary outcome of a multi-year war. But there's nothing in the text to support hundreds of thousands being enslaved and/or tormented to death. And I think you're way way over estimating the population of the Moors in Spain at that time. Considering the Moor population was in the hundreds of thousands during that time period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain



Originally posted by ESB -1138
Wu Zetian was one of the most ruthless rulers of China who even killed her own infant daughter and killed anyone who threatened her rule. Queen Mary I of England killed thousands of Protestants.

Right, but where's the genocide? Where's entire cities raised to the ground where every man, woman, and child is slaughtered (my original point)?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
It wasn't that hard of a task to find comparable cases of women-led genocide and wars. I can add to the list if that would help.

Well, since you did not find what I talked about, it seems impossibly hard to find that information.

In addition, you posted factually incorrect information and cited nothing.


You should not add to the list unless you find a citation. I do not trust your word on anything History related after this post.

Edit - Ask Robtard for help. He remembers things like this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Citation? I could not verify that and I only found evidence to the contrary.

https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21722877-european-history-answer-queens-especially-married-ones-who-gets-more-wars-kings

Originally posted by dadudemon
I found nothing that supports this and see that she was responsible for the killing of Christians that amounted to probably less than 100.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/mad-queen-madagascar-ranavalona/

https://www.historicmysteries.com/queen-ranavalona-i/

Originally posted by dadudemon

I don't find that factually supported, either:

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=howard&book=isabella&story=moors

That's not genocide, that was the contemporary outcome of a multi-year war. But there's nothing in the text to support hundreds of thousands being enslaved and/or tormented to death. And I think you're way way over estimating the population of the Moors in Spain at that time. Considering the Moor population was in the hundreds of thousands during that time period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain



The point wasn't addressing just genocide. And even when we're talking about something that was led by a man, like the Holocaust, even women played a huge role in ensuring that the Holocaust happened.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, since you did not find what I talked about, it seems impossibly hard to find that information.

In addition, you posted factually incorrect information and cited nothing.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Assuming that is true, then wouldn't there be more fighting if Women ruled everything?

By that theory, probably less.

Because no one would follow them. No man ever created attrocity on a global scale without a ton of support.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21722877-european-history-answer-queens-especially-married-ones-who-gets-more-wars-kings

From the study itself:





So let's make a couple of things clear:

1. You are moving the goalposts. You're discussing a red herring with me that I did not bring up, originally. This is your topic. Your argument. So I'm helping you argue with yourself.
2. A more accurate interpretation is what I quoted. Based on that, a much more accurate statement would be that female monarchs' states were more likely to be attacked if they were unmarried and if they were married, they were more likely to participate as attackers. That's not your orginal point. Here is your original point:

"European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently."

False.



Originally posted by ESB -1138
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/mad-queen-madagascar-ranavalona/

https://www.historicmysteries.com/queen-ranavalona-i/

Your first link does not support your claim. Your second link provides no citation and has questionable truth to it. Likely, you're a victim of the pro-Christian European propoganda that was flying around about her because of her anti-Christian stance.

A far more credible source has this to say:



http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Ranavalona-I-Queen-of-Madagascar.html

Nothing in there says she was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Thankfully, you cannot go back and edit your post. But this is what you said:

The direct ordering of deaths or indirectly through executions that violated her decrees? Thousands, for sure. But no where near 75% of the population as you claimed. That's still not genocide and that's still not razing an entire city to the ground, murdering the entire population.

To remind you, this is what you said:

"Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population."

That's a massive False.

You're 0 for 2.





Originally posted by ESB -1138
The point wasn't addressing just genocide. And even when we're talking about something that was led by a man, like the Holocaust, even women played a huge role in ensuring that the Holocaust happened.

So, again, what I said is correct. And you're 0 for 2 on proving your points.

Not only did you not prove your points, your points were proven false.





Originally posted by ESB -1138


Roll your eyes, but now I have a much better grasp of the type of person you are. You cannot be trusted. And you go out of your way to lie. Thanks for letting me and the rest of the forum know that you're dishonest and not a credible person to have any sort of discussion with.


