MMX2010

Rollo Tomassi, of The Rational Male, counter-attacks. http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/ "For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition. Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing. Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext. Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself."

It's not true that there are only two types of "artists" - "struggling" and "successful". Which "people" are you talking about?

No. I've read Aaron Clarey's blog for over a year, and Aaron has referred to Stefan multiple times, all respectfully. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/search?q=molyneux I dunno whether he's a member of the forum, but if you give him some pushback, he'll retract / apologize if he's convinced. For example, I know that the YouTube advertisement program works by placing random (and skippable) commercial in each video. So a twenty-minute Stef video would have a skippable commercial at the very beginning. Something like this would be totally fine (in my opinion, and probably Stef's....although I know there are other issues that Stef has considered and spoken about). But a three hour call-in show would have skippable videos at the beginning AND throughout the call-in show itself. So, literally, 70 minutes into the video, some random-stupid-ad would appear. Since Stef can't control where these ads are placed, they could randomly appear right in the middle of a caller's nine-minute-explanation of his childhood, and no one wants ads placed there.

Are you assuming that, "All we've got to do in order to confront child abusers is just look at these videos over and over again until we get really angry."? Given that you posted those videos in order to make us angry, it certainly seems that you're assuming that. But the process is much more complicated. I think less than 10% of FDR listeners will ever learn to confront child abusers, because it's a skill that none of us begin with that also requires years to develop. That's why I admire Joel Patterson so much, and have told him so multiple times. Have you ever publically confronted a child abuser, Nathan?

I agree with you. I don't think Nathan is being malicious, just unwise (with regard to his own well-being) and insensitive (with regard to everyone else's well-being). There's simply no reason to acquire a gigantic list of child abuse videos to post on here. No lesson is being learned. No personal issue is being discussed. It's just, "I'm mad. Be mad along with me." I'm angry because Nathan would've been better served NOT looking for those child abuse videos in the first place. And if he hadn't looked for them, we wouldn't have seen them. So the ultimate question is, "WHY, Nathan?" (And your answer, "To trigger an emotional response." doesn't work for me. I hope it was something deeper like, "Well, I was feeling angry because of something else in my personal life. And I didn't know what else to do....so I posted those videos so that others could be angry alongside of me." Because if you didn't have a deeper motivation, then you exposed the entire forum to child abuse videos for no "real" reason.) Again, I don't think you were ever malicious - just short-sighted and inconsiderate.

Interesting idea there. Has this ever been tried before?

I've three things to say in response to this. (1) You never told us that you were a life-long comic and artist. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.) If you had, you would've gotten more empathy (from me at least....can't speak for the board). (2) BrentB made a similar argument to WastachMan, "A comedian writing a joke or a sketch is not likely to be passive aggressive. People who are trying to make people laugh are typically doing just that - trying to make people laugh. They're not trying to change you the way that someone in your life might. Their incentive is in getting laughs and feeling accepted and valued by people, not messing with stranger's heads." (3) I didn't like BrentB's argument, because I think it should only apply to established / talented comedians and artists, not to amateurs who're just starting out. And when I click on Cartanimation's video list, I see only five videos - over one year - and not many followers/subscribers. It's certainly possible that he'll become a sensation, and I'll look foolish when someone adds my post to his facebook wall - but until then, I feel perfectly comfortable with my assumption that both the video-creator and the OP were trolls.

