Comments

  2. DLC says

    haha! now, if only I didn’t have that little bit of extra weight, those grey hairs, and . . . Oh wait, I’m negging myself. . .
    Oh well, maybe I can date myself in order to improve my self esteem. Nah, who’m I kiddin, I wouldn’t go out with me on a bet!

  7. boognishsaves says

    if people do that kind of stuff, they need to take a heavy dose of shrooms and learn some empathy.

  10. says

    markw:

    If you want to be really depressed, go to the forum thread for this comic…

    I’ve only skimmed the first page, but I’m equal parts saddened and amused.

    He does not realize it but the “pick-up artist” of this comic is actually the winner here. This woman he’s taken an interest in has proven herself to be an utter bitch. Better to be single than to be with a stuck-up snot who believes in some sort of genetic superiority based on intellect (the foundation of said belief being completely rooted in pseudo-science).

    And then the flounce.

    Thanks for the link.

  12. McCthulhu, now with Techroline and Retsyn says

    I guess I’m out of the dating loop. I had no idea what a PUA was. Considering I am a total wallflower and homebody and the few girlfriends I had I met online. Things worked out well that way though. In the early days of the net, every woman online had multiple degrees, were mainly atheist, and could talk for hours about any topic. I married one of them and I’m quite glad I never had to go the route of the PUA because I would have missed out on someone “who believes in some sort of superiority based on intellect”. Yes, it’s called ‘not being bored to death during conversation with your partner.’ That definitely is superior to having someone yak on for hours about their hopes for possible American Idol or Dancing With The Stars winners.

  13. Sastra says

    Okay, I’ll admit to living an insulated, stunted life: I had not previously encountered or been aware of what the terms “pua” or “negging” meant. Nor did I realize some sort of subculture has presumably built up promoting them. My lame excuse for not knowing is that I’m not personally engaged in dating anymore. Plus, I am obviously not “hip” like PZ, who is still younger than me by at least a few weeks.

    But the concepts themselves are old and familiar, and I think I was pretty much able to figure them out just by reading the xkcd comic.

    “Negging” sounds to me very much like one of the main tactics religion uses to pick up converts. Either find someone already with low self-esteem or demoralize them yourself, passive-aggressively suggesting they are “sinners” or “nihilists” with empty lives in need of rescue. Then, swoop in with the remedy: God … or you … depending on how you feel like framing it.

    And yes, it says more about what’s being offered than it does about who is being rescued.

  14. janine says

    SC, you left off the best part.

    With all due respect- actually, fuck that. Fuck you, Randall. I don’t care if I get banned since I don’t care to read your comic EVER again. This is too close to home. Bookmark deleted; no more recommendations.

    This coming from a person who made three comments since joining a year and a half ago.

    Yeah, one of the flouncing trolls; I used to like you but this crosses a line! Wahhhhhhhhh!.

  15. leighshryock says

    If this is what dating is all about, boy am I glad that I just don’t give a damn.

  16. TooManyJens says

    I fucking love Randall Munroe sometimes.

    Fuck you, Randall. I don’t care if I get banned since I don’t care to read your comic EVER again. This is too close to home.

    And yet the dude still doesn’t understand that he’s the one with the problem.

  17. Rey Fox says

    Eat your puas!

    I thought the first half of that comic was unnecessary and leading the joke too much, but maybe some readers really do need that primer on PUAs and negging. But isn’t that what Google is for? And it’s not like he explains any of the rest of his wonky humor.

  18. McCthulhu, now with Techroline and Retsyn says

    The comic is still useful even if you’re not dating anymore. The idea of rolling a bowling ball under the bathroom stalls sounds hellafun.

  19. Brownian says

    Just like Mormons, PUAs cannot be dissuaded from the delusion that the rest of us look up to them somehow.

    If this is what dating is all about, boy am I glad that I just don’t give a damn.

    It’s not. It’s what a small, douchebag subculture thinks dating is all about. Fortunately, there’s nothing subtle or stealthy about them, so you’re unlikely to end up with one by accident. Rule of thumb: if he looks, smells, walks and talks like an asshole, he probably is. If he looks, smells, walks and talks like an asshole and tries to employ NLP to get laid, he’s a PUA.

    Better to be single than to be with a stuck-up snot who believes in some sort of genetic superiority based on intellect (the foundation of said belief being completely rooted in pseudo-science).

    This is too close to home.

    S’matter, Alphas? Just realised the rest of the world knows you’re actually a bunch of fucking Omegas?

    $50 says the two worthless pieces of shit who posted these comments have convinced themselves that they actually love women and listen to them.

    Bah. The world needs burning.

  20. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Fuck, but that comment thread at XKCD is a quagmire of stupid. That’s the community of people who read XKCD? I have so very little respect for that comic anymore and I don’t care that the author can’t control who reads it. I don’t even understand how the comic could attract that mixed bag of douches.

    I posted in that slim pit, but for those who don’t want to go over there, I’ll cross-post here:

    adonis wrote:

    Seduction is how we have sex, not rational discourse.

    Ignoring the ambiguous grammar of that statement and interpreting it to mean something sensible: Are all straight men this confused? On Grindr …Straight people have apps and websites like Grindr right? So, on Grindr someone asks, ‘Are you looking [for sex].’ And then you get a response and you plan out the encounter if the answer was affirmative. Then you have sex. In real life, there is lead up bound by social conventions (and these conventions may be wildly different depending on many variable), but the question, implied or explicitely asked, very much like that asked on Grindr (I’m serious about that earlier question) is going to be asked and consent is going to be given or not. And that depends on the wishes of the person to whom the question is posed.

    People either do or do not want to have sex with specific other people. The only party with agency is not the person who asks to have sex and that person isn’t entitled to an affirmative response to the question, however the question is arrived at. If a person wants to have sex with you, you don’t need to convince them in any substantial way. Substantial, for this matter, is the difference between trying to convince someone who has said they will have sex with you that having sex right now in the public toilet would be totally fun and convincing someone that despite their disinterest in having sex with you (and it may or may not be apparent and they may shut you down before you even get far enough to ask if they want to have sex with you) that they realy should have sex with you. It’s worth noting that some people here seem to think that some people are actually suggesting that people not flirt or that any attempt at flirting is manipulative. Actually, those people are just suggesting that everyone be treated as though they have agency and don’t need to and, more importantly, should not be coerced into having sex with someone. It is the denial of a person’s agency to presume that you can change their mind or that the decision they’ve made (or might make) is invalid because it doesn’t align with the decision you want or wish them to make. It’s dehumanising.

    So, I’ve got more questions. What kind of person wants to have sex with a person that they had to convince to have sex with them? I’m sure they think they have magical powers and have actually changed the mind of someone through their awesome skillz, but does it ever bother them that the first response, or any response, was denial? Do they have any concept at all of how that other person has viewed them at any point (like for instance, as someone they don’t want to have sex with)? Do they know that they’ve just used someone for their own sexual enjoyment after having utterly disregarded the agency of that person?

    I don’t have sympathy for people who want to have sex so badly that they don’t care about the fact that other people are people. I really don’t have sympathy for the people with inane beliefs about how it’s totally impossible to ask the question, ‘Do you want to have sex with me?’ Hell, if it’s so hard, go to Craigslist or some such site, find the ad by the person who has put themselves out there as wanting to have sex and respond to it. Maybe they’ll want to have sex with you and you won’t have to explicitly ask. Don’t cry if they turn you down though, because not everyone wants to have sex with you and, no, they don’t need to be convinced otherwise.

  21. Brownian says

    Are all straight men this confused?

    In a word, no. Not in the least.

    Oh sure, the Western heteronormative relationship narrative mindfucks us too, but many of us start ditching those kind of antagonistic ideas that fucking someone requires putting something over on them in our late teens to early twenties.

    Again, like the religious, PUAs have convinced themselves they’ve got the only solution to a problem most of us don’t have.

  22. says

    What kind of person wants to have sex with a person that they had to convince to have sex with them?…Do they know that they’ve just used someone for their own sexual enjoyment after having utterly disregarded the agency of that person?

    As I’ve mentioned before recently, I think very little of it with these people is really about sex itself. I think it’s much more about their shriveled little egos.

  23. eigenperson says

    As an XKCD forumite, allow me to defend the community a little. Most sane people basically stay out of the “Individual Comic Discussion” forum because it is full of exactly that kind of idiot, and I certainly don’t have the stomach to fight them three times a week, every week, especially since they never come back to read our responses.

    But man, that thread sure is a slime pit and needs some attention. I’ll see what I can do.

  24. Woo_Monster says

    PUAs = slime of the Earth.

    Youtube search some fuckwit named “Mystery” if you want to vomit in your mouth a bit. Maybe search for the term “kino” as well. Here is a link of some man-boys discussing their “techniques”…


    Manipulative, misogynistic, lying, creepy pieces of shit. At least they dress outlandishly* so they are easy to spot without having to actually talk with them.

    *They call it “pea-cocking”**

    **not that there is anything wrong with a funky get-up

  25. Woo_Monster says

    Oh god, this clip has it all. Bullshit evolutionary psychology propping up their bullshit neurolinguistic-programming, with a healthy side-dish of misogyny.



    I think it’s much more about their shriveled little egos.

    Bingo

  26. says

    Bah. The world needs burning.

    Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    *They call it “pea-cocking”**

    I swear, if they ruin outrageous clothing for me I will scour the planet for all signs of sentient life as there will be nothing worth saving :| :| :|

    Well, not really, you can’t ruin that!

  27. Brownian says

    I think very little of it with these people is really about sex itself

    I have a friend who hung out on PUA fora and bought into the techniques (he’s gotten over it now). He didn’t know it at the time, but his lack of having sex was the least of his psychosocial issues.

    I don’t know how common his story is, but PUAs talk about everyone else (and themselves, before they became PUAs) as ‘AFCs’ (Average Frustrated Chumps). That’s a pretty good indicator of some kind of self-image damage.

  28. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    I think you have right, SC.

    I’m going to toot my own horn a little because I can and because I think I may have actually written something both succinct and true. If I haven’t got to the bottom of the what the PUA is going about doing, someone please let me know after reading the following:

    Thomathy wrote:

    […] a woman must be convinced that she is attracted to a particular man by that particular man and that her prior thoughts regarding him or any thoughts she has about him must be mediated and controlled by that man so that she ends up agreeing with his forgone conclusion that she should have sex with him?

    Yeah, I think that’s what they’re about. It’s fucking aweful.

  29. says

    I don’t know how common his story is, but PUAs talk about everyone else (and themselves, before they became PUAs) as ‘AFCs’ (Average Frustrated Chumps). That’s a pretty good indicator of some kind of self-image damage.

    I didn’t know that. They’re a social-psychological study waiting to happen (if it hasn’t already been done). It’s why, I guess, I don’t get as enraged about them as I do about some other groups that are no more loathsome. There’s just something so genuinely pathetic about it.

  30. Jamie says

    Well, at least it sounds like it’s only a subculture and not the norm. Still, it’s kinda disturbing and so foreign to me. I wonder how these people develop any kind of relationship with other people.

    I’m glad I’ve never encountered anything like this. I’m in my mid-twenties, but I feel like I’m pretty out of touch with the dating world since I’ve been in one relationship for the past seven years. I have friends in various states of being single, dating others, and in long term relationships; and most of them spent time getting to know the people they start relationships with (in person and/or online). I thought it was normal to be friends first, but maybe the people around me and I have atypical experiences compared to the rest of those out in the dating world.

  32. chigau (dodged a bullet) says

    Is PUAness a cis-hetero thing?
    (I am so far out of anything like “dating”…)

  33. Brownian says

    Yeah, I think that’s what they’re about.

    Don’t forget the frat-boy semihomoeroticism that dictates a man must have sex with women who fit a narrow, socially defined concept of ‘hot’ because he really needs to impress other men.

    Sure fella. Even though you won’t deign to look at someone who won’t earn high-fives from the rest of your chimpanzee troop based on her appearance alone, you go ahead and tell yourself you’re the one in control. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

  35. Woo_Monster says

    I don’t know how common his story is, but PUAs talk about everyone else (and themselves, before they became PUAs) as ‘AFCs’ (Average Frustrated Chumps). That’s a pretty good indicator of some kind of self-image damage.

    Astute analysis.

  36. Woo_Monster says

    Sure fella. Even though you won’t deign to look at someone who won’t earn high-fives from the rest of your chimpanzee troop based on her appearance alone, you go ahead and tell yourself you’re the one in control. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    Jesus Christ on a stick, Brownian is on fire in this thread. Alright, I will stop quoting your comments just to approve of them. But I had to do it this last time.

    The delusions of superiority that these pathetic men have… truly piteous.

  37. says

    Being a nerdy teenager and deciding to see what “how to” searches on the web turned up for all those social things I wasn’t so great at, I ran into this stuff. I think I can safely say that this was the start of my recognition that self help writers are much more concerned with convincing you that it isn’t going to take any real personal development to improve yourself.

    I considered what they were saying and was easily seduced with the “hey, at least they’ll end up with you instead of some asshole that actually thinks they are inferior” parts but I realized that “I don’t manipulate vulnerable people” wasn’t a problem, all without having to go out attempting to abuse anyone like is advocated.

    Caught myself asking a girl how she was going to make it up to me after she was late to a date though…

  38. says

    I wonder how these people develop any kind of relationship with other people.

    they don’t. at least not if we’re talking about female people. I recently run into a couple psychological studies that hinted at the possibility that the more you gender-segregate in childhood and adolescence, the less likely you’ll ever be able to undo that segregation in later life.

    so if you only hung out with guys as a kid, teen, and young adult, you have no fucking clue how to socialize with women, and likely never will (and vice versa).

  39. ibyea says

    What? Are those douchebags serious? I have heard of the term pick up artist, but I never knew what kind of methods they used.

  40. says

    Well while I was going through their stuff I did see they have advice for perpetuating a “relationship” if the guy decides he’s found a trophy fit to hang on his wall long term.

    Had some seemingly good advice like “when your SO points out your flaws in failure or success don’t let it hurt you. They’re doing it so that you can show you’re strong enough to shrug it off” (awfully potent patriarchal stereotyping now that I reflect on it,) but I suspect it was still mainly just tricks for the gullible to convince themselves they know what they’re doing.

    –

    Personally I had a lot of female friends but I’m still lousy at socializing with women as soon as I decide it’s dating related.

  41. says

    What? Are those douchebags serious? I have heard of the term pick up artist, but I never knew what kind of methods they used.

    Yup the whole point is to try to get someone to think that approval from them is something they want. I think any woman who is average weight or above has probably run into someone trying this at one point…and most of everyone bellow average weight as well.

  42. Rip Steakface says

    I would have been one of the exact targets for a PUA author. I completely fit their definition of “average frustrated chump” and I’m very similar with regards to the self-image issues (most of the suckers for PUA authors were bullied in middle and high school and were convinced by this that no one believes they’re worth the time based on their own merits). That said, I still managed to avoid being suckered in just by not believing what they do about psychology in general.

    Yes, it often works against those who don’t see it coming. Does that make it right? Obviously not. And those that do see it coming? They’ll rip you a new hole, just as BHG did here.

    It’s partially a product of the Puritan work ethic endemic to American culture – if you don’t have something, it’s because you didn’t work hard enough for it, you lazy piece of shit. Likewise, the guys that fall for these assholes’ ideas believe they can’t find anyone because they’re just not trying hard enough or in the right way. Too bad it’s either because one, they’ve literally not found the right person yet (of course, the response to this is “that’s not good enough for me!”), or two, they’re plain unlikable people. I’d like to think it’s the former for myself, but in moments of despair I fall to the latter.

  43. says

    Gotta say though, this stuff really clouds the waters when you are meeting zero people per month and don’t know how to change it. (“Get out more!” obviously won’t bear any fruit if a person things that means go out in public but doesn’t talk to anybody while they are there.)

  44. w00dview says

    Peacocking, negging, AFC…Fuck sakes, even their little slang words ooze douchbaggery.

  45. Brownian says

    Gotta say though, this stuff really clouds the waters when you are meeting zero people per month and don’t know how to change it. (“Get out more!” obviously won’t bear any fruit if a person things that means go out in public but doesn’t talk to anybody while they are there.)

    Fair enough, and the bar/club scene isn’t really going to work for every type out there (personally, I can’t stand clubs. The only one I ever really enjoyed was a now-defunct GLBT bar that was pretty open to non-douchebag heteros as well.) But if you can communicate online, consider a site like http://www.okcupid.com. Bonus: atheists have an advantage. (PZ has written about that site before, and it’s where I met my SO™.)

  46. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Hey, Brownian, there’s nothing wrong with homoeroticism. Granted, homoeroticism that takes it’s form from toxic masculinity is well, bad. Still, sad face.

  47. Richard Smith says

    @w00dview (#44):

    Peacocking, negging, AFC…Fuck sakes, even their little slang words ooze douchbaggery.

    “A whole jolly club with jolly pirate nicknames!”

  48. says

    I have to admit that much as Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped, some fanbases need to be trolled. I like Randal’s way of looking at things, but it’s in cases like this where Randal outright trolls a certain sector of his readership that he really shines. It just makes me glad that there are still geeks out there who aren’t right-wing looneytunes, and at least one of them is one of the most influential webcomic authors in the world.

  49. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Goddamnit, the heterosexism on that XKCD thread is awful! I knew I’d face MRA and PUA dumbfucks, but I didn’t think I’d find people dismissive of everyone who isn’t a gender-normative hetero man. Fuck that shit is stupid.

  50. Brownian says

    Hey, Brownian, there’s nothing wrong with homoeroticism.

    No, there isn’t. I struggled with writing that, and thought appending ‘semi’ might have indicated what I was getting at, which is the toxic masculinity you mentioned. Obviously, I failed. I sincerely apologise, and can’t stress enough how much I agree with you, and how sorry I am for causing sad face.

    If you happen to be in The Line™, please accept this coupon for one free entrée, a side order, and medium beverage of your choice at Queuey Too®, my new chain of fast food restaurants that exist exclusively for the dining pleasure of denizens of The Line™ (franchise opportunities available). Again, I cannot stress enough how there is nothing wrong with homoeroticism.

  52. psocoptera says

    5 pages of that XKCD thread, and I now feel the need to scour the internet for images of kitt…baby octopi to cleanse my brain.

  53. says

    Woah, Brownian, that’s some apology! Phew! Is it hot in here?!

    @John Morales: BG’s just started another cycle of his customary whinge on facebook. A status with his usual opener “waaah I fail at talking to women”. There’s 100 comments, I’m not sure I want to look at them. If the pattern holds true it will look like: [(sensible suggestion, yes-but dismissal)*Nrepeats, suggestion, yes-but dismissal plus whiny claim that he needs to use the PUA methods because they work.]

  54. Brownian says

    Woah, Brownian, that’s some apology.

    And of course Thomathy seems to have left the building, so I don’t know whether or not I cleared things up with him.

    A status with his usual opener “waaah I fail at talking to women”.

    How the fuck do you ‘fail at talking to women’? I mean, for fuck’s sake.

    Can you talk to men? Great. Then you’re not unfamiliar with the concept of having a conversation with someone who most likely doesn’t want to fuck you, so pull your head out of your fucking ass and get a goddamn grip.

    (I know you’re just reporting on BG, Alethea. That’s a pretty apt description of the pattern. I got taken in by his “woe is me” routine too, and honestly, WTFF?)

  55. christophburschka says

    Wow – within less than a day, that strip has reached the top ten for longest comment threads.

    Finding such a controversy in the comments was very surprising, because the xkcd forum is extremely inclusive for a community not specifically dedicated to LGBT rights or feminism. It’s certainly the only webcomic forum I’ve seen that has stuff like safe-space threads and trigger warnings and actively polices them. For those whose first impression is this thread, I feel the need to defend that community; it’s way better than this.

  56. Brownian says

    For those whose first impression is this thread, I feel the need to defend that community; it’s way better than this.

    I don’t know that the community needs to be defended. Most of us here are fans of Munroe’s work, and we’re pretty familiar with the reality that the geek/nerd/skeptic/atheist communities are fairly full of privileged, unself-aware, and socially dysfunctional boys (and girls) who are unwilling to accept that anyone other than them might legitimately feel that they get the short end of the stick sometimes. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t diamonds in these communities, just that there is also a shit-ton of lumps of coal who think a high score on the math part of the SAT is an indicator of their value as human beings.

  57. eigenperson says

    #56 Brownian:

    I think the point is that the “xkcd fora” community on the whole is made up of the non-dipshits (which is why almost all the “regulars” on that thread are on the anti-PUA side).

  58. Brownian says

    I think the point is that the “xkcd fora” community on the whole is made up of the non-dipshits (which is why almost all the “regulars” on that thread are on the anti-PUA side).

    If that’s the case (and I see no reason to doubt that it is), then the xkcd fora are indeed unusually bright gems sitting amidst a yard of gravel.

  59. says

    But if you can communicate online, consider a site like http://www.okcupid.com. Bonus: atheists have an advantage. (PZ has written about that site before, and it’s where I met my SO™.)

    That deserves it’s own primer guide. Sure I read the statistics blog the staff puts out so I know that I get really high response rates but I’d think I was doing something horribly wrong if I went in blind and then asked friends for advice on how to do better. (Letting them rewrite my profile was eerily reminiscent of watching three fung shui experts rearrange the same room.)

  60. NitricAcid says

    I can see why some men don’t find it easy to talk to women. Some people are simply shy. Others are sufficiently introverted that they find it difficult to talk to people at all- they’re not really interested in conversation, but they are interested in having sex.

    Internet sites for finding partners suffer (for straight men, at least) a male:female ratio of 10:1 or worse, so they’re not the simple solution that Tomathy #20 suggests.

  61. says

    I seem to remember a social worker back in school who apparently used that tactic to pick up girls. It didn’t have a name back then I guess.

  62. Azkyroth says

    I recently run into a couple psychological studies that hinted at the possibility that the more you gender-segregate in childhood and adolescence, the less likely you’ll ever be able to undo that segregation in later life.

    You know, this was my objection to the concept of single-gender school environments ever since I first heard of the concept when my age was a single-digit. It’s nice to be vindicated. >.>

  63. says

    “Fuck, but that comment thread at XKCD is a quagmire of stupid. That’s the community of people who read XKCD? ”

    I know plenty of people who read xkcd, but I didn’t know about the forum until now, instead I find bloggers linking to comics and things like that. So the forums are probably a minority of the overall community that reads xkcd. Also, there were many commenter who dismissed the PUA idiots. I think the PUAs are just a vocal minority that went into vitriol after reading this comic. Most of the other people that read the comic don’t really care enough to join the discussion and stop them. I know I don’t.

    There’s also a good possibility that an angry guy linked to it in a PUA forum or something.

  64. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Brownian @ #54

    And of course Thomathy seems to have left the building, so I don’t know whether or not I cleared things up with him.

    Don’t worry! It’s all cleared up. Consider it cleared up. And for the hell of it, I will wait in line. And no matter how tasteless it may seem, I really just want the free beverage. Can it be alcoholic? Nevermind.

    The work day ended, and I only have just gotten around to reviewing the thread (and the XKCD thread, still full of shit) since I’ve been home. Friday night and all that.

    So, yeah, steamy apology accepted. I’ll see you in bed eventually. Or, you know, wherever the Ghey Secks happens.

  65. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    NitricAcid, you have missed my point. I didn’t spend three paragraphs writing that post just to get to the part where I suggest Craigslist as a way to meet women for sex who are looking for sex. Fuck, but you’re dense if you think that the point of my post was a suggestion for shy or poorly socialised men to try to hook up online. Bloody fuck.

    I’ve spent the better part of a day waging word wars with representatives of people who purposefully dehumanise women so that they can use their bodies for their own pleasure. You can take you giant paintbrush and the bullshit about being shy and paint wherever you call home the smelliest colour of brown. Fuck!

  66. Bjarni says

    What I don’t understand is how any DHB could think that’s a good idea? Surely you’d like to find someone who actually wants to be with you, not with a fuckhead you’re pretending to be just to get laid – the whole things seems counter-productive and awful.

    One thing I’ve noticed is to look at the gender-balance of the friends a person keeps… If a guy has only male friends, who only have male friends, and you only see him with a woman he’s ‘romantically’ interested in, it’s a fairly sure bet he’s an areshole. Guys who aren’t capable of relating to women as friends usually just don’t seem to treat them as people either :(
    /end sweeping generalisation

  67. says

    Somehow I missed this post until just now. I’ve been reading the entire XKCD thread compulsively and taking it to TET instead.

    Markw and Thomathy: Both of you do a masterful job applying the cluebat. But it just bounces off most of their skulls. And, yeah, the hardcore gender-essentialism, heteronormativity, and thick fug of male privilege… wow.

    But there are some gems in there too. Which one of you wrote this?

    hahahaha » Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:13 pm UTC

    [snip screaming flounce already described by SC at #10]

    no really I literally only registered to laugh at how pathetic this post is, hahahahahahahaha

    Jadehawk:

    I recently run into a couple psychological studies that hinted at the possibility that the more you gender-segregate in childhood and adolescence, the less likely you’ll ever be able to undo that segregation in later life.

    Which explains, in part, wingnut fondness for sex-segregated schools. It’s not just about (supposedly) keeping the little darlings from having sex; it’s about keeping them strangers to one another.

    Brownian, you probably meant “homosocialism.” Which sounds like it should be a right-wing buzzword, doesn’t it?

  68. Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist says

    Homosocialism, that’s what government becomes once the gays take over, right …or the republicans, I can’t remember.

    I promise I did not post that comment, though. And I wish I did, but I got your praise just for showing up and trying, so I’ll take my cookie and be happy with that, Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform.

    That place is just a dungeon. And I’ve gone back in, because my main point has been passed over and for whatever sick reason, I’m enjoying having a real battle with true believers who aren’t just trolling. (We may all have noticed the decided lack of suitable chew toys here lately.)

    Is anything interesting happening over at TET? Maybe I should pop in and say hi or something. I don’t read or participate in it nearly often enough.

  69. says

    Is anything interesting happening over at TET? Maybe I should pop in and say hi or something. I don’t read or participate in it nearly often enough.

    Please do. We’re having a discussion about Orientalism, among other things..

  71. Azuma Hazuki says

    Every time I see one of these things it just makes me more grateful not to have to play this game. The single strongest indicator that a person does not choose his or her sexual orientation is that there are any straight women left at all just knowing men like this exist :/

    Lonely? Definitely. But no woman has ever done this to me, not one. I’d rather be lonely and lesbian than fighting off the douchewater brigade and straight.

  72. eigenperson says

    Update on the xkcd PUA thread:

    “PUA” is now wordfiltered to “bottom feeding scum sucker.”

  73. says

    Internet sites for finding partners suffer (for straight men, at least) a male:female ratio of 10:1 or worse, so they’re not the simple solution that Tomathy #20 suggests.

    Maybe I’m being too avoidant of things the puas say but this reminded me of the bit about how women in bars get hit on in a something like 10:1 ratio (with that leading into: “don’t pick up women at bars, unless you are amazing at it, but then why are you reading this?” )

    Kind of makes me think we should compile the “you don’t have to be that stereotype you’ve seen everywhere in practically all the media you consume, and in fact not being that is probably a better way to really connect with women,” ‘or people in general’ advice- but then cut out the vile behind the scenes justification for it and replace it mainly with “because people like it when you treat them like individuals instead of just a task to be solved with the same old approach everyone and their dog have done to death” or “this is what you would probably do naturally if you hadn’t been mis-educated by society.”

    Seems like it could have the uplifting effect that self help material is supposed to without giving people the parasitic sort of thought process. Plus if you involve enough people we could teach a few willing people how to spot the misogyny and privilege that they’ve been blind to (though willing folk that haven’t already picked a lot of it up might be hard to come by.)

    Extra example: “Give me three reasons I’d want to get to know you better other thank your job or your looks (make them sell themselves to you)” could become “find out things about them besides looks and occupation, because most people have these things called character traits. Extroverted people also usually like talking about their lives and you can expect to run into a lot of them.”

    Though maybe I’ve just been overexposed to the less offensive material they use to draw people in…

  75. Azkyroth says

    Kind of makes me think we should compile the “you don’t have to be that stereotype you’ve seen everywhere in practically all the media you consume, and in fact not being that is probably a better way to really connect with women,” ‘or people in general’ advice- but then cut out the vile behind the scenes justification for it and replace it mainly with “because people like it when you treat them like individuals instead of just a task to be solved with the same old approach everyone and their dog have done to death” or “this is what you would probably do naturally if you hadn’t been mis-educated by society.”

    Similarly, if you remove a sulfur atom and three of the oxygens from it, H2SO4 is not only non-harmful, in reasonable doses, but health-promoting and even essential.

  76. brett says

    I’ll second the departure of “XKCD Fan” over at the xkcd forums as being hilarious. I mean, read this:

    With all due respect- actually, fuck that. Fuck you, Randall. I don’t care if I get banned since I don’t care to read your comic EVER again. This is too close to home. Bookmark deleted; no more recommendations.

    All it’s missing is for a moderator to edit in *runs off sobbing*.

  78. says

    Andrew Riding, I really don’t give a shit if men get their dicks wet or not. It’s not my problem. It’s not society’s problem. Plenty of women don’t get laid, despite the gender-essentialist ASSumptions of PUAs and MRAs that women “have” sex and men “get it” from us. Such women manage to cope, even as society bombards them with the message that if men don’t find them fuckable, they’re unworthy of life.

    The men who can’t get laid can damn well learn to improve their base personalities, their ethics, their hygiene, and whatever else makes women run from them if they want to dip their wicks.

  79. julian says

    Andrew Riding, I really don’t give a shit if men get their dicks wet or not

    This.

    No one cares if you aren’t having sex. It not the world’s responsibility to assure you have a ready and steady access to fuck buddies.

    You are welcome to visit a strip club or lap dancing bar or hire an escort or v-chat with a sex worker on line if you’re looking to get off to a real live person. Just stop insisting not constantly ‘getting laid’ is some terminal condition.

  80. keenacat says

    Just stop insisting not constantly ‘getting laid’ is some terminal condition.

    It is when your life and self worth revolves around getting laid. Where these people go wrong is when they assume that this means they are totally entitled to a willing penis receptacle NAO and not getting any is totes unfair and a plot by women to RUIN EVERYTHING because they OWN sex and are not sharing, those selfish bitches.

  81. carlie says

    Heh. I just went over to the xkcd forums, and right under the link to “individual comic threads” it says “We have already refuted your pro-PUA argument”, and when you click for the individual threads, the top one is “Mod madness 2012: Apocalypse edition”, saying “I’ve let the mods off their leashes”. Something tells me it’s about to get awesome.

  83. karlvonmox says

    Whenever I comment on threads like this I always feel like Im wasting my time, given that any contrary opinion to the group-think is summarily dismissed, nonetheless I’ll humor myself on this nice Saturday.

    While there definately is some mysoginism among people who follow these PUA philosophies, it isnt all bad. Its about improving yourself, being confident, becoming more social, learning to be a good conversationalist, and above all not putting women on pedestals or caring too much. These are all worthwhile goals.

    I would not have gotten laid all the times I have in my life without visiting some of these forums and learning from them. The fact of the matter is that women respond to certain traits in men, and predictable guys who are nervous/needy wrecks or give too much attention early on get washed out. Whereas a confident man who knows what he wants and goes for it often gets much farther.

  84. keenacat says

    Make no mistake:
    You are a needy wreck when you have to resort to manipulation to get laid. And an asshole on top of that because you forget about interacting with another human and not a fucking plastic doll with realistic vagina and ass.
    Incidentally, you should totally get a plastic doll with realistic vagina and ass if you see any merit in PUA bullshit. Because that crap is not about connecting with women, it’s about putting your penis in a hole and move on.

  85. julian says

    Whereas a confident man who knows what he wants and goes for it often gets much farther.

    Shockingly so do people who approach others without hoping to sleep with them.

    Also,

    please remove yourself from the gene pool. Now I’m not telling you to hurl yourself naked off a plane with no parachute while flying over the Artic. But if you wanted to, I can think of worse things happening.

  86. says

    Hey, Karl, did you ever think that there are ways of relating to women that don’t involve either putting us on pedestals or removing us in ways meant to harm our self-esteem? You know, relating to us like fellow human beings?

    You’re the umpteenth PUA I’ve seen in the last 24 hours claim that the movement “isnt [sic] all bad.” No, actually, it is. Every PUA in that XKCD thread claims it’s all about “self-improvement” and “self-esteem,” then turns around and displays in his own words that he regards women as prey, as puzzles to be solved, as gatekeepers of Teh Poosay, as selfish bitches denying them the sex to which they have a “right.” Never as people he would like to spend time with independent of their vaginas. (Ciswomen, anyway… then again, the concept of transgender seems to elude these gender-essentialist meatheads.)

    You’re a manipulative shitbag who doesn’t see women as people, and therefore nothing you write on any subject related to women, at least, is remotely trustworthy.

    As for “group-think,” I can’t think of a better example than the sexist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, misanthropic, and ethically repulsive bullshit PUAs share among themselves.

  87. karlvonmox says

    Predictable responses. So any woman who sleeps with me on the first date or after being taken home from a bar is being “manipulated”. Please. These are thinking adults with their own brains who know exactly what they are getting into when they walk into my bedroom.

    Has it ever occured to you all that some women like sex too, and enjoy it just as much as I do? Even when its no strings attached? You guys claim to stand for the sexual liberation of women, and yet when a guy comes along who offers them just that he is shamed, ridiculed, insulted.

    No wonder some of the men on here are so confused.

  88. chigau (√-1) says

    I would not have gotten laid all the times I have in my life…

    How many?
    Were they all female?
    Were they all adults?
    Were they all human?
    c’mon cupcake, details!

  89. keenacat says

    We like fucking with no strings attached – if the person in question is not lying to get there and using disgusting plays like ruining our self esteem beforehand, you disgusting creep!
    Surprise, I’ve slept with quite some men on the first date. Because they were hot, honest and a pleasure to be with. We had sex because they were genuiney interested in me and we connected over things, and not entitled douche canoes who saw me as prey to be hunted down and killed.

    Crawl back into whatever filthy hole you came from and take your complimentary decaying porcupine with you. May your future be riddled with lego on a concrete floor.

  90. chigau (√-1) says

    karl
    The women who like a zipless fuck picked you up.
    They chose you as they’d choose any piece of meat.
    It’s really nothing for you to brag about.

  91. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No wonder some of the men on here are so confused.

    The only one confused here is you. You don’t women as real people. They are. Show us otherwise with real evidence.

  92. says

    So any woman who sleeps with me on the first date or after being taken home from a bar is being “manipulated”…Has it ever occured to you all that some women like sex too, and enjoy it just as much as I do?

    Nice strawmen you got there. Like most of your PUA buddies over on XKCD.

    Hey, fucknuts: Many of us are women. Many of us enjoy sex. What we don’t enjoy is being approached by some asshole who doesn’t see us as people but as pussy dispensers and who is willing to use insulting and even demeaning comments and other tactics in order to “get pussy out of us.” Do you even have a basic understanding that the same result — going home with a woman at the end of the night — can have an entirely different moral weight, depending on how you influenced her decision to have sex with you?

    I’m guessing not. None of you seem capable of coherent logical argument or intellectual honesty. They might cockblock you.

    Keenacat:

    May your future be riddled with lego on a concrete floor.

    Pfft. May his future involve a burdizzo and a sack of angry wasps with Ebola.

  93. julian says

    and yet when a guy creep comes along who offers them just that insists on engaging in predatory behavior he is shamed, ridiculed, insulted.

    FTFY

  94. Vicki says

    I don’t need a guy to “offer me” my sexual liberation.

    The problem isn’t a man who approaches a woman in a bar, talks to her for a while, and accepts her offer of sex. The problem we’re talking about includes men who think that insulting a woman is an acceptable way to start that conversation, rather than discussing things of mutual interest and seeing if they actually like each other. Not “are each other’s soulmates” or necessarily thinking in terms of a long-term relationship, but “do you like this person? Would you be prepared to talk to them the next day?”

  97. Drolfe says

    [meta]

    keenacat,

    I’d say Lego on carpet is worse — your guard isn’t up, you never see that 2×1 hiding in the pile until you are smashing it into your barefoot with your full weight. Still, I love the sentiment! ;) ;)

  98. karlvonmox says

    “The women who like a zipless fuck picked you up.
    They chose you as they’d choose any piece of meat.”

    Good. I like being treated as a piece of meat. :D

    There seems to be some confusion here. Some PUA tactics like negging, for example, are really pretty useless and only work against immature, entitled girls. I am not advocating for the destruction of a womans self-esteem in order to get her in bed. Canned routines and pick-up lines will only work in a certain environment with only certain women.

    Like I said in my first post though, what is valuable is having the courage and confidence to actually approach a woman, ask for a number, set up a date, etc. Being comfortable in social situations. Being able to relate to her and keep a conversation going, yet understanding that you wont have a connection with everyone. Going for what you want. Not handing a woman your heart prematurely nor putting any woman on a pedestal. Constant self-improvement. These are the good things that are taught at some of these forums. It isn’t as cut and dry as you all think it is.

    With that, I’m finished with this thread – feel free to hurl some final insults before I go do better things with my Saturday afternoon. Have a nice day, everyone.

  99. julian says

    feel free to hurl some final insults before I go

    You smell slightly of pungent oranges.

  100. says

    Drolfe and Keenacat: I admit to having a hateboner for the term “step on a lego” because I associate it with being scolded for wishing nastier, more-lethal retribution on assholes. I can understand using certain expressions, like “Kill yourself,” sparingly in deference to anyone present who may have lost someone to suicide, but when it comes to baroque and highly unlikely forms of painful death, I trust that nobody present has, for example, had a beloved relative dipped in honey and thrown to a pack of honey badgers that had been given French roast espresso intravenously.

  102. chigau (√-1) says

    I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper.

  105. keenacat says

    Daisy,

    interesting association, I’ve never seen it used that way.
    For me, it is just a suuuuper painful thing that is not actually harmful and thus safe to wish on anyone. I hesitate to wish actual bodily harm or even death on anyone, even though I love, love, love a creative version like yours…
    I dunno, it just doesn’t feel right for me. I will shortly take my final exams to become a MD and I’ve already seen quite a bit of suffering and don’t like to throw it around as an insult, that’s all.
    You can, however, go on all you like and I’ll even get a chuckle out of it (baring stuff like “Kill yourself”, as you noted). Just don’t wanna do it myself.

  107. Drolfe says

    [OT]
    Ms. Daisy Cutter,

    It’s just that I associate stepping on a Lego with such excruciating pain. I grew up with Lego and some of my earliest memories of pain are related to exactly this scenario, so it really struck a deep chord with me when I read it.

    If the phrase has a history, I didn’t know it (hadn’t noticed it until today in that case :)

  108. says

    I would not have gotten laid all the times I have in my life without visiting some of these forums and learning from them. The fact of the matter is that women respond to certain traits in men, and predictable guys who are nervous/needy wrecks or give too much attention early on get washed out. Whereas a confident man who knows what he wants and goes for it often gets much farther.

    translation: having found a method that reliably identifies women with low self esteem who can be manipulated into doing something they weren’t actually all that interested in has gotten me laid a lot. and that’s not misogynist, because I say so.

    Has it ever occured to you all that some women like sex too, and enjoy it just as much as I do? Even when its no strings attached?

    nice strawman, fuckweasel. has it occurred to you that women who like sex don’t need to be talked into it via “negging” and other bullshit strategies, and that often they simply go get it themselves by approaching men themselves? Of course it has, since we explained this to you last time. so obviously you’re just lying now.

    Like I said in my first post though, what is valuable is having the courage and confidence to actually approach a woman, ask for a number, set up a date, etc. Being comfortable in social situations. Being able to relate to her and keep a conversation going, yet understanding that you wont have a connection with everyone. Going for what you want. Not handing a woman your heart prematurely nor putting any woman on a pedestal. Constant self-improvement. These are the good things that are taught at some of these forums. It isn’t as cut and dry as you all think it is.

    amazingly enough, that’s not what PUA manuals teach, no matter how many adherents to “the Game” claim otherwise. this is an exact parallel to Christians insisting that compassion and rules against not killing people are Christian concepts.

  109. says

    Whereas a confident man who knows what he wants and goes for it often gets much farther.

    When that confidence comes at the expense of someone else’s self-esteem, as the PUA shit teaches explicitly, you’re treating human interaction as a zero-sum game. That’s not a terribly enlightened view, to put it mildly. Hint: sex is better when it’s more of a cooperative venture.

    pussy dispensers

    I immediately imagined PUA guy walking up to a woman in a bar and trying to stick a quarter in her cleavage.

    Pathetic, really.

  110. Brownian says

    Predictable responses. So any woman who sleeps with me on the first date or after being taken home from a bar is being “manipulated”. Please. These are thinking adults with their own brains who know exactly what they are getting into when they walk into my bedroom.

    I’m just going to note the inconsistency between claiming people you’re fucking are “adults with their own brains who know exactly what they are getting into”, and yet anyone who voices an opinion contrary to you is “predictable” and falling prey to “group-think”.

    Libertarian much, Karl?

    Enjoy your Saturday, you self-serving shithead.

  111. Pteryxx says

    Like I said in my first post though, what is valuable is having the courage and confidence to actually approach a woman, ask for a number, set up a date, etc. Being comfortable in social situations.

    “Being comfortable in social situations” =/= junior sex harassment badge. Women aren’t phone number dispensers or date dispensers either, much less pussy dispensers.

    I bet PUAs don’t even want sex. They just endure it for the bragging rights so they can earn ego-strokes from each other. Sheesh, you guys, just go have manly-man drum-circle jerk-offs already and quit screwing up life for the rest of us.

  112. Brownian says

    Has it ever occured to you all that some women like sex too, and enjoy it just as much as I do? Even when its no strings attached?

    Hi, Karl: if you’re trying to convince people that you’re actually a confident, socially-competent individual rather than a sleazy self-centered gob of fuck, you should probably stick to answering claims that people actually make, rather than some strawman claim that you’re repeating verbatim from some other sleazy, self-centred gob of fuck on some PUA forum. Of course, it’s unsurprising that a whiny shit who cries “group-think” would be mouthing clichés he clearly heard from someone else. Do the women you fuck know you’re an empty shell of a man; a cheap photocopy of someone else with a used car saleman’s briefcase full of pseudopsychological platitudes on ‘confidence’?

    Because there are other ways of attracting willing partners for no-strings-attached sex: having a distinct, interesting personality, for one. But I suppose that tidbit of knowledge is of no use to you.

    Sheesh, you guys, just go have manly-man drum-circle jerk-offs already and quit screwing up life for the rest of us.

    “I am animal!“

  113. says

    Azkyroth
    Similarly, if you remove a sulfur atom and three of the oxygens from it, H2SO4 is not only non-harmful, in reasonable doses, but health-promoting and even essential.

    I was thinking it would be useful in a path of least resistance way. They’d have a choice where the difference was obvious: manipulate people and only seek to fulfill your personal desires or treat people decently.

    They seem pretty deaf to even fairly moderate explanations of what’s bad about their system, but maybe I’m just getting a biased sample and we actually get through to a few people that just aren’t very vocal about it.

    Ms. Daisy Cutter
    Andrew Riding, I really don’t give a shit if men get their dicks wet or not. It’s not my problem. It’s not society’s problem. Plenty of women don’t get laid, despite the gender-essentialist ASSumptions of PUAs and MRAs that women “have” sex and men “get it” from us. Such women manage to cope, even as society bombards them with the message that if men don’t find them fuckable, they’re unworthy of life.

    The men who can’t get laid can damn well learn to improve their base personalities, their ethics, their hygiene, and whatever else makes women run from them if they want to dip their wicks.

    Sounds like we agree about what to keep and what to throw out. I’m even fine with being confrontational when dealing with them, but at the same time I don’t think they’re all beyond redemption so I’d like to throw a wide net and go from an estimate of 10 of them willing to listen up to a nice 12 or 13. Scale appropriately based on how bad of an estimate 10 was and by the earlier steps of accepting an idea that you are aiming for. Even if you do discard them all as a lost cause think about how many people we could intercept though- I’m sure a freely distributed resource would result in far fewer purchases for the pua materials, no matter how up front it was about excluding the manipulation, objectification, and general bottom feeding.

    My impression has been that people recoil quite a bit from the anger and disgust we express, no matter how justified we are in feeling that way. I’m all for continuing to express it but I’m still a bit ignorant of how this changes people’s minds.

    Seems a bit ingenuous to imply that I was talking about ways for guys to get laid. I don’t think I’ve said anything past meeting people in the first place. That’s probably a vital step for it, outside of a narrow range of kink communities, but this stuff almost seems marketed to high functioning people with autism- but maybe I am being too generous with my sympathy. I can absolutely agree that a majority of the puas posting at xkcd don’t deserve it.

    stop insisting that not getting laid is a terminal condition

    It is when your life and self worth revolves around getting laid. Where these people go wrong is when they assume that this means they are totally entitled to a willing penis receptacle NAO and not getting any is totes unfair and a plot by women to RUIN EVERYTHING because they OWN sex and are not sharing, those selfish bitches.

    The shock people express when I say I never have at my age
    -we’re not about to turn around and belittle me for that right on the tails of talking about how it’s not the most important thing in life right? good.-
    demands that I have a lot of willpower to not start viewing it like that. It’s a good thing I give a shit about my personal principles.

    I suppose with that I probably don’t need to go into how I’m not the pua that people seem to be assuming.

    @karlvonmox
    I’m still really concerned with the nasty undertones (not so -under- for people that know how to spot them,) that seem to be behind damn near all of it. You should expect criticism to be magnified when people shrink away from or dismiss the criticism, that’s a critical part of ever getting society to stop ignoring traditional injustice and marginalization.

    You are practically programmed to say “a lot of it is good and we should just ignore the parts that are nasty” and it takes a whole lot of looking into rights issues to ever learn to stop yourself from taking that mental shortcut.
    Now when it comes to any group that’s not generally represented by privileged white males (in this case we’re much more focused on the male part but actually a particular cultural view of males rather than just the gender categorization,) you serve yourself and the people around you much better by saying “alright, at least some of this stuff is bad. What should we do to fix it?” You’ll still get some “throw it away” and “stop being a bottom feeder” responses (do try to think about how many you get though. I find it’s a good metric for how badly borked something is even if there’s no hope of getting a community to outright drop it,) but you should find the people willing to give thorough explanations to be much more willing to actually discuss it with you, and if you genuinely care then it’s fairly easy to pick up some deeper understanding of the issue this way.

    Downside is that you have to actually care but I’m hoping that your first thought was “how is that a down side.” If so there’s hope for you.

    Drolfe
    I’d say Lego on carpet is worse — your guard isn’t up, you never see that 2×1 hiding in the pile until you are smashing it into your barefoot with your full weight. Still, I love the sentiment! ;) ;)

    Honestly never understood why so many people feel entitled to never having their feet stabbed. You’re putting your whole body weight on that- seems like you’d want to be a little prepared for some hard corners and things even in carper so you don’t drop anything you’re carrying and sprain an ankle.

    Then again the place I moved to in high school had poorly installed carpet or something so I’d get unexpected staples in the foot every once in awhile. Kept me light enough on my feet that I never went goring myself on them. Guess that makes me the freak here.

  114. Owlmirror says

    The girl that the PUA nosepick artist is talking to sounded familiar, and I tried to remember where she’s been portrayed before.

    I think she’s from here:

    Journal (sets up for the next one)

    Journal 2 (this is her first appearance)

    (her): “Well, I like to hurt people too. And you know what? …. I’m better at it than you.”

    Journal 3

    (Black Hat — temporarily hatless): That’s my hat you’re wearing.

    Journal 4

    Journal 5

  116. says

    Andrew Riding: I don’t give two fucks about “redeeming” any of them. NOT MY JOB. NOT SOCIETY’S JOB. They’re grown-ass men and they can REDEEM THEIR FUCKING SELVES.

    As for people “recoiling from our anger,” boo hoo fucking hoo. You must be new here.

    Also, the word you’re looking for, cupcake, is disingenuous. Which I think describes you better, as you’ve spewed a lot of hand-wringing concern for the poor ickle PUAs all over this thread, and now you’re pretending you haven’t.

    Ing, #115: I really think we need to start a new Line.

  117. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Also, the word you’re looking for, cupcake, is disingenuous. Which I think describes you better, as you’ve spewed a lot of hand-wringing concern for the poor ickle PUAs all over this thread, and now you’re pretending you haven’t.

    This.
    I have no sympathy for these fuckheads, up to and including the “sad, pathetic” specimens. This shit hurts people. Not just on a society-wide, systemic level, though it does that too, what with its sex-as-transaction women-as-targets rhetoric. Individual women who are for whatever reason vulnerable to these kinds of tactics – and not all of them are “immature” or “entitled,” you fucking slime, some of them are, oh, for instance, abuse victims who have learned appeasement and approval-seeking as a survival skill – are harmed by this shit. And it’s not an insult to them to say that they deserve better than to be targeted by deceptive assholes who learned manipulation from a manual to prop up their manly egos. People who engage in this sort of shit fucking sicken me, and I hope they recoil from our anger.

  118. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    (P.S. Since this was completely unclear, the bit with the “you fucking slime” was aimed at karlvonmox, not at Andrew Riding.)

  119. twincats says

    Has it ever occured to you all that some women like sex too, and enjoy it just as much as I do? Even when its no strings attached? You guys claim to stand for the sexual liberation of women, and yet when a guy comes along who offers them just that he is shamed, ridiculed, insulted.

    Has it ever occurred me? As a woman who was exactly like that back in the day, guess what kind of guy made my heart rate speed up and my pupils dilate as well as all the other usual physiological signs of attraction? It wasn’t a PUA, that’s for sure. The surest way into my pants was (and still is) to relate to me as an interesting, worthwhile human being while also being interesting and a worthwhile human being.

    As a bonus, as a woman who liked sex without strings as much as any man, I had to keep that on the down low or be labeled a slut or worse.

    So, in addition to not having to worry about getting pregnant, men have never had to concern themselves much with being whispered about, ostracized, ridiculed or even having their lives ruined just for “liking sex too.” Nice tasty slice of male privilege, that.

    And if you think that was only true back in the bad old days, reference a certain Mr. Rush Limpbrain’s odious series of rants about Sandra Fluke.

  120. says

    Ms. Daisy
    I don’t give two fucks about “redeeming” any of them. NOT MY JOB. NOT SOCIETY’S JOB. They’re grown-ass men and they can REDEEM THEIR FUCKING SELVES.

    As for people “recoiling from our anger,” boo hoo fucking hoo. You must be new here.

    Also, the word you’re looking for, cupcake, is disingenuous. Which I think describes you better, as you’ve spewed a lot of hand-wringing concern for the poor ickle PUAs all over this thread, and now you’re pretending you haven’t.

    Ing, #115: I really think we need to start a new Line.

    Privilege being invisible it seemed to make sense that basically everyone that’s not already on your side of the fence hasn’t been exposed to reasons they should be.

    Seeing as it’s also not your job to get in my fucking way and constantly demean me for caring about people that haven’t had a chance yet maybe you can stop going out of your way to piss me the fuck off.
    But anyway I figure you’re really not into me staying constantly calm as I tend to.

    I have sympathy for people that had exposure to bad ideas at formative moments and you cannot stamp out my emotions. I should have flipped the fuck out when you started acting like I’d ever expressed concern for guys that just want to dip their wicks- that is complete bullshit and you’re just trying to fit me into the most convenient stereotype you’ve got on hand so that you can throw out the same rants you’ve practiced so much.

    I absolutely hate the way that you don’t read what you’re replying to. You’ve given me and damn near every impartial observer ample reason to disrespect you and even when I come out with “hey, you’re right” you still belittle me just because you have a reputation here and feel like you can push people around.

    So can you lighten up? I know your cause is a good one and you’ve got good reason to be angry but I can only be so reasonable in the face of you salting the earth like this. I want to grow my understanding here but how long am I supposed to put up with you kicking sand in my face?

    Now I know it’s vague to say “I dislike the bad parts but see the strange attraction in the most alluring selling points,” but don’t worry, you’ve completely put me off of the path of trying to accomplish anything. It will be a good while before I feel like doing anything but crushing people’s aspirations out of spite, which I at least have the sense to not act on mind you.

    twincats
    The surest way into my pants was (and still is) to relate to me as an interesting, worthwhile human being while also being interesting and a worthwhile human being.

    Earlier today I would have been sad that I’m no longer interested in advocating actually relating to other human beings. If certain approaches to psychology are to be believed I still am underneath all of this spite but fuck if it’s not hard to push aside so I can do anything but spew hate.

  121. says

    Andrew:

    Privilege being invisible

    FUCK. YOU.

    MEN are privileged in this society. NOT WOMEN. Having a vagina is NOT a sign of privilege simply because some men want it and can’t get access to it. WOMEN are beaten. Raped. Killed. Discriminated against. Harassed. Stalked. Systematically impoverished. Deprived of reproductive rights.

    But you want to pretend you’re oppressed because no woman will deign to fuck you? And that insisting that focusing on the people who are actually oppressed, and demanding that the people who are actually privileged not contribute to their oppression because they want to get their dicks wet, is “getting in your way”? And when I won’t do that, insisting that I should “lighten up” and that, even though “[my] cause is a good one,” I should stop being so angry?

    Cupcake, I haven’t STARTED to go out of my way to piss you the fuck off. Jump off a fucking bridge, you pathetic, mewling, stupid bag of rancid garbage. Your self-pity and your entitlement are probably huge reasons no woman with a nanogram of self-esteem would touch you with a ten-foot pole.

    And if I’ve “completely put [you] off the path of trying to accomplish anything,” GOOD, because you’re a self-centered blithering asshole whose “accomplishments” are more likely than not to, at best, make some woman fume about how she can’t go out and enjoy herself without having some entitled jackass remind her that she exists for the gratification of teh menz.

    In fact, the more would-be PUAs whose ickle fee-fees I hurt and who decide not to try anymore? The better! Your sullen pique delights me! Because, again, I care much, much more about women not having to put up with PUA shit than I do about you ever getting laid.

  123. says

    Ms. Daisy Cutter:
    Quit screaming for a minute and pay some attention to what I’m saying. In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    I was talking about male privilege, not getting in some dig against you.

    How in the world can a person who can read think that’s what I meant when I said you were getting in my way? You’re not demanding they stop, you’re demanding that I scream at them in the same decibel and pitch about how abhorrent the basis for their system is. I’ve said I’m fine with you telling them that they’re barbaric but much like female genital mutilation I don’t think that alone is going to actually stop them. I’d try and say that it’s completely true that these things are barbaric but you’re going to tell me that I said they aren’t regardless just as soon as you feel like it.

    Stop being so angry? How dare you act like I’m saying that. I’ve bent over backwards to make it clear that that is precisely not what I am saying you conniving wretch. Stop hiding behind some alternate reality of what I’ve said and get it through your head that you’ve lied about my words and twisted them just so you can hit your strong talking points.

    That jab was cute. So you’re saying that my worth IS determined by how many vaginas I can worm my way into? Fuck it, I’m going to take a note from your book and just continue as if you unironically intended to say exactly that. For shame madam, you should stop thinking so patriarchally.

    But anyway if this is what you always do then you, regardless of your gender, should stop harming women. I don’t seem to see anybody else around here that does such a sloppy job of reading posts before they respond to them yet you drown out an awful lot of the voices as you insist that nobody should ever have any tact, and seem to imply that we need to rhetorically cheat so that we can pile all the higher revolting slings and arrows that people want not to describe them.

    So stop being so angry? No, just stop letting it cloud your vision. I’m thick skinned enough to handle insults but you’ve got to have actual content and these non sequiturs just don’t cut it. If I was apologizing for what those people go out and do I could understand what you are doing but as it stands you’ve written nothing worth reading.

    I don’t know what’s wrong with you but I’m done feeding it. If I actually say anything so stupid as the words you’ve put in my mouth I hope anyone except for you tells me because I don’t believe you are capable of processing your surroundings.
    If this is something new then go get help but otherwise otherwise don’t bother trying to talk to me again, I’m not even going to read it. Attribute that to whatever vile motivation you’re going to and move on to the next person.

  124. says

    …I’m hesitant to add this after the note I ended on but I’ve only been rejected by a woman once. For better or for worse I just don’t act on the lust I feel when I meet new women. I’m sure at least a few wish I would (anyone can get at pictures of me from here and I think anybody but Daisy could make a good estimate of what I’m like in conversation,) but I’m interested in a different kind of connection than interlocking parts first, or at least at my typical level of self esteem.

  125. janine says

    Quit screaming for a minute and pay some attention to what I’m saying. In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    Nice choice of words there. Makes me not want to give a fuck about what you have to say.

  127. Brownian says

    In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    …and now we have some insight into andrew’s trouble with having relationships.

    I’m interested in a different kind of connection than interlocking parts first, or at least at my typical level of self esteem.

    Except not with vocal women. They’re all terrible, because of this experience with Daisy Cutter.

  128. janine says

    Andrew, in case you miss the point, replace “vocal women” with “vocal blacks”, “vocal Jews” or any other group.

    See the problem?

  129. Brownian says

    See the problem?

    I’m still trying to get a grip on the general theme of “I don’t/didn’t get laid enough, so the only answer is to trash talk random women so that they’re vulnerable enough to overlook the fact that I’m pretty much a walking sack of blight on the species” and “women like to fuck too, but the bitches don’t know it so I go around and tell ’em they’re fat, because women’s lib and all that.”

  130. says

    Predictable responses. So any woman who sleeps with me on the first date or after being taken home from a bar is being “manipulated”. Please. These are thinking adults with their own brains who know exactly what they are getting into when they walk into my bedroom.

    Has it ever occured to you all that some women like sex too, and enjoy it just as much as I do? Even when its no strings attached? You guys claim to stand for the sexual liberation of women, and yet when a guy comes along who offers them just that he is shamed, ridiculed, insulted.

    No wonder some of the men on here are so confused.

    Fuck you. I had sex with the boyfriend before we ever even had a first date (I invited him to my place with the hopes of getting him in bed and it worked, now 2 years later we’re about to be living together). I’m all about honest pursuit of sex for the sake of sex if that is what someone wants. The key word there is honest. PUAs are manipulative and misogynistic not honest. The boyfriend got that invite to my place because he never treated me as anything other than another human being and genuinely enjoyed talking to me and we have lots in common in terms of music, books, movies, kinks, etc. Anyone who was using PUA techniques with me would have gotten much the same response as the guy in that xkcd comic and little chance I’d even tell him what city I live in.

  131. Brownian says

    No wonder some of the men on here are so confused.

    Remember how I was comparing PUAs to Mormons? The pool of people who think PUAs/Mormons have anything to offer them is a lot smaller than PUAs/Mormons have deluded themselves into believing.

  132. chigau (√-1) says

    Noadi

    The boyfriend got that invite to my place because he never treated me as anything other than another human being and genuinely enjoyed talking to me and we have lots in common in terms of music, books, movies, kinks, etc.

    That was his PUA technique!
    You only think it was your idea.
    [/you can’t win]

  133. says

    Sorry bout the block quote fuckup. I’m a terrible proofreader.

    I know thinking that about vocal women is horrible. I don’t want to think like that. I’m watching those thoughts fester in my head and if I were a lesser person I wouldn’t cut them off and cauterize what was left.

    But at the same time Daisy isn’t a vocal woman. She’s certainly loud, but look at what she’s said I’m saying and then look at what I said. It doesn’t ever match up.

    The closest she ever comes is the little chunk of ideas around me trying to place peacemaker. In all reality I was giving that group more credit than they deserve and ultimately I’m really trying to treat them like children instead of men. I don’t think I’d get too much disagreement if I said they certainly act like children.

    The question is if I should have been called scum for doing it. I don’t recall having told anybody else that they should join me or that you should stop expressing outrage- either of those I would understand getting a tongue lashing for.

    So what did I actually do? Spoke up against false accusations and indulged in a couple of posts where I stopped pinching off my emotions before they could bear fruit. The fruit was fairly vile but I knew that when I chose to show everyone what was happening. Responses that would make sense could have been “get over it” or “anybody worthy of respect knows better than to continue down that path” but instead I’m met with constant insistence that I’m only concerned with getting men laid.

    How do you handle it when people put those words in your mouth?

  134. Brownian says

    How do you handle it when people put those words in your mouth?

    I sure as fuck don’t use it as an excuse to justify sexism and sexists.

    Also, learn to write more clearly and you’ll be misunderstood less. Awkward prose like “[t]he fruit was fairly vile but I knew that when I chose to show everyone what was happening” doesn’t do anyone any favours. And that’s just one example. I can easily pick out similar sentences and paragraphs from nearly any comment of yours on this thread as examples of obfuscatory purple prose.

  135. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    good point, Brownian. I like this one:

    So what did I actually do? Spoke up against false accusations and indulged in a couple of posts where I stopped pinching off my emotions before they could bear fruit.

    it makes me envision him ’emotionally’ ‘pinching off’ something in his ‘fruit’ of the looms.

  137. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    The fruit was fairly vile but I knew that when I chose to show everyone what was happening.

    I bet it was, Andy. I bet it was.

  138. Brownian says

    When did I?

    Right here, for one:

    In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    The construction is god-fucking-awful, but it appears you’re doing so again with:

    I dislike the bad parts but see the strange attraction in the most alluring selling points

    …though you append another few random clauses to that one at so who the fuck knows exactly what you’re trying to say?

  139. Brownian says

    I’m just going to repost this one because of its egregiousness:

    In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    This one isn’t a slip of the tongue, an honest mistake, a heat of the moment thing. You’ve taken your perspective of a single individual and used it to carpet bomb every member of her gender who doesn’t lie down and take your opinion and thank you for offering it.

  140. Brownian says

    Sorry andrewriding, I really did misread at least one of those. Clearly, you are not advocating we ignore the bad in favour of the good, as you clearly criticise Karl for this behaviour:

    I’m still really concerned with the nasty undertones (not so -under- for people that know how to spot them,) that seem to be behind damn near all of it. You should expect criticism to be magnified when people shrink away from or dismiss the criticism, that’s a critical part of ever getting society to stop ignoring traditional injustice and marginalization.

    You are practically programmed to say “a lot of it is good and we should just ignore the parts that are nasty” and it takes a whole lot of looking into rights issues to ever learn to stop yourself from taking that mental shortcut.

  141. says

    A: Those both took place well after I had been yelled at.
    B: It’s a summary of what I thought she was offended by. It’s not supposed to make sense without any context.

    When she started yelling at me I’d postulated taking some of the way they sell pua bullshit to divert new people away from the misogyny that’s we’ve seen the nosepickers come in and claim isn’t really obvious on the front of “the technique” they’ve been drawn into.

    Is it a shitty idea to take indoctrination ideas from a cult to save people from the suicide component? Almost definitely. Does proposing it on a whim mean I have a messiah complex? Fuck no.
    Since my writing isn’t clear what I’m doing there is drawing a parallel to a different situation that I would also like to keep people out of.

    Does that answer your questions or do I need to break it into smaller pieces? -My intent is genuine but I can’t come up with a more neutral way to say that. Please don’t take the harsh bit as an insult-

  142. Brownian says

    A: Those both took place well after I had been yelled at.

    Are you fucking kidding me? That’s what you consider a defence?

    B: It’s a summary of what I thought she was offended by. It’s not supposed to make sense without any context.

    Which? Both comments? That hardly makes sense.

    And I have no idea what the fuck this is supposed to mean:

    When she started yelling at me I’d postulated taking some of the way they sell pua bullshit to divert new people away from the misogyny that’s we’ve seen the nosepickers come in and claim isn’t really obvious on the front of “the technique” they’ve been drawn into.

    You forgot to mention what you’re doing with the the “some of the way they sell pua bullshit” you “postulated taking”.

    So, my response to this:

    Does that answer your questions or do I need to break it into smaller pieces?

    is, Sounds great, as long as by “smaller pieces” you mean “sentences with clear, distinct ideas that a typical English speaker can effectively parse.

  143. says

    Are you fucking kidding me? That’s what you consider a defence?

    No, it means it doesn’t address my question of why I was yelled at in the first place. Part B addresses how it’s not endorsing them.

    Which? Both comments? That hardly makes sense.

    I don’t understand what you’re asking.

    You forgot to mention what you’re doing with the the “some of the way they sell pua bullshit” you “postulated taking”.

    “to divert new people away from the misogyny”
    I was talking about ways to keep people out of this before I was assaulted.

    is, Sounds great, as long as by “smaller pieces” you mean “sentences with clear, distinct ideas that a typical English speaker can effectively parse.

    I can’t tell if this sentence fragment or typo is a request for further detail or an acknowledgement that I did an acceptable job in my previous post.

  144. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    I was talking about ways to keep people out of this before I was assaulted.

    Aww. Poor andrewriding.

  145. John Morales says

    [meta]

    andrewriding:

    In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    So, you recognise it’s a stupid association and that it’s your own problem.

    (Why not get over it, already?

    Oh right, your emotions rule your intellect. Never mind.)

    No, it means it doesn’t address my question of why I was yelled at in the first place.

    Perhaps you should turn your voice synthesiser’s volume down. :)

    I was talking about ways to keep people out of this before I was assaulted.

    May you never learn the difference between what you consider an assault, and a real assault.

    I can’t tell if this sentence fragment or typo is a request for further detail or an acknowledgement that I did an acceptable job in my previous post.

    That would be because you’re rather obtuse, and failed to note that it’s the latter part of a paragraph within which a quotation has been embedded.

  146. Brownian says

    before I was assaulted

    I’m sorry, but I can’t take someone who calls getting told off on a blog “being assaulted” seriously.

    I can’t tell if this sentence fragment or typo is a request for further detail or an acknowledgement that I did an acceptable job in my previous post.

    It’s a continuation of the sentence I began before the blockquote:

    So, my response to this: [part that got blockquoted] is, Sounds great, as long as by “smaller pieces” you mean “sentences with clear, distinct ideas that a typical English speaker can effectively parse.

    But let’s leave out that terribly difficult construction that you probably consider some sort of terrible holocaust against you and I’ll fix up the missing quotation mark at the end:

    So my answer to your “smaller pieces” question is:

    “Sounds great, as long as by ‘smaller pieces’ you mean ‘sentences with clear, distinct ideas that a typical English speaker can effectively parse’.”

    Better?

    (And that was a bit of graciousness on my part. I’m actually a competent writer and reader. You may be the latter, but you’ve demonstrated nowhere here that you’re the former. Do not test my patience by insinuating that my writing is just as unclear as yours, or worse, that literacy all a matter of subjective opinion.)

  147. says

    John Morales
    (Why not get over it, already?
    Oh right, your emotions rule your intellect. Never mind.)

    This I understand. You didn’t read very carefully though since I already brought up why I shared that.

    Perhaps you should turn your voice synthesiser’s volume down. :)

    Since you missed it the abridged version:

    “I really don’t give a shit if men get their dicks wet or not.”
    I see what you’re doing and approve of it in general but I didn’t say that. -and then I revealed too much personal information, and gave karlvonmox the kiddie version of how to do one step better than saying “nu uh, all of these bad things have nothing to do with me” in response to feminists telling you that you’re awful.
    “I don’t give two fucks about “redeeming” any of them. NOT MY JOB. NOT SOCIETY’S JOB. They’re grown-ass men and they can REDEEM THEIR FUCKING SELVES.” *this would be the yelling.
    I didn’t say it was your job. It’s my job and only because I feel like doing some charity work. Are you saying I have to approach these people the way you do? And then I guess I used the word privilege without making it 100% clear who I was talking about so she assumed I thought she was privileged. Was going for more of a double edged sword thing but from here on out the conversation is so far divorced from the things I say that I don’t know how to summarize it.

    May you never learn the difference between what you consider an assault, and a real assault.

    I’m not allowed to imagery now?
    I’m open to the idea that I’m seeing this all wrong though, so could you tell me what an appropriate cut off point is for referring to textual exchanges as assault? It seemed like being hit repeatedly as you’re accused of actions you haven’t taken as you try to crawl away from from the relentless force that pays no attention to your pleas of innocence and requests for mercy had a strong poetic connection to what I’ve just gone through. It’s less severe than the real thing but it’s not like dealing with small issues completely halts our efforts on larger issues.

    That would be because you’re rather obtuse, and failed to note that it’s the latter part of a paragraph within which a quotation has been embedded.

    No, you’ve made a mistake by mixing up the comma and the colon.
    “My response is:” would be the main component while “to this” offers extra direction as to what the subject and object of the main sentence refer. Between sentence fragment and typo I would now lean heavily toward classifying it as the latter.

    Grammatical nitpicking aside (hell, I could be totally wrong about that and it wouldn’t be worth spending the time to correct me,) I still can’t tell which of those options it is.
    “Sounds good” seems to indicate that I explained myself while the caveat that adds precision to the “needs further explanation option” seems to point in the other direction.

    So instead of bickering about how to write a sentence lets go with a simpler structure:
    Do I need to further explain what I was talking about? Yes/no?

  148. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    It seemed like being hit repeatedly as you’re accused of actions you haven’t taken as you try to crawl away from from the relentless force that pays no attention to your pleas of innocence and requests for mercy had a strong poetic connection to what I’ve just gone through.

    Oh, did it? Because, you know, I’ve been called all kinds of names on the internet, some of which were actively triggering, and accused of things that weren’t true, and I’ve had my ideas chewed apart here by pissed-off Pharyngulites, and none of those experiences in any fucking way compared to being assaulted.
    Grow up and spare us your fucking “poetics.”

  150. John Morales says

    [meta]

    andrewriding:

    You didn’t read very carefully though since I already brought up why I shared that.

    You sought to exculpate yourself in a passive-aggressive and whiny.

    (You imagine that’s hard to fathom?)

    Since you missed it the abridged version:

    <snicker>

    Yeah, emphasis is yelling.

    I’m not allowed to imagery now?

    Whyever do you think that? Of course you’re allowed to employ such hyperbole, however unwarranted it may be. It might irk actual victims of assault (or even those of us who know what words mean), but then, it’s about you rather than them or us, no?

    No, you’ve made a mistake by mixing up the comma and the colon.

    So, you think I’m mistaken, though I perfectly understood Brownian — but you, who claims not to be mistaken, failed to apprehend him and sought clarification.

    (Heh)

    So instead of bickering about how to write a sentence lets go with a simpler structure:
    Do I need to further explain what I was talking about? Yes/no?

    <rubs imaginary goatee>

    Hmmm…

    On the one hand, I don’t give a shit what you think.
    On the other, oblivious chew-toys are not to be disdained.

    So, on balance, sure: please expound upon your musings, so that some amusement may be had.

  151. Brownian says

    That would be because you’re rather obtuse, and failed to note that it’s the latter part of a paragraph within which a quotation has been embedded.

    No, you’ve made a mistake by mixing up the comma and the colon.

    No, John read it correctly. Your grammar lessons are about as necessary and effective as your “imagery”. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.

    I’m not allowed to imagery now?

    There’s imagery, and then there’s idiotic and offensive hyperbole that demeans and minimises the experiences of people who’ve actually been, for example, “hit repeatedly”. (It’s nothing like having a comment with CAPS LOCK directed at you, by the by.)

    But since you write like absolute shit, it’s probably best if you aim for simplicity rather than poetry, so yeah. You’re not allowed to imagery now.

    Do I need to further explain what I was talking about? Yes/no?

    Yes, you probably do, unless your muddled writing mirrors your muddled thinking. But since I doubt any further explanation will clear anything up (witness the atrocity you call “the abridged version”), it’s hardly worth your time or ours to bother.

  152. Brownian says

    Are you saying that you’re personally upset by that term?

    Andrew Riding, are you saying that you’re incapable of not being a fucking moron?

    Because we can stop trying to treat with you as if you were a regular, thinking-type person if that’s the case.

  153. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Are you saying that you’re personally upset by that term?

    What, by having an actual traumatic experience equated with the horrible trauma of being yelled at on the internet, and having some ignorant fuckhead explain that it has a strong poetic connection to what he’s just gone through?
    Why would that be upsetting?

  154. chigau (√-1) says

    Does this mean that andrewriding will stop using certain words based on a single request?
    If so, I don’t like the word “moist”.

  155. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    If so, I don’t like the word “moist”.

    I am personally upset by the words “a,” “an,” and “the.” Not when I use them, just when andrewriding does. It’s this whole thing.

  156. Brownian says

    If so, I don’t like the word “moist”.

    I like the word ‘moist’, but only when it’s used in a poetic way to refer to the act of refuelling passenger aircraft.

    So, I’m relaxing my ban on andrewriding being allowed to imagery now, but just a little bit.

  157. chigau (√-1) says

    “that” “it” “by”
    “well” “you” “can” “see” “where” “this” “is” “going”

  158. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Brownian,

    So, I’m relaxing my ban on andrewriding being allowed to imagery now, but just a little bit.

    LOL.

    (I bow to the master — but then, I’m used to being second-tier)

  159. says

    Telling me that caps lock is different from a physical blow seems to indicate that you haven’t been treating me like a regular person from the start.

    But hey, at least we’re finally talking about things I actually said.

  160. Brownian says

    Telling me that caps lock is different from a physical blow seems to indicate that you haven’t been treating me like a regular person from the start.

    No, it doesn’t. It tells you that I’m treating you like a person who doesn’t appear to understand the vast gulf between those two things. I suspect a regular person does understand the difference, but even so, I’m only now treating you like the sort of person who doesn’t because you’ve demonstrated that you don’t.

  161. John Morales says

    [meta]

    andrewriding:

    But hey, at least we’re finally talking about things I actually said.

    Because when people quote you when addressing what you actually wrote, it wasn’t addressing what you claim you meant to say, right?

    (Harsh, life is)

  162. says

    Telling me that caps lock is different from a physical blow seems to indicate that you haven’t been treating me like a regular person from the start.

    can’t be bothered to read his wallotexts. is he always this incoherent?

  163. desertfroglet says

    Telling me that caps lock is different from a physical blow seems to indicate that you haven’t been treating me like a regular person from the start.

    Good grief, Andrew. You’re behaving as if you’ve received a heavy noun to the head. Stop writing and start thinking about the way in which you’re presenting yourself.

  164. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    can’t be bothered to read his wallotexts. is he always this incoherent?

    Gods yes.
    But basically he wants us to know that he feels sympathy for the poor deluded PUAs who might just be bad at social situations and wants to try teaching them real social skills with the misogyny stripped out. And Ms. Daisy Cutter made him more misogynistic and ruined all his activism by assaulting him. With words. On the internet.

  166. Brownian says

    is he always this incoherent?

    Who are you talking about, and by ‘incoherent’ do you mean “hobby apiarist”?

    (IOW No. That’s a relatively readable sentence. Most of his others are way worse.)

  167. Brownian says

    But basically he wants us to know that he feels sympathy for the poor deluded PUAs who might just be bad at social situations and wants to try teaching them real social skills with the misogyny stripped out. And Ms. Daisy Cutter made him more misogynistic and ruined all his activism by assaulting him. With words. On the internet.

    Is that what happened? For shame, Ms. Daisy Cutter.

    Everyone now, You’re not helping!

  169. says

    It tells you that I’m treating you like a person who doesn’t appear to understand the vast gulf between those two things

    So not a normal person. I know that’s the next thing you say nobody ever acknowledges when I preempt a line of thought so apparently I’m supposed to talk like this. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth though so I think I’m going to forget this lesson.

    With the rather constant disdain for me being poetic and the equally obnoxious responses when I cut it out and ask questions so you have space to actually get ideas across, I’m losing interest in all of this.

    Aside from the refuted case my call for the spot I ever defended the bottom feeders has gone unanswered. I think it’s appropriate to conclude that what I’ve taken offense to isn’t justifiable.

    Because when people quote you when addressing what you actually wrote, it wasn’t addressing what you claim you meant to say, right?

    Actually I mainly got @andrewridings. As deep a pit as I dug with the virginity admission it seems to have quelled the accusation that I had any concern for guys getting laid. I don’t usually see people do this level of verbal acrobatics to avoid acknowledging a mistake/assumption like this unless I’m talking to creationists. A lot of this has really been a sort of shock that I would run into that here.

    I know we’re not always shining paragons but I got the impression that this place was higher class than that. I’ll watch some of the comment threads for awhile and hopefully I’ll find I’m mistaken.

  171. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Actually I mainly got @andrewridings. As deep a pit as I dug with the virginity admission it seems to have quelled the accusation that I had any concern for guys getting laid.

    you actually think you dug your pit by admitting you were a virgin?

    Believe me, being a virgin is the absolute least of your failings, infact I’m quite glad women seem to wisely steer clear of you and I’m sure others would agree.

    You make yourself look stupider and stupider with every post.

  172. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    So not a normal person.

    Dude. You are the one who equated them. Stop fucking whining about being called out for what you actually fucking said. Christ.

    being poetic

    You really overestimate what you did up there.

    As deep a pit as I dug with the virginity admission it seems to have quelled the accusation that I had any concern for guys getting laid.

    Show of hands, who cares about andrewriding’s sex life?
    *crickets*
    Men taken in by PUAs are looking to get laid. That is what PUA dogma is for. You complained about your sympathy for them. They don’t deserve it, and I don’t care if you fucking whine about us trying to “stamp out your emotions” if we tell you that. These are men who are using deliberately, explicitly predatory forms of manipulation in order to acquire sex from women. (That is how they think about it.) Fuck them, and fuck you too.

  173. John Morales says

    [meta]

    andrewriding, flouncing already?

    <pouts>

    Lessee if I can draw you back in…

    Aside from the refuted case my call for the spot I ever defended the bottom feeders has gone unanswered.

    Because this:

    Though maybe I’ve just been overexposed to the less offensive material they use to draw people in…

    in no way indicates both a defence of and an identification with such.

    (Oh, no! I have assaulted grammar! I have tortured syntax!)

  174. John Morales says

    [meta]

    I suspect it’s lucky Andrew’s dominant hand can’t speak about this “virgin” claim. :)

  175. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Don’t Fuck them, and don’t fuck you too.

    Fixed it for you, Cassandra.

  176. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Fixed it for you, Cassandra.

    Actually yes, that’s a very good plan.

  177. says

    Believe me, being a virgin is the absolute least of your failings

    it’s not even a “failing”. we have at least one very awesome, not misogynist male virgin on Pharyngula.

    nah; far as I can tell, his failing is to demand we cut the most privileged segment of the world’s population some slack because they’re incapable of thinking their way out of a paperbag after “being exposed to some bad ideas” in their youth.

    fuck that noise.

    (so much for my diet)

  178. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Jadehawk, I was using ‘failing’ in the loosest possible sense, but good point.

    nah; far as I can tell, his failing is to demand we cut the most privileged segment of the world’s population some slack because they’re incapable of thinking their way out of a paperbag after “being exposed to some bad ideas” in their youth.

    I’d say his overwhelming concern for his own pwecious widdle feewings is pretty high up there as well. Comparing this to ‘assault’, for christ’s sakes…

  179. Brownian says

    I know that’s the next thing you say nobody ever acknowledges when I preempt a line of thought so apparently I’m supposed to talk like this

    WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!

    You want a fucking acknowledgement of your preempt, Sylvia Browne? Here:

    Telling me that caps lock is different from a physical blow seems to indicate that you haven’t been treating me like a regular person from the start.

    No. Wrong. Absolutely not.

    I did not treat you any differently from the start, and nothing I wrote would indicate that.

    I TOLD YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPS LOCK AND A PHYSICAL BLOW ONLY AFTER YOU APPEARED UNABLE TO SEE A DIFFERENCE.

    IS THAT ‘FROM THE START’? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, AND FUCKING NO.

    You know what “seems to indicate” how I’ve been treating you from the start? How about my very first comment directed at you, in which I extend the benefit of the doubt that you’re simply poor at expressing yourself, rather than an actual jerk.

    And as for acknowledging mistakes, how about my comment #140 to you:

    Sorry andrewriding, I really did misread at least one of those. Clearly, you are not advocating we ignore the bad in favour of the good, as you clearly criticise Karl for this behaviour:

    IS THAT ENOUGH FUCKING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR YOU?

    Now, as for this bullshit:

    Aside from the refuted case my call for the spot I ever defended the bottom feeders has gone unanswered.

    The comment I am about to blockquote was never refuted, unless your word salad means something different in whatever stupid mangled language you think in than it does in the English it kind of resembles:

    Quit screaming for a minute and pay some attention to what I’m saying. In time I’m going to undo this but for now you’ve done an awful lot to make me associate vocal women with incoherent babble.

    You’re right; it’s not a defence of sexism. It is actual, no fucking fooling around sexism, which you then gloss over with some acknowledgment:

    I know thinking that about vocal women is horrible. I don’t want to think like that. I’m watching those thoughts fester in my head and if I were a lesser person I wouldn’t cut them off and cauterize what was left.

    …and then follow up by saying Ms. Daisy Cutter isn’t a vocal woman, which makes the “vocal women = incoherent babble” comment especially stupid in hindsight.

  180. says

    Brownian
    Believe me, being a virgin is the absolute least of your failings, infact I’m quite glad women seem to wisely steer clear of you and I’m sure others would agree.

    But that’s just it, nobody seems able to stop themselves when they come up with that predictable insult. Take about half of a second to feel ashamed that you implied that my worth is lower for not having ‘bagged one.’
    Ok, now that you haven’t done that go ahead and explain to me how that means anything but the betrayal of decency I just described.

    I’ve made you reinforce that disgusting little echo of patriarchy in your own head and I wish I could take that back. Please just show some recognition of it so that I can tell you’ll overcome this awful thing I’ve done.

    Cassandra Caligaria
    You are the one who equated them

    No I didn’t. A drew a parallel. That’s nothing like claiming them to be equal in severity. You’re so dead set on looking down on me that you can’t help but warp anything that comes out of my mouth.

    But hey, let’s continue as if I said that anyway. I know it’s pointless to argue that I didn’t.
    –
    I’m sorry. That was completely inappropriate. You are right that what I got is not paramount to being battered by an aggressor. I take it back.
    –
    I say that because I know you’re not going to be pleased with it. No admission of mistakes is good enough now that I’m being targeted by the group.

    Men taken in by PUAs are looking to get laid. That is what PUA dogma is for. You complained about your sympathy for them. They don’t deserve it, and I don’t care if you fucking whine about us trying to “stamp out your emotions” if we tell you that. These are men who are using deliberately, explicitly predatory forms of manipulation in order to acquire sex from women. (That is how they think about it.) Fuck them, and fuck you too.

    I can’t argue against that. I seemed to think the salesmen also pitched it as a way to not get ignored by other human beings but there’s enough whiplash from this that I’m fine with discarding that without any understanding of why I was mistaken.

    @John Morales
    Actually the form doesn’t seem to clash when you don’t have a comma trailing the first word past the quote.

    So to me the bit you quoted means “I see a potential pitfall I might have fallen into. Can someone more familiar with this confirm it for me?”
    What way are you reading it?

    [double meta]that’s because you don’t use hands to talk.

    @Jadehawk Thank you.

    @Brownian
    Actually yes, comment 140 means a lot to me. I feel awful that I missed it the first time.
    I can’t quite decide if I should make this correction after that but I’ll put it out their anyway- by now you should be used to me not shutting my mouth fast enough.
    vocal women /= incoherent babble. I meant that to be vocal you had to actually be saying something. I still can’t understand what she was saying but aside from this nasty trail of mix ups at the end I got what I wanted and can happily let this argument die. Thank you for that, even though I was too careless and worked up to see it.

  181. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    But that’s just it, nobody seems able to stop themselves when they come up with that predictable insult. Take about half of a second to feel ashamed that you implied that my worth is lower for not having ‘bagged one.’
    Ok, now that you haven’t done that go ahead and explain to me how that means anything but the betrayal of decency I just described.

    You implied someone was insulting you for being a virgin, or that admitting to your virginity somehow opened you up for mockery?

    I told you that being a virgin is ‘the least of your failings’, by which I mean of all the things we are pissing on you for, the fact that you have never had sex is not among them. Perhaps my wording was clumsy.

    But what can I say, it’s not half as clumsy as yours at least.

  182. John Morales says

    [meta]

    [double meta]that’s because you don’t use hands to talk.

    I’m not talking, I’m typing (what, you think I use some other appendage to do so?).

    —

    What way are you reading it? [Though maybe I’ve just been overexposed to the less offensive material they use to draw people in…]

    You’re just begging to for a Godwin, aintcha? :)

    The clear implication is that the less offensive material (though admittedly offensive) sucked you in.

  183. says

    Sorry but the party is over.

    hrm, well maybe not. Your logic doesn’t hold up. “This is the smallest thing within the set” only sets the upper bound for size, and even then only if you know what the runner up is.
    So “smaller than” doesn’t mean “very small.”

    …I’ve set myself up for some kind of dick joke haven’t I?

  186. John Morales says

    andrewriding:

    “This is the smallest thing within the set” only sets the upper bound for size

    The lower bound.

    …I’ve set myself up for some kind of dick joke haven’t I?

    Sick joke, you already are.

  189. Brownian says

    Brownian
    Believe me, being a virgin is the absolute least of your failings, infact I’m quite glad women seem to wisely steer clear of you and I’m sure others would agree.

    I don’t know why you paired my ‘nym with that comment. The Laughing Coyote made that one, and Jadehawk rebutted.

    No I didn’t. A drew a parallel.

    I’m gonna write in CAPS LOCK because you apparently DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT WORDS MEAN.

    YOU WROTE:

    I was talking about ways to keep people out of this before I was assaulted. [My fucking emphasis].

    THAT’S NOT A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING PARALLEL! THAT’S YOU SAYING YOU. WERE. ASSAULTED. UNLESS YOU’RE ACTUALLY FUCKING CLAIMING THAT MS. DAISY CUTTER REACHED THROUGH THE SCREEN AND PUNCHED YOU IN THE FACE, THERE’S NO PARALLEL THERE. IT’S YOU CLAIMING THAT WAS HAPPENED (BEING CALLED BAD NAMES ON THE INTERNET) WAS AN ASSAULT.

    ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING YOUR OWN WRITING? BECAUSE THE REST OF US ARE CAPABLE, FOR THE MOST PART. LYING ABOUT WHAT YOU’VE WRITTEN AREN’T THE SAME THING.

    That’s nothing like claiming them to be equal in severity.

    NOT IN THE SENSE THAT CALLING TWO SEPARATE ACTS ‘THEFT’ IMPLIES THE VALUE OF ITEMS TAKEN IN BOTH CASES IS EQUAL, BUT IT DOES IMPLY AN EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORY. AND THAT IS CLEARLY WHAT YOU MEANT TO DO WITH YOUR HYPERBOLIC USE OF THE WORD ‘ASSAULTED’—YOU ATTEMPTED TO COOPT THE SYMPATHY PEOPLE HAVE FOR GENUINE VICTIMS OF ASSAULT FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSE.

    I’VE ALREADY WARNED YOU AGAINST TRYING TO BULLSHIT ME. YOU’RE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO DO SO.

    You’re so dead set on looking down on me that you can’t help but warp anything that comes out of my mouth.

    NO ONE IS PERSECUTING YOU, ASSHOLE. YOU WRITE STUPID AND OFFENSIVE THINGS, WHETHER YOU MEAN TO OR NOT. IF YOU’RE TIRED OF PEOPLE MISUNDERSTANDING YOU, LEARN TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY, OR STOP TALKING.

    But hey, let’s continue as if I said that anyway. I know it’s pointless to argue that I didn’t.

    BECAUSE YOU DID. YOU USED THE TERM ‘ASSAULT’ TO REFER TO BEING CALLED BAD NAMES ON THE INTERNET. THERE’S NO POINT IN ARGUING WHEN WHAT YOU WROTE IS FUCKING ACCESSIBLE VIA THE SCROLL BUTTON.

    I’m sorry. That was completely inappropriate. You are right that what I got is not paramount to being battered by an aggressor. I take it back.
    –
    I say that because I know you’re not going to be pleased with it. No admission of mistakes is good enough now that I’m being targeted by the group.

    YOU KNOW WHAT MAKES YOU A DISINGENUOUS DOUCHEBAG? YOU COULD HAVE WRITTEN YOUR APOLOGY FOUR FUCKING HOURS AGO. BUT NO, YOU WAITED UNTIL YOU HAD BEEN CALLED ON IT, PRE-EMPTIVELY NULLIFIED THE APOLOGY BY EXPLAINING HOW IT WAS EVERYONE ELSE’S MISTAKE + TEH PERSECUTION IN THE VERY SAME FUCKING COMMENT YOU WERE ABOUT TO APOLOGISE IN, AND THEN WENT ON TO FURTHER COMPLAIN HOW EVERYONE WON’T ACCEPT IT ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU’RE THE TARGET OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

    YOU’RE A FUCKING DOUCHE FOR DOING THESE THINGS.

    Actually yes, comment 140 means a lot to me. I feel awful that I missed it the first time.

    YEAH, I’D SAY THERE’S A BIG CHANCE YOU MISSED IT BECAUSE YOU’RE TOO FUCKING BUSY COMPLAINING THAT EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU TO READ WHAT THEY’RE ACTUALLY WRITING.

    HOW DOES TURNAROUND FEEL?

    And it’s too fucking late. I’m done with you. I might show up again to highlight something else you’ve stupidly said, but I no longer have any sympathy for you whatsoever.

    If you weren’t a target for me before, you are now. And I am a seriously mean asshole.

  190. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    If you weren’t a target for me before, you are now. And I am a seriously mean asshole.

    Damn the length of this queue!

  191. says

    @Jadehawk
    Well from Daisy we have

    Your self-pity and your entitlement are probably huge reasons no woman with a nanogram of self-esteem would touch you with a ten-foot pole.

    Mind you that came on the heels of the claim that I was just trying to get men laid.

    And the more recent version from Brownian

    I’m quite glad women seem to wisely steer clear of you and I’m sure others would agree.

    At think at that point my most recent comment about it (aside from side references like the one that convinced Brownian to try and zing me with that,) was that I’m a virgin because getting laid is a much lower priority than getting to know and connecting with someone else.

    Both cases boil down to “you can’t get laid” as if the idea that it could be a choice for a male is outside of the realm of possibilities.

    we generally try to avoid gendered insults humor based on it…

    I expected as much before the virginity reaction.

    @Brownian
    Then I guess you didn’t like the apology? Well, don’t go running around fueled by those emotions for too long, my little sprint sure didn’t serve me well.

  192. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Jesus fucking christ, it wasn’t Brownian who said that, it was ME. Fucking ME.

    And though I worded it clumsily, I thought I made it clear that what I meant was that of all the egregious things you’ve said and done here today, being a virgin isn’t among them.

    But fuck it, I’m glad you found my comment so offensive just the same. I aim to please.

  193. John Morales says

    andrewriding:

    I expected as much before the virginity reaction.

    Your reaction, not anyone else’s.

    (Anyone can scroll the comments, O disingenous one)

    —

    Then I guess you didn’t like the apology?

    You don’t see how this gives you away, do ya? ;)

    (Hint: those who genuinely apologise are actually apologising, and when you indicate you imagine an apology should be contingent on its acceptance, YOU ARE DOIN’ IT RONG!)

  194. says

    One more mistake to throw on the pile. Hell, I’ll probably attribute it to him again if you give me a half an hour to forget.

    I’d say that you can’t blame me for losing track of details when I’m dealing with an unnumbered set of people that want…
    actually what did people want out of me? I’ve admitted mistakes, agreed that my snap judgement is deeply flawed, reworked my entire view of people, and shown some outrage when Daisy said she didn’t want any of those other things.

    But there I go with the tangled sentence structures again. I’d say you can’t blame me for slipping up when I’m trying to match so many other people but I know damn well by now that you can blame me.

    Wish I hadn’t put those words in Brownian’s mouth though…

  195. John Morales says

    andrewriding:

    I’d say that you can’t blame me for losing track of details when I’m dealing with an unnumbered set of people that want…
    actually what did people want out of me?

    What part of ‘chew-toy’ do you find unclear? :)

  196. says

    Both cases boil down to “you can’t get laid” as if the idea that it could be a choice for a male is outside of the realm of possibilities.

    maybe; but that’s not “impl[ying] that my worth is lower for not having ‘bagged one'”, that’s implying that because you’re pretty “worthless”, you haven’t ‘bagged one’. If you’re going to criticize people for saying things, I suggest you make sure you criticize them for things they’ve actually said.

    You’re not very good at language.

  197. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    I’d say that you can’t blame me for losing track of details when I’m dealing with an unnumbered set of people that want…
    actually what did people want out of me?

    First, I want you to eat this pine-cone. All of it.

  198. says

    @John Morales
    Oh don’t worry, I’m still plenty sorry about my numerous fuckups while talking to Brownian. Honestly can’t see why you’d think I was retracting the apology,
    but soldiering on I simply don’t know of a good way to deal with having upset someone on the internet other than acting playful. I know that it can’t accomplish much now but judging by how angry people get when I say I’m sorry, it should be at least a slight improvement.

  199. says

    well, that was convoluted. what I was trying to get across is that people aren’t saying you’re bad because you haven’t had sex; they’re saying you haven’t had sex because you’re bad.

    that’s incorrect if your statement that you chose celibacy is true; it’s also an insult. what it isn’t though is basing your worth on whether or not you’ve gotten laid.

  200. says

    @Jadehawk
    It’s order independent. The cut has the same meaning regardless of which is the cause of the other. That the two are associated is where the insult comes in.

    @The Laughing Coyote
    But it tastes yucky.

  202. says

    judging by how angry people get when I say I’m sorry,

    people are getting angry because you’re sounding disingenuous while apologizing. maybe if you’d posted less of the shit Brownian quoted that invalidated your apology, people would have taken that apology seriously. at this point, I honestly don’t think there really isn’t anything you can do to fix that damage, though.

  203. says

    It’s order independent. The cut has the same meaning regardless of which is the cause of the other.

    what does “it” refer to, in the first sentence?

    anyway; it’s not the order that’s at issue, it’s the causality, which means that the meaning is not the same. and the change in meaning does determine, to a large degree, just how patriarchal the comment is.

  204. says

    The link between worth is rather flimsy but I think it still works when we bring in social connections. “Alone” and “worthless” share a lot of connotation.

    I’m thinking that in light of other factors I should give this up. If a couple of women want to say that about me and people here don’t generally think that it bolsters gender stereotypes then the connection is probably exaggerated in my own head.

  205. John Morales says

    [meta]

    andrewriding @198, I kinda feel sorry for ya, and your first few comments were not that shabby.

    So, in all honesty and with good-will, I offer this unsolicited advice:

    Take a break.

    (No, not a few hours. A day or two.)

    Then revisit this thread.

  206. says

    How do I stay genuine with online apologies? I’m thinking boot licking would have just made it look like I was trying to get acceptance for a false change of heart and I’m not coming up with many alternatives.

  208. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Andrewriding: What exactly were you wrong about? WHY were you wrong? There’s a start. Are you ‘sorry’ because you just want people to stop yelling at you and ‘get off your back’, or are you sorry because you genuinely see where you went wrong and how?

    That would be a start, at least.

  209. says

    The link between worth is rather flimsy

    for the love of everything good, be more careful when you write. between worth and what?

    “Alone” and “worthless” share a lot of connotation.

    sure; but the causality matters. no one is ever “worthless” because they’re alone, but some people are alone because they’re “worthless”.

    I suppose one could argue that the association alone can cause unfortunate attitude-formation processes via classical conditioning, since our primitive brains don’t really care about sentence structure and causality. But that’s not what you complained about.

    You really need to get better at formulating and thinking through your arguments, they are, at this point in time, very shallow and easily refuted, as well as misdirected.

  211. chigau (√-1) says

    I am now pronouncing “puas” poo-ass.
    —-
    andrewriding
    Take the advice from John Morales.

  212. Brownian says

    How do I stay genuine with online apologies? I’m thinking boot licking would have just made it look like I was trying to get acceptance for a false change of heart and I’m not coming up with many alternatives.

    Are you on inhalants?

    “I didn’t do it; you’re all out to get me; I’ll say I’m sorry to get you off my back: but you probably won’t accept this because you’re all out to get me” is what you wrote.

    And you’re wondering how to sound genuine?

    There’s a reason they put those warning stickers on cans of gas duster.

    John Morales is right; take a break.

  213. says

    The Laughing Coyote
    What exactly were you wrong about? WHY were you wrong? There’s a start. Are you ‘sorry’ because you just want people to stop yelling at you and ‘get off your back’, or are you sorry because you genuinely see where you went wrong and how?

    That would be a start, at least.

    Actually not getting an answer to ‘what was I wrong about and why’ was a big part of why I behaved how I did.

    Not being able to see the big picture (and some vindication in 205 that this is all kind of based on nothing,) has precluded m from being able to identify a major thing to be sorry about. About the best I think I could do now is say that I’m sorry my writing isn’t perfectly concise but that would actually lack the important genuine aspect. I don’t think writing preference was really behind much of what anyone has been upset about though so that’s still a bad thing to potentially be sorry about.

    Even so I’ve found some things to actually regret. The assault metaphor started out as just a different word for attack but in defending my use of the word I tried to justify the definition that more closely fits domestic violence. I wish I hadn’t done that.

    Jadehawk
    between worth and what?

    Between worth and what we’re talking about of course. The “women won’t touch you” insults are “it.”

    It’s an insult, do you really think that you’re not supposed to just automatically line up all of the causal relations in the way that means something bad? If you don’t line up any then instead it’s a tautology and if you only line up one you’re really underselling the person’s intent.

    So yeah, attitudes and the mental shortcuts we generally take are exactly what I was getting at.
    …or at least in the same line of thinking…

    @Brownian
    My early apologies didn’t interrupt the flow so much. When those were ignored repeatedly I tried to draw more attention because I thought I could have been too subtle. I certainly didn’t stop talking to Daisy too soon but you got the continuation of it all stepping in when you did. I’d say I gave you a few earnest shots before I started complaining that you’d plow on as if I hadn’t apologized but by this point my memory is suspect and I’ll have to read through close to the entire thread to find out if I’ve just constructed that because it’s self serving and doesn’t immediately trigger my bullshit filters.

    You can tell me a lot faster though- did I slap that awful clause on every apology I offered you or did it start after the first few?

  215. says

    Between worth and what we’re talking about of course. The “women won’t touch you” insults are “it.”

    not “of course”. your writing is very imprecise and unclear.

    It’s an insult,

    of course, but that’s not the point under discussion.

    do you really think that you’re not supposed to just automatically line up all of the causal relations in the way that means something bad?

    um. no, language doesn’t work that way. when the causality is not just implied but directly explicitly mentioned, it’s meant to be read as written. As I said, because of the way classical conditioning works, it might still unintentionally work out the other way (that’s why intent isn’t magic), but what you’re “supposed to” do when reading a sentence is read the causality as written.

    So yeah, attitudes and the mental shortcuts we generally take are exactly what I was getting at.

    then say that. don’t talk about what a person meant or imply that they’ve written something else than what they’ve actually written. say that it inadvertently plays into “virgin=alone=worthless” narratives and attitude formations, don’t make inaccurate claims that the people were insulting you because you were a virgin or saying that you were a bad person because you are one.

  217. John Morales says

    [meta]

    I’d mumble something about equines and hydration, but what’s the point? :)

  218. says

    another argument you could try making is that reversing the causality is a known dog-whistle, and thus to be avoided. but you’d have to support that with some evidence.

    I don’t actually think that’s true, but it’s at least a plausible argument that could, given the right evidence, change people’s minds. telling them they’ve said something they have not won’t accomplish that, it’ll just make them not take you seriously; and piss them off.

  220. says

    No, the reason this is easy to refute is because I stopped defending it. The reason I know that is the context is because I established it as such before anyone had a chance to come up with it on their own. I laid out that patriarchy would make it a bad attribute based on that kind of thinking and that I don’t think about it that way.

    Daisy used it anyway after all that baggage was in place.

    Laughing Coyote probably didn’t read that part or forgot about it and was probably just riding the slanderous waves Daisy made. If you think I support the nosepick artists then it’s a safe bet that I base my self worth on getting laid. I’d be happy to classify that case under this alternate context.

  221. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Laughing Coyote probably didn’t read that part or forgot about it and was probably just riding the slanderous waves Daisy made.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, get over yourself. Christ.

    I’m in agreement with John Morales; take a break. Your whining is starting to seriously grate.

  222. says

    No, the reason this is easy to refute is because I stopped defending it.

    this is a sentence that looks like a response to something like “your comments were easy to refute because…”, in which you disagree with what comes after the “because”.

    I didn’t write any comments like that. Neither has anyone else, as far as I can tell. No one here specifically took apart what you wrote and tried to explain why they don’t work. The closest I’ve come to that is to point out that telling people they’ve said what they haven’t isn’t a good argument.

    So what are you responding to?

    The reason I know that is the context is because I established it as such before anyone had a chance to come up with it on their own. I laid out that patriarchy would make it a bad attribute based on that kind of thinking and that I don’t think about it that way.

    you’re doing it again. what does the “that” in the first sentence refer to?
    The rest of that paragraph is unparseable, too. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Learn to write clearer. Include referents for your prepositions. Link ideas and thoughts together, instead of contextlessly dumping them into a conversation. use backlinks if necessary.

  223. says

    Laughing Coyote probably didn’t read that part or forgot about it and was probably just riding the slanderous waves Daisy made.

    now this is fucking close to lying, seeing as TLC has several times over admitted that he expressed himself incorrectly and clumsily

  225. says

    From 209

    your arguments, they are, at this point in time, very shallow and easily refuted, as well as misdirected

    I was hoping we’d drop it when I didn’t say anything further, and figured it would be awfully immature of me to bring it up right after I said I didn’t want to defend it further.

    Now I’m thinking you were probably talking about the lead a horse to water bit but since you didn’t give any reference or backlinks in 218 I can’t be certain.

  226. desertfroglet says

    Andrew, go back to #120, where you wrote this [my emphasis]:

    Seeing as it’s also not your job to get in my fucking way and constantly demean me for caring about people that haven’t had a chance yet maybe you can stop going out of your way to piss me the fuck off.
    But anyway I figure you’re really not into me staying constantly calm as I tend to.

    …I should have flipped the fuck out when you started acting like I’d ever expressed concern for guys that just want to dip their wicks- that is complete bullshit and you’re just trying to fit me into the most convenient stereotype you’ve got on hand so that you can throw out the same rants you’ve practiced so much.

    I absolutely hate the way that you don’t read what you’re replying to. You’ve given me and damn near every impartial observer ample reason to disrespect you and even when I come out with “hey, you’re right” you still belittle me just because you have a reputation here and feel like you can push people around.

    So can you lighten up? I know your cause is a good one and you’ve got good reason to be angry but I can only be so reasonable in the face of you salting the earth like this. I want to grow my understanding here but how long am I supposed to put up with you kicking sand in my face?

    You know, Andrew, you’ve got a real problem. You are blaming everyone else — “vocal women”, in particular — for your own failings. You’re not actually taking any steps to redress your problems, because it’s easier to play the victim.

    You need to be aware that this kind of rationalisation is familiar to many people here. And not in a good way.

  227. says

    andrew, that comment you just quoted @225 does not contain a proposed reason for why your arguments are easily refuted=. So “No, the reason this is easy to refute is because I stopped defending it” is not actually responding to anything in it. what exactly are you imagining into that comment?

    I was hoping we’d drop it when I didn’t say anything further, and figured it would be awfully immature of me to bring it up right after I said I didn’t want to defend it further.

    drop what “it? defend what “it”? do you mean your claim that people were saying and meaning that you were bad because of your virginity? or do you mean the claim that regardless of intent, people might be contributing to patriarchal ideas of sex? Because the former is indefensible because untrue, and the latter isn’t an argument you actually meant, so you can hardly be dropping it

    stop using prepositions. try some nouns and dependent clauses, for a change.

  229. says

    chigau (√-1)
    If I’ve read that it’s been long enough that I don’t recall what I agreed to.
    Let’s see,
    Don’t piss off the overlord- Iffy at this point but I’ll can it if I’m ordered to.
    Mores- This whole thing has been a bit of an effort to decode what they are here. Thought I had at least enough understanding to enter the fray but there was a fairly large disconnect early on and it took me for absolutely ever to pin that down.
    Science blog- I’m not peddling anything you really have to sell with anecdotes so I should be good there.
    Liberal blog- if anything that seems like another strike against the virgin insults.
    Rude blog- I could see why you’d think I didn’t get this one but I’ve said a few times now that I can take insults so long as they come with content, so basically not logical fallacies.
    The later apology angle is regrettable but I still haven’t heard from Brownian about whether I was an insincere moron the entire time post Daisy.
    Casual chatter- Figured that’s what I’ve been doing since about the point I went beyond redemption with Brownian.

    And then in banworthy offenses I’d only be in any remote danger of the stupidity category but I’ll get better with that. Don’t take my word for it though, it isn’t worth enough coming off of… all of this.

  230. chigau (√-1) says

    andrewriding
    IN THE NAME OF OF ALL THAT IS SACRED AND MUNDANE:
    SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!!!!!!

  231. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Liberal blog- if anything that seems like another strike against the virgin insults.

    Jadehawk and I have both explained ourselves. I know I expressed myself clumsily, but how can you take the exact opposite meaning like that?

    Of all the things we’re insulting you for, virgin is certainly not one of them.

    Idiotic, grating, obtuse, semi-incoherent, pathetic, self-pitying, obnoxious, and good old stupid, now those are a bit closer to the mark.

  232. says

    Huh.
    I made special efforts to not be silencing someone when I said that and still got a lot of backlash from it. Guess that’s not the mos I thought it was.

    Anyway if you, as a group, really want me to shut up there’s this easy trick: don’t use my name and don’t quote my text. I’m not entirely desperate to get the last word but I will keep talking for as long as you keep talking to me, outside of a few special cases.

  233. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    when I said that and still got a lot of backlash from it

    What that? What it? Will you stop with the fucking pronouns? NOBODY KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

  234. John Morales says

    andrewriding:

    Anyway if you, as a group, really want me to shut up there’s this easy trick: don’t use my name and don’t quote my text.

    You had your chance, chump.

    [1] I’m not entirely desperate to get the last word [2] but I will keep talking for as long as you keep talking to me, [3] outside of a few special cases.

    1. You say one thing, you do another.

    (guess which is more credible?)

    2. Promises, promises… we’ll see, shan’t we? ;)

    3. Your cowardice is duly noted, coward.

  235. says

    I’m not entirely desperate to get the last word but I will keep talking for as long as you keep talking to me, outside of a few special cases.

    in that case, this conversation will never end, and you’ll piss people off even more. suit yourself.

  236. says

    233. When I said to quit talking because you’re making a fool of yourself. To Daisy.
    Currently I’m sticking around to see if the difference in response is just because I am new blood.
    234. n_n
    235. Maybe. It’s never happened in unmoderated forums and if I really do something inappropriate it would end with me in the dungeon.

  238. says

    I should probably ask this: does presenting the numbers like that (post 236) resolve my “what are these pronouns talking about!?” problem or is it tacky and/or rude?

    237: Not having administrative grade access to the server this all runs on I’d say yeah, I pretty much have to shut up if he tells me to. If I don’t do it voluntarily then he can force me through software.

  239. says

    Currently I’m sticking around to see if the difference in response is just because I am new blood.

    it isn’t. when regulars get into situations where they’ve thoroughly pissed everyone off, they’re also told to leave for a while until everyone gets a chance to cool off. It’s just that Daisy hasn’t done this.

    It’s never happened in unmoderated forums and if I really do something inappropriate it would end with me in the dungeon.

    well, being tedious occasionally leads to banning, so it may well be that dungeoning will be what will ultimately end this conversation. That would be unfortunate though, since you’re annoying but redeemable, if you’d only stop abusing pronouns.

  240. says

    I should probably ask this: does presenting the numbers like that (post 236) resolve my “what are these pronouns talking about!?” problem or is it tacky and/or rude?

    it’s marginally easier, but with long posts or specific issues adressed in a post it’s still too vague. quote, or actually say what you’re talking about.

  241. says

    The reason I’m doing “this” is actually a response to people telling me to keep my writing simpler. When my pronouns all direct to the subject in the previous post I don’t make the sentences so convoluted. If you look closely you can see some hints of the internal tug of war as I’ve gone back and forth between both kinds of terrible writing. I’m not pleasing anyone by bouncing around like that but I have to slow down tremendously in order to put a stop to both simultaneously.

    I was liking the numbers because I wouldn’t have had to worry about breaking quote tags but I guess I should toughen up and just stop being so bad at html.

    So why hadn’t Daisy pushed the limit?

  242. says

    So why hadn’t Daisy pushed the limit?

    that’s a seriously weird question. Daisy was pissing off one person: you. pissing off only one person doesn’t push limits (not even if they’re regulars). she also didn’t make any comments that would make any apologies by her sound very dishonest, as you have, meaning she didn’t talk herself into a corner from which only more pissed-off-ness could result.

  243. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    «Calling the actions of marginalized people “unfair” leads me to employ a simple litmus test: which do I think is better in the long run: it being socially acceptable for a person to do what a marginalized person is doing, or have the privilege that action is in response to?»

  244. says

    How’s new blood to tell special action from the margins apart from general mores?
    *I slowed down and stopped myself from using an undefined ‘that.’
    **I haven’t read the link yet so I had to make up something stupid to call it.

  245. says

    How’s new blood to tell special action from the margins apart from general mores?

    I don’t know what this refers or responds to. who was talking about special action from the margins vs. general mores? probably this would be clearer if I knew what “the link” refers to. are you talking about the one in #243?

  246. says

    Indeed, that is the case.
    As a response to 245.

    I’m probably over confident in guessing how long I have to type these before another post comes in and bisects what I’m responding to and my post. I think I got the wrong idea about that being ok from the earliest posts in the thread.

  247. consciousness razor says

    Christ, Andrew, could be any more boring? I’m trying to sleep here, and you keep waking me up with all your interesting and insightful comments.

  251. says

    Jadehawk
    Yeah, I realized that a little ways into it. I think the thread health will improve quite a bit when there’s more material like it, particularly how it isn’t about me.

    Anyway Mr razor, I’m ready to finally shut the hell up so you don’t have to worry about me waking you with email alerts again, until tomorrow night.

  252. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    **I haven’t read the link yet

    It might be helpful if you did. I do expect you to come back and say something like “I’m not entirely sure how this relates to the discussion,” since I’m aware that it’s not perfectly obvious. But I can’t answer that question before you’re fully equipped to ask it, which you won’t be until you read the link.

    it has nothing to do with being “new blood” here.

    Yup.

  253. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Jesus christ Andrew, go whistle Zippity-Doo-Dah out your asshole for all I care. Just remember to stick the flounce.

  254. Menyambal -- damned dirty ape says

    “stick the flounce”

    I have to smile every time I read that.

    And feel sad when I think of how few can do it.

  255. Brownian says

    In comment 213 andrewriding wrote this:

    My early apologies didn’t interrupt the flow so much. When those were ignored repeatedly I tried to draw more attention because I thought I could have been too subtle.

    Presumably this is in response to my comment 212, but who the fuck knows? Not even andrewriding, I suspect. Because, having gone through his comments since he claimed he was “assaulted” in 143, these are the only portions of his comments that seem to refer to that particular conflation:

    Comment 147:

    I’m open to the idea that I’m seeing this all wrong though, so could you tell me what an appropriate cut off point is for referring to textual exchanges as assault? It seemed like being hit repeatedly as you’re accused of actions you haven’t taken as you try to crawl away from from the relentless force that pays no attention to your pleas of innocence and requests for mercy had a strong poetic connection to what I’ve just gone through. It’s less severe than the real thing but it’s not like dealing with small issues completely halts our efforts on larger issues.

    Not an apology.

    Comment 149:

    Are you saying that you’re personally upset by that term? I can stop using it if that’s the case.

    Not an apology.

    Comment 159:

    Telling me that caps lock is different from a physical blow seems to indicate that you haven’t been treating me like a regular person from the start.

    But hey, at least we’re finally talking about things I actually said.

    Not an apology.

    After that, he resumes complaining about being socially sanctioned against for his lack of sex.

    So, andrewriding, (and for the motherfucking love of clarity, use goddamn blockquotes) where are all of these apologies of yours that got ignored?

  256. opposablethumbs, que le pouce enragé mette les pouces says

    @andrewriding, I may be too late for this to have a chance of being any use, but I’d suggest your best bet might be to lurk for a while. Lurk around any Pharyngula threads (including TET, The Endless Thread) without posting anything for a bit, if you’d care to try and get an idea of what works and what doesn’t and more importantly WHY that is so. Read a lot (more than you might think at first glance that you need to) and I’m sure you can get it. Good luck.

  257. says

    Brownian
    So, andrewriding, (and for the motherfucking love of clarity, use goddamn blockquotes) where are all of these apologies of yours that got ignored?

    From Post 180
    “I’m sorry. That was completely inappropriate. You are right that what I got is not paramount to being battered by an aggressor. I take it back.”

    This one came with the “but you don’t care if I’m sorry” whining. It looks decent while being quoted though since it’s a ‘stop everything else I’m doing and make sure I don’t start talking about anything else’ kind of apology. ‘You were right’ and ‘that was a mistake on my part’ were the kinds of things I was counting earlier, though in hind sight they should be called something less than an apology.

    -I didn’t mean for you to have to search through the whole thread like that, I was asking more for a gut reaction and planned to accept it without you having to use quotes to prove it to me.

    So then the answer is yes, I deluded myself and I never gave you a proper chance to accept an apology. Admitting it doesn’t feel good but I have to accept it. The effects of letting my emotions go were much longer lasting than I anticipated and I plan to be much more cautious about that in the future.

    Beyond that I can’t really offer anything to make up for this. I’m open to suggestions but I understand that I probably just have to let you hate me for awhile.

    opposablethumbs
    Lurk around any Pharyngula threads (including TET, The Endless Thread) without posting anything for a bit

    I did lurk but not in TET. A big problem was that lurking didn’t tell me what portion of a thread people read before making their comments. I was eager to let the default be my crazy top-to-bottom while I eventually saw that a bunch of the time it’s probably closer to a page or two and there’s not a whole lot of recall for distant quotes unless people see a reason to go reread them.

    At this point I can see a whole lot of potential reasons I should have paid more attention to TET.

  258. Brownian says

    Oh, it was the apoogy in 180. I thought you were referring to ones previous to that, and I addressed that one in particular in 189, so I see no need to deal with it again. Thanks for responding though.

    Beyond that I can’t really offer anything to make up for this. I’m open to suggestions but I understand that I probably just have to let you hate me for awhile.

    Well, you can climb down from that cross, for one. People here have offered some good solutions for not being so cloddish. Follow them. You wouldn’t be the first commenter to go from “person everyone yells at” to “person (most) people like and respect”.

  260. The Swordfish, Supreme Overlord of Sporks says

    I admit I don’t read full comment threads that often, but this is easily the longest I’ve seen a single dipshit monopolize the discussion. It impresses me, really; most of the porcupine receptacles I’ve seen tend to give up by this point. His apparent shame at his virginity, combined with the sheer amount of time he’s devoted to trying to convince the Horde that he’s so much better than them (and especially all those uppity vocal wimminz), suggests deep-seated sexual insecurity to the pop psychologist in me.

    And Andy, I know this is a bit late, but allow me to add my humble contributions to the many excellent insults observations previously offered by the regulars.

    The unspeakable brown sludge oozing from your every orifice could suffocate a small nation, you vast ocean of steaming feculence. Your diseased odor calls to mind every horror of war and strife yet visited upon humanity, you insidious amalgamation of all that inspires hatred in the hearts of sentient beings. Not all the violence of a trillion battles could prepare one for the revolting sight of your horrific visage. You revolt and sicken me, you unadulterated compilation of filth and decay.

    If you require further “abuse,” I shall direct you to the master, Stephen Fry.

  261. Brownian says

    Well I quoted that one since I thought you were saying that I never apologized once.

    Again, I’m amazed at your inability to understand simple fucking English.

    WHEN I MENTIONED THE PROBLEMS WITH THE ONE APOLOGY (COUNT IT: ONE (1), NOT TWO (2), NOT MORE THAN TWO (2) BUT ONE (1)) IN YOUR COMMENT 180, YOU THEN MADE SOME VAGUE FUCKING REFERENCE TO (ASSUMEDLY) PREVIOUS, “early apologies” (PLURAL, WHICH MEANS MORE THAN ONE (1) TO PEOPLE WHO AREN’T ANDREWRIDING) WHICH PEOPLE “ignored repeatedly”. THIS IS WHAT YOU (ANDREWRIDING) WROTE;

    My early apologies didn’t interrupt the flow so much. When those were ignored repeatedly

    SEE THE REFERENCES TO MULTIPLE (MORE THAN ONE (1)) APOLOGIES? THE PLURAL THAT YOU (ANDREWRIDING) USED? SEE HOW THAT WOULD LEAD SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A FUCKING MORON (NOT ANDREWRIDING) TO ASSUME YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY (THAT’S WHAT FUCKING “EARLY” IMPLIES) APOLOGISED MORE THAN ONCE (AGAIN, THAT’S WHAT “APOLOGIES” AND “THOSE” IMPLY).

    THAT’S WHY I THEN LOOKED OVER ALL YOUR “EARLY” COMMENTS FOR THESE MULTIPLE (MORE THAN ONE (1)) “APOLOGIES”:

    So, andrewriding, (and for the motherfucking love of clarity, use goddamn blockquotes) where are all of these apologies of yours that got ignored?

    SEE HOW I (BROWNIAN) USED PLURAL IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY YOU (ANDREWRIDING) DID? IF I (BROWNIAN) WANTED TO SAY YOU (ANDREWRIDING) NEVER APOLOGISED ONCE, I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN SOMETHING LIKE “I don’t think andrewriding aplogised even once” BECAUSE I’M NOT A GODDAMN IDIOT INCOMPETENT.

    NOW, UNLESS YOU’RE INTERESTED IN HAVING A CONVERSATION IN THE REAL FUCKING WORLD WHERE THE WORDS WE MEAN ACTUALLY HAVE GENERALLY AGREED UPON MEANINGS (FOR INSTANCE, GODDAMN FUCKING PLURALS INDICATE SOME FUCKING NUMBER GREATER THAN ONE (1)), DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST, OR I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN, EAT YOUR FACE, AND EXPLAIN TO YOUR PARENTS THAT I’VE FINALLY FREED THEM FROM THE CURSE.

  262. Brownian says

    I shouldn’t have written that.

    andrewriding, regardless of whether or not you respond to this with more FUN WITH WORD MEANINGS, you will remain untracked down (by me), your face uneaten (by me), and your parents still cursed.