hyphz posted:

Again, the word "blame" is used here to confuse by conflation. He should not _blame_ the customers, because they have done no wrong by not buying a car. But at the same time, unless he is assuming that the customers are automatons, he has no way to assume that he had any control over what happened. He can't evaluate why he's failing because he can't assume the customers' actions were predictable given his. All he - or his boss or anyone else - can say is "I cannot engage in further thought about this situation without resolving the paradox of free will vs. determinism and since that cannot be resolved, evaluation ends here. That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence." Mic drop.

What am I trying to argue? I'm not really trying to argue, I'm trying to explain what the contradictory attitude to persuasion I referred to earlier is, because another poster apparently assumed it was something to do with rape. The contradictory attitude is that society blames people for failing to persuade based on results. If there is free will, there is no grounds for such blame because the persuader's actions do not determine the results. If there is no free will, then the persuader also had no free will, thus no choice and no responsibility.

Imagined posted:

The fact that you think of relationships like a property transaction is pretty telling. You don't have to persuade a woman to like you. You are a human being and she is a human being, and if you talk to her as such she will be attracted to you or she won't. You don't convince her of the value of choosing you as a mate. You're not arguing a case. You're not selling something. You're just being a person, and they're being a person. You BOTH have free will, equally.

hyphz posted:

That's just a variant on what I'm actually saying. She will be attracted to him, or she won't. Outside a few obvious edge cases it isn't determined by his actions. So why is it his fault if she isn't?

sincx posted:

What's the disagreement here?

Shanghaied posted:

"Why do anything at all when there's no guarantee of success because of free will?"

Imagined posted:

Have you heard the saying "If all your relationships fail, the common denominator is you."?

How about "If one specific girl doesn't like you, fair enough, but if LITERALLY NO ONE WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU, EVER, it's probably your fault somehow."

"Shanghaied' posted:

"Why do anything at all when there's no guarantee of success because of free will?"

hyphz posted:

hyphz posted:

And that's exactly what I'm saying is wrong, because of free will. The fact that the follow up is ".. your fault somehow" just shows that the speaker has no idea how and thus can't support their claim. I mean, how many people are we talking about before we're deciding on "literally no one"?


Nope! Just "There's no guarantee of success because of free will." That's no reason not to do anything, success doesn't have to be guaranteed. It is reason not to blame people who don't succeed, especially if there's no obvious reason why (which I accept there is for warped incels), but certainly not to make judgments like the one above. I mean, it's hardly surprising people end up warped if people around them are hammering into them the idea that there's something fundamentally wrong with them, but won't say what it is.

super macho dude posted:

hyphz posted:

Again, the word "blame" is used here to confuse by conflation. He should not _blame_ the customers, because they have done no wrong by not buying a car. But at the same time, unless he is assuming that the customers are automatons, he has no way to assume that he had any control over what happened. He can't evaluate why he's failing because he can't assume the customers' actions were predictable given his. All he - or his boss or anyone else - can say is "I cannot engage in further thought about this situation without resolving the paradox of free will vs. determinism and since that cannot be resolved, evaluation ends here. That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence." Mic drop.

What am I trying to argue? I'm not really trying to argue, I'm trying to explain what the contradictory attitude to persuasion I referred to earlier is, because another poster apparently assumed it was something to do with rape. The contradictory attitude is that society blames people for failing to persuade based on results. If there is free will, there is no grounds for such blame because the persuader's actions do not determine the results. If there is no free will, then the persuader also had no free will, thus no choice and no responsibility.

Imagined posted:

There's nothing you can do to make a woman attracted to you if she isn't already, but there are thousands of things you can do to repel her even if she started out liking you.

lol posted:

Nothing but respect for this guy. He is both physically and intellectually superior to me. He deserves all the recognition he's getting.

an incel posted:

An anglecel is a guy who is good looking from most angles, except one angle where he looks extremely subhuman. Most of the more attractive but not super good looking normies are anglecel.
Anglecels can get gfs no problem, but then after a few months of dating, the gf sees the anglecel from "the angle", and panics. "Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, I want out of this relationship! - he's not the man I thought he was when I met him!"
Of course, the girl will come up with supposed "personality flaws" that the anglecel had, and that's what she will tell everyone, and even herself, for why she's breaking up with him. But the real reason she broke up with him will always be because she saw him from "the angle".