RJ, it was you who fogged the discussion. You asked me, earlier, how my dismissal of yours, James Dean's, and Josh F's opinions wasn't "bigotry". That's really easy to answer: Dismissing other people's opinions is not, in itself, an act of "bigotry". Earlier in time, I was open-minded about tattoos and piercings. Then I felt discomfort / annoyance by their presence. Then I, with an open-mind considered the opinions that you're presenting now - and rejected them. Because I was open-minded at the time, I wasn't being bigoted. And because your (collective) opinions aren't NEW INFORMATION, then I can dismiss them without being bigoted. Your problem, RJ, as I've mentioned multiple times, is (1) you never asked me what opinions I've already considered, while forming my position on tattoos and piercings, and (2) you assumed that I was ignorant of the arguments you were advancing. Once you assumed I was ignorant - (which is, ironically, quite bigoted) - you assumed that your opinions ought to change my mind. Once you assumed that you were correct, you boxed yourself into an incorrect (!) diagnosis of "bigotry". So, please apologize for calling me "bigoted" - especially since "bigoted" is a highly inflammatory accusation to make. Failing that, please reflect on the argument I made to James Dean - that you're so focused on the emotional reaction of "discrimination" that you've improperly glued together true bigotry - (such as homophobia and racism, which hates on people for things out of the control) - with "false bigotry" - (such as fat-shaming and tattoo-possession, which hates on people for things well-within their control).

The reason I haven't addressed your premises is that I object to the structure of your argument. Here's a host of examples that follow your argument structure. (1) (a) Going to college is generally a good idea, because college graduates have higher average salaries than non-grads. (b) Some people who have never been to college make a lot of money. (2) (a) Refusing to do to the doctor - ever, over a period of years - is generally a bad idea, because it leads to unhealthy outcomes. (b) Some people who never go to the doctor, over decades, are quite healthy. (3) (a) Smoking is a really bad idea, because it generally leads to health problems. (b) Some people who smoke live long, healthy, wonderful lives. (4) (a) The majority of people with tattoos and piercings have unprocessed childhood trauma. (b) Some people who are virtuous have tattoos. Furthermore, you're not ONLY "stating facts". You used the phrase "inferior methods" to describe my process, which is a word designed to inspire changing-of-mind. (Just as Josh F. used the phrase "morally inconsistent", and Rainbow Jamz used the word "bigotry".) Hilariously, I don't mind that you're trying to change mine (or anyone else's) mind. But I despise the way you're only claiming to be "stating facts". I would much rather you overtly state, "My perspective on tattoos and piercings is so much more enlightened than yours, and it leads to far greater relationships than you'll ever have with your perspective!" Why? Because such overtness allows me to demand empirical evidence. You would instead of alluding to your virtuous relationships would have to openly provide evidence of them. First, a request. Re-read some of the colored-texts arguments I posted earlier, because each of them strongly implies that tattooes and piercings are designed to either resist or avoid therapy. Then get back to me. Second, a suggestion. The most sacred ideas we learn as children are always the most difficult to surrender. When Thunderf00t and his other clowns were criticizing Stefan for the copyright violations, they were using big-boy words like "censorship" to explain their outrage. But the problem was that the YouTube poster was only deprived of his audience by being prevented from posting on Youtube. Since he was free to post his videos on other, less popular, websites, he was never censored. But "free speech" and "censorship" are so deeply ingrained in their psyches, because they were repeated so frequently in childhood, that the Stef-critics can't see my point. Similarly, if you're under 25 and went to public school, the words "bigotry" and "discrimination" are powerfully engrained in your psyche. Hence, you see a tattooed person get "discriminated against", and you experience a hyper-strong emotional reaction. But the problem is that tattoos/piercings are A CHOICE in a way that "being Hispanic" is not - (which renders your earlier comparison of tattoos to "being Hispanic" really bad). And so I would suggest that you're conflating ANY situation where someone "feels discriminated against" into one big category, irrespective of whether they chose their situation. So racism and homophobia are lumped in together with fat-shaming and tattoo-shaming, simply because they produce the same emotional response. But race and sexual orientation ARE NOT choices, whereas getting fat and being pierced ARE - with the latter being entirely a choice. So your equating of those four events is flawed.