Your new-nickname: False.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
No. I'm not moving the goal post.

What was my point, then, and why do you feel your point is relevant to my point?


Originally posted by ESB -1138
"YES! But if they were married they were the attackers!" And that's disproving the point....because?

Because they were married and were not the sole rulers of the nations. There were almost no King Consorts in the "study" which directly invalidates your point.


Originally posted by ESB -1138
From the study itself:

Not hard to read.

Already countered with this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your first link does not support your claim. Your second link provides no citation and has questionable truth to it. Likely, you're a victim of the pro-Christian European propoganda that was flying around about her because of her anti-Christian stance.

A far more credible source has this to say:



http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Ranavalona-I-Queen-of-Madagascar.html

Nothing in there says she was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Thankfully, you cannot go back and edit your post.

As to your other sources, it does not state what the blogger claimed about the millions. You're wrong. At best, you fell for some unsubstantiated hyperbole. At worst, you're falling victim to centuries old propaganda that came from Christian-European states in the 1800s. Similar propaganda machines that made us think Napoleon was short.




Originally posted by ESB -1138
We'll that's convenient for you.


Yes, quite convenient that you posted false information to support your agenda and you actually still did not address my points. You've proven you don't even understand my points.

So can we come to the conclusion that dark triad personality traits, which have typically been more prevalent in males than females, are a detriment to society?

Originally posted by Kurk
So can we come to the conclusion that dark triad personality traits, which have typically been more prevalent in males than females, are a detriment to society?

Sure

Originally posted by dadudemon
What was my point, then, and why do you feel your point is relevant to my point?

You've proven you don't even understand my points.

Originally posted by Kurk
So can we come to the conclusion that dark triad personality traits, which have typically been more prevalent in males than females, are a detriment to society?

Yes, but in a sexually liberated world where slutty ingenues have candy-store levels of mating choice, women will tend to err towards men with these traits. There's plennny 'o evidence. In fact, i will present a thread that proves how women are attracted to Dark Triad jerks, and how dudes with DT traits show greater aggression (and little ethics) in pursuit of lovemaking with chicks. Both libidinous chakras come together making a pusaaay paradise for ass-holes and a loveless arid Abaddon for all those plushy faced nu-males sitting on the sidelines for a chance with an out-of-prime cougarfiend .

Originally posted by JMANGO
Yes, but in a sexually liberated world where slutty ingenues have candy-store levels of mating choice, women will tend to err towards men with these traits. There's plennny 'o evidence. In fact, i will present a thread that proves how women are attracted to Dark Triad jerks, and how dudes with DT traits show greater aggression (and little ethics) in pursuit of lovemaking with chicks. Both libidinous chakras come together making a pusaaay paradise for ass-holes and a loveless arid Abaddon for all those niceguy nu-males sitting on the sidelines for a chance with an out-of-prime cougarfiend .


I don't think it is lovemaking, sir. I think it's sex.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You've proven you don't even understand my points.

You've got me, there. I clearly don't understand your points because I directly countered them and demonstrated why they are false. Tell-tale signs that I didn't understand something.

Originally posted by JMANGO
Yes, but in a sexually liberated world where slutty ingenues have candy-store levels of mating choice, women will tend to err towards men with these traits. There's plennny 'o evidence. In fact, i will present a thread that proves how women are attracted to Dark Triad jerks, and how dudes with DT traits show greater aggression (and little ethics) in pursuit of lovemaking with chicks. Both libidinous chakras come together making a pusaaay paradise for ass-holes and a loveless arid Abaddon for all those plushy faced nu-males sitting on the sidelines for a chance with an out-of-prime cougarfiend .

If you're just figuring out the sayings "girls fall for the badboys" and "nice guys finish last", then you're sorely behind, even by incel standards. YW.

I never thought I'd see an insult that would be more annoyingly vapid than cuck, but the emergence of "incel" managed it.

Seems I got under your skin today; wasn't my intention.

But so you know, "incel" is something people refer to themselves as, while "cuck" is generally just an insult.

People are the cause of all of the problems not men specifically. Humans in general suck, therefor their societies sucks.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems I got under your skin today; wasn't my intention.

But so you know, "incel" is something people refer to themselves as, while "cuck" is generally just an insult.
I'll be honest I'm in a uniquely bad mood because I just got out of a very frustrating calculus final exam.

I stand by the points I've made today, but if the days events have made me vitriolic in the deliverance of my points I apologize and try not to take it too personally.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'll be honest I'm in a uniquely bad mood because I just got out of a very frustrating calculus final exam.

I stand by the points I've made today, but if the days events have made me vitriolic in the deliverance of my points I apologize and try not to take it too personally.

No worries at all, m8

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're just figuring out the sayings "girls fall for the badboys" and "nice guys finish last", then you're sorely behind, even by incel standards. YW.

Forgetting that sometimes conventional wisdom has to be driven home when the feminists & their cuck-u-bines attempt to wrench control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator and spout revisionist tidbits. For example : gender is a social construct.

You're copy-pasting from Chateau Heartiste again, aren't you. Come on, man.

Again I'd say our main problem is that we are vulnerable and aware of our vulnerability. Us recoiling from honestly confronting ourselves and holding ourselves to honest standards based on self-evident worth out of shame and insecurity causes us to fall from what we could be, causes us to become arrogant and evil. Genesis hits that one on the head whether you believe in God or not.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'll be honest I'm in a uniquely bad mood because I just got out of a very frustrating calculus final exam.

I stand by the points I've made today, but if the days events have made me vitriolic in the deliverance of my points I apologize and try not to take it too personally. You don't say. 6 hours back-to-back for me calc and comp sci. That's also why I put up the college is a scam thread lol.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Again I'd say our main problem is that we are vulnerable and aware of our vulnerability. Us recoiling from honestly confronting ourselves and holding ourselves to honest standards based on self-evident worth out of shame and insecurity causes us to fall from what we could be, causes us to become arrogant and evil. Genesis hits that one on the head whether you believe in God or not.
So you follow the ideals of the jedi?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're copy-pasting from Chateau Heartiste again, aren't you. Come on, man.

What i've been doing ol' Robbie, is spending too much time on Huntington Beach pasting my dick (and balls) in to your un-satiated wife. Lord knows she's yearned for a younger, more attractive and better functioning downstairs man to bestow more kids that aren't yours.

Originally posted by Kurk
So you follow the ideals of the jedi?
More like attempt to follow the ideals of Christ with mixed results.

It's basically just another word for misogynist, but I guess sexually frustrated ones specifically?

involuntarily celibate, a pejorative thrown at right-wingers on here with the presumption that their "sexist views" scare the ladies off.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
involuntarily celibate, a pejorative thrown at right-wingers on here with the presumption that their "sexist views" scare the ladies off. It's mostly thrown at Surtur, who does seem to dislike women. It's technically being inaccurately thrown at him though, since by most accounts Surtur has had girlfriends and can reasonably be assumed to thus not be a virgin.

It's only recently been directed towards Ziggy because of this post as far as I know:

Originally posted by JMANGO
This.

And also ; Men invade Women invite.

Masculinity is invasive, femininity is invitational. It's amusing how the most fundamental biomechanical sex differences play out similarly in the bedroom and on the geopolitical world stage. Female leaders are more likely to deride their own nations by inviting a swartheswarm of migrants and opening her country's thighs (and sometimes her own thighs) to receive the impudent cock of a dusky totem.

Could be wrong though, Robtard might have been using it against him prior to this post.

I haven't really seen Robtard direct it at right-wingers in general. For example, I don't believe he's ever really called you, Stigma, or even Supra incels. Am I wrong on this account?

Originally posted by NemeBro
It's mostly thrown at Surtur, who does seem to dislike women. It's technically being inaccurately thrown at him though, since by most accounts Surtur has had girlfriends and can reasonably be assumed to thus not be a virgin.

It's only recently been directed towards Ziggy because of this post as far as I know:



Could be wrong though, Robtard might have been using it against him prior to this post.