Shanghaied posted:

quote:

it says he is a model since he was 6. he was getting more poon as a child than most men get in their whole lives

an incel posted:

Consider this, the seven deadly sins of history applied to western women in 2017. Modern womyn are notorious for committing these sins and I will cite a few examples. Female independence, sexual liberation, no consequences for ones actions results in said women being given carte blanche to do as they will to men in the dating/life game.
LUST -this one is easy, women openly lust for money, Chad's cock, Chad's social status, among other material things
GLUTTONY -many women getting fatter and forcing you to be attracted to their gunt, she just can't control what she shoves in her gullett, enough said
GREED -all women want the top 20% of men for themselves, (he fucks me so I'm validated and I have high SMV) the other 80% of men don't exist -AF/BB, when she is about to hit the wall, settle for a 5-6/10 beta with $, coerce him into marriage with future plans for divorce rape to secure myself financially
SLOTH -everyone knows women are lazy and love to be served -women on tinder app don't message first, they just sit back and lazily wait for the 8/10 faces to contact them (why should they risk rejection, they don't have to)
WRATH -you want to see their wrath, reject a girl and watch her go NUCLEAR immediately, FULL-STOP, women are the opitime of drama, she will burn you alive with the most hurtful comment possible
ENVY -female hypergamy, no need to explain, they compare themselves to their girlfriends, sisters, etc. and are always looking to upgrade & out-do them, no exceptions
PRIDE -pride is strongly related to ego, e.g. narcissism, we all know most women are narcissists.
Now, before you say well men are guilty of these sins too, here is the difference. Men have had the ability and even desire to perform many of these sins throughout history and today, however they are not doing so en masse, but womyn ARE in 2017.

an incel posted:

Many people including some proof posted by an incel shows that Our community is practically regarded as the worst community out there, even though there are other far more evil and popular subs, like child rape, violent racism, sadistic misogyny and terrorism. In our controlled media, there is often a dark reason behind such concentrated public animosity, and things are never so simple. What could be the reason for us being labelled by the illuminati as public enemy number 1? How are incels such a threat to the system that we get our very own brigade of third world dictatorship style cyber troopers and downvote professionals?
Also, does anyone see the remarkable similarities between the animosity of the illuminati towards religions which glorify virginity and an incel movement composed of virgins?

an incel posted:

So here me out I read an article and now I'm thinking, if you look at females today, you see they're nothing like the men of the homo species, our human ancestors. The earliest Human fossils are men. Female fossils don't come til much later.

Now what it seems to be is the what we now think of as the 'Human female' was actually evolved like a virus. Virus's invade other cells and turn them into copies of themselves by making them take on their genetic code. So early on in human evolution is it not possible that females were originally some other species, and just hijacked humanity genetically?
That happened with mitochondria, those are organs in a cell but they used to be there own species of bacteria. Then they infested cells and now all everyone's cell's today has them. That's how they took advantage of nature's system to survive. The female, being of inferior quality has no option but to rely on men for it's survival. We see this in modern society. Whjy not in Nature too. Females were a parasitic species closer to virus's and bacteria hopeless to survive naturally. This species needed to use another and ride along on it.

Hell you even see it in religion. In the bible Woman wasn't really that but just inferior Man, God made the female from a bone of the Male. The male came first then was manipulated to spawn the female. There are many examples like this.
I'm no scientist but I bet if you tested it you'd find proof. Women were only able to survive this long by using men for resources and for their genes. Men of the human species were the perfect host-- strong, fit, enduring. Little do we know we have been carrying along the evolutionary hitchhiker that is females for thousands of years.
This, explains why they only mate with 10% of guys. Guy's aren't even from their species so if they're gonna gently caress another species it has to be men who benefit them. Thusly they choose, through deep prehistoric instinct, the human individuals who most remind them of those early males their ancestors attached to, thereby saving them from extinction. The males back when being a man was a badge of honor and strength, who in the human race still preserves manhood? …It ain't us incels that I can tell you.

So that's my theory think what you will. But to my human brethren I would say, Cast off the parasite, there is nothing to lose but your pain. It has done nothing for us, only for itself. It will lech the blood from your body and the money from your hard work. We can no longer be slaves to an inferior race.

an incel posted:

I see some people debate this. You can't be both an incel and a cuck.
A few days ago someone posted about hearing their mom cheating with chad.
THAT is how an incel becomes a cuck. We all have mothers. Many of us have sisters. Every single time your mom or your sister takes Chad's load she is cucking you.
Cuckcels exist. It's beyond over, boyos. We're megacucked.

china bot posted:

Koyaanisgoatse posted:

is there some reason why incels use "womyn"? as far as i know "womyn" is only used by uber-feminists

china bot posted:

An Incel posted:

I see some people debate this. You can't be both an incel and a cuck.
A few days ago someone posted about hearing their mom cheating with chad.
THAT is how an incel becomes a cuck. We all have mothers. Many of us have sisters. Every single time your mom or your sister takes Chad's load she is cucking you.
Cuckcels exist. It's beyond over, boyos. We're megacucked.

Croisquessein posted:

Say Nothing posted:

Chadler.

Croisquessein posted:

What does cuck even mean anymore?? Like at least when it was just a fetish thing it had a definition, now everything is cucking everything else all the time.

china bot posted:

Hobologist posted:

Chadler, seriously?

Chadolf.

Palpek posted:

/r/Incels: I'm no scientist but I bet if you tested it you'd find proof