At bare minimum, I hope prolix would follow the comments that LifeGoesOnBrah made on to YouTube video, particularly a facebook link that should NOT be posted on this message board. Then he can say that he was wrong, and we were right. Better would be if he could also ask how we knew the OP wasn't posting in good faith, so he can learn something about himself and us. Best would be to figure out the childhood elements that led him to defend the OP so strongly.

I was very much offended, probably more so than you. But I didn't push back on Nathan Diehl because he and I got into a big spat on the transgender thread. And I wasn't sure whether that was clouding my judgment. Now that you've pushed backed on Nathan, I realize that: (1) I'm more offended now than I was then. (2) You don't have the amygdala-attacking tools to "get to the bottom" of Nathan's motivations, actions, and so on. And (3) This board promotes a very non-confrontational / peaceful perspective, so I'm reluctant to use those amygdala-attacking tools on him. So I just leave Nathan alone, and also know that you're very uncomfortable with those tools. I feel no ill-will towards you, Nathan, nor this board's non-confrontational perspective - mostly because I could be dead-wrong about Nathan's intentions / actions in this thread and because it's really not worth causing a spat over.

Yup, just read the relevant comments myself. If "schlockofgod" is reading this, thanks for your YouTube comments to LifeGoesOnBrah.

Have you either asked the homeless directly, or acquired any scientific research on the relationship between "homelessness" and "lack of dignity"? I ask because: (1) Many homeless people are portrayed on television and by Daniel Mackler in his research on mental illness as having extremely high amounts of dignity. (2) If you're wrong about the lack-of-dignity that homeless people feel, then you're projecting your own expectations of lack-of-dignity onto the homeless themselves, rather than understanding homeless people as they are.

I liked those Sandman videos a lot. Thanks ETU.

You also said that you're trying to change the minds of those who exclude people based on tattoos and piercings (meaning me), and that you find my behavior to be "morally inconsistent". Since "morally inconsistent" is a big, big word, it's hard for me to believe that you support my voluntary decision to not-associate with tattoo'ed and pierced individuals. You say you're not fazed by my decision to not-associate with tattoo'ed and pierced individuals, BUT you call such a decision "morally inconsistent" - which strongly suggests that you ARE fazed by it. Listen carefully, James. I don't care whether you call it "giving advice", "not giving advice", or "making a strong case as to why tattooing is a legitimate art form". Because no matter which term you use, you are attempting to alter MY desires and perceptions until they match YOUR desires and perceptions. But do you even know why my desires and perceptions are? What kinds of friendships do I already have? What kind of friendships do I want? What types of romantic relationships have I had, have I wanted, and want now? Pertinent to this topic, how does the presence/absence of tattoos relate to all of these questions? You don't know the answers to any of those questions, because you haven't asked. Josh F. didn't ask. Rainbow Jamz asked, but only because he wanted to evaluate my answers for the presence/absence of bigotry - not because he wanted to understand me FIRST, so that he could help me SECOND. ---------------------------- *sigh* James, if tattoos were randomly assigned to people, and depicted random symbols, placed on random parts of the body, then you're right. Only an idiot would use either the presence / absence of tattoos or the nature of those tattoos to derive a person's character. However, tattoos are chosen by their recipients, and are (almost) always non-random symbols. So your argument is clearly self-contradictory. So your argument "Virtue has nothing to do with tattoos" is self-detonating because of the nature of those tattoos. (It's also a side-splittingly funny argument, because it basically means, "Tattoos are just random, meaningless symbols with no explanatory power whatsoever, and anyone who perceives explanatory power in tattoos is a fool. Newsflash: Every tattoo-possessor or piercing-possessor grants extraordinary explanatory power to every single tattoo/piercing they possess.)

First off, thank you for assuming that I already know things, rather than assuming that I'm ignorant of what everyone else has argued. Secondly, I allow Stef to lead me because of his Strength, Devotion, Seriousness, and Humility. (1) I let Stef lead me, because he has achieved strength on his own, acquired so much knowledge on his own, acquired so much relationship happiness on his own, and has chosen to help/fight the entire world on his own. Stef has become so strong in his focus, his mission, and his character that I can easily imagine a hungry lion attacking Stef during the opening rant of a call in show *AND* being put into a sleeper hold by Stef. Yet the most important thing is NOT that I imagine him subduing a lion with his bare hands - it's that I know the first thing he'll say after subduing the lion is, "Mike, who is our first caller?" (2) Click this - http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/11/18/go-full-gorilla/ - Read the article if you want, but definitely scroll down to the first comment by Leo, click "show more" and look at the photo. The dying man is able to die like that, because he was consistently living right beforehand. He didn't discover in that moment that, "You can destroy ALL of a man's wealth, a man's family, a man's relationships, a man's reputation, and his bodily-integrity through torture/murder - but the MAN will still remain." No. He reminded himself of all that everyday, year after year. So that, when it was time for him to die, he was able to stand like that. Instantly. Like a BOSS. (Stef can die like that - easily, though I hope he never has to. More impressive, MMD can almost die like that - and his growth as a person from who he was before FDR to who he will eventually become is amazing. Respect.) (3) "The MAN that still remains" is comprised of his values, his hopes, his desires, and his judgments. Consequently, the most sacred thing you can do to anyone is try to change their minds! And when you try to change someone else's mind, you'd better be Strong, Serious, Devoted, and Humble. Strong in yourself, Serious in exploring the topic of conversation, Devoted to meeting the needs of your target-of-conversion, and Humble enough to both admit when you were wrong and to constantly remind yourself of the importance of Strength/Seriousness/Devotion. No "doing it just to see what happens". No "seeing who agrees with me, so I can form lasting relationships with them". No "making yourself feel better about yourself because you argued your point". Changing someone else's mind is never casual. Never. ------------------------ My answer is funny to me, and outright flabbergasting to many. My base opinions about people with tattoos have been strengthened by my base opinions about people who support people with tattoos. Because I don't respect the leadership capabilities of those who've tried to change my mind, I'm far less likely to associate with tattooed / pierced individuals. (It's as simple as, "If people you don't respect all try to convince you to do X, you should do the opposite of X. It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong; it matters that you shouldn't follow whomever you don't respect.") I first formulated my opinions about people with tattoos from this article, which I've already linked in this thread. http://www.returnofkings.com/45334/5-reasons-why-girls-with-tattoos-andor-piercings-are-broken It's not so much that the article itself is perfectly written, but that the reactions of people who disagreed with it were hilarious. The article is posted on returnofkings.com - whose "About" link says the following: The article itself says "Women With Tattoos Are Broken - meaning "mentally unstable, unsuitable for long-term-relationships, promiscuous, and so on." Now a mentally composed response would've been: (1) To recognize that ROK is a niche website with a niche audience. (2) To recognize that they don't have to read that article, if they don't want to. (3) To accept that they don't have the power (or right) to change the minds of Matt Forney and his ilk. (4) To at least realize that, "Hey, if I tweet him a death threat or insult, his point-of-view of tattooed and pierced women will be strengthened. So, even though I've already thought of tweeting him one, I should restrain myself, for my own sake." Instead, death threats and insults galore - all of which he retweeted, some of which he retweeted and trolled back to. ------------------------------------ Hannah: As an aside, the reason that I opened up to you is that you were NOT trying to change my mind. You were trying to get to understand my mind. I hold people who try to change my mind to very high standards, but I easily talk to those who try to understand my mind - provided they have some empathy. Your empathy was exceptional.

On a less-abstract note, "The purpose of loving parents is to train their children in the most efficient way possible. Because science has discover that the most efficient way possible doesn't involve any form of either consistent or occasionally physical assault (i.e. - spanking), then the YouTube commenters parents failed him/her by not being superlative parents." Maybe I shouldn't have said, "on a less-abstract note....".

Oh boy. My favorite Manosphere writer is