I haven't really seen Robtard direct it at right-wingers in general. For example, I don't believe he's ever really called you, Stigma, or even Supra incels. Am I wrong on this account?
Robtard is more reserved in using it, though I recall in a thread that garnered a lot of right-wing activity Robtard posted something saying there were incels everywhere or something along those lines.

I'll give Robtard the benefit of the doubt, he's usually pretty polite towards me and I never remembered him going off on Stigma, Steve Zodiac is the one who really uses that term more than anyone else on here, and he really seems to indiscriminately apply it to anyone on the opposite aisle.

So when I make comments about how incel is used it's generally Steve Zodiac/Putinbot that comes to mind who sets the term for its use not Robtard since Steve seems to have started the trend on KMC.

Originally posted by darthgoober
People are the cause of all of the problems not men specifically. Humans in general suck, therefor their societies sucks.

The real problems seem to come from two fronts:

The oppressed, who have nothing to lose and nothing to offer, and therefore hate everyone and themselves.

The elites, who have everything to lose, and hoard what they have by any means necessary.


For the most part, the happy middle is that sweet spot for living. None of the neuroticism and dispair of the top or bottom, and most of the healthy social ties are from that area.

But the middle also enables the top through blind worship, and create the bottom by self segregation/gentrification.

Like I said, the problem is men seeking to undermine men.

For proof, look up something like MKUtra on Rationalwiki, or attitudes towards conspiracy theorists.

You'd someone wouod be cut some slack, for not trusting anything about government, given the known facts about experiments they conducted on unknowing citizens, such as feeding people radiated food. But nope, they show more open contempt for "tin foil hat wearers" then the very people that made them paranoid in the first place.

That's what I mean by men obsessing about fighting other men. The fact is, Liberals and Conservatives have a lot of room for common ground... They're just to invested in hating each other to see it.

Originally posted by JMANGO
What i've been doing ol' Robbie, is spending too much time on Huntington Beach pasting my dick (and balls) in to your un-satiated wife. Lord knows she's yearned for a younger, more attractive and better functioning downstairs man to bestow more kids that aren't yours.

Huntington Beach? I don't live in Southern California; never have. Do stop plagiarizing off Chateau Heartiste though.

Originally posted by cdtm
Like I said, the problem is men seeking to undermine men.

For proof, look up something like MKUtra on Rationalwiki, or attitudes towards conspiracy theorists.

You'd someone wouod be cut some slack, for not trusting anything about government, given the known facts about experiments they conducted on unknowing citizens, such as feeding people radiated food. But nope, they show more open contempt for "tin foil hat wearers" then the very people that made them paranoid in the first place.

That's what I mean by men obsessing about fighting other men. The fact is, Liberals and Conservatives have a lot of room for common ground... They're just to invested in hating each other to see it.

You have a point, but there's one thing in not trusting and being suspicious of the gov because of the shady to outright illegal shit they've done and it's another in seeing conspiracy shit in everything, large and small.

THEY'RE PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER THAT ARE TURNING THE FREAKING FROGS GAY

Originally posted by Kurk
So can we come to the conclusion that dark triad personality traits, which have typically been more prevalent in males than females, are a detriment to society?
Back on topic

Originally posted by Emperordmb
THEY'RE PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER THAT ARE TURNING THE FREAKING FROGS GAY

I thought they were putting frogs into the gay and turning into freaking water?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought they were putting frogs into the gay and turning into freaking water?
Nah it's actually the postmodernists that are putting chemicals in Bill Nye that are turning the freaking ice cream gay.

Originally posted by Robtard
You have a point, but there's one thing in not trusting and being suspicious of the gov because of the shady to outright illegal shit they've done and it's another in seeing conspiracy shit in everything, large and small.

When you have proof that someone's done terrible things to you behind your back, trying to guess when/what they'll pull next is an exercise in neuroticism..



I mean, I totally get where you're coming from, and I've laughed at plenty of people as "nutjobs", but in all honesty we have evidence the public has absolutely no way of defending themselves against an unscrupulous power structure.

It's not something we really talk about, much less try and solve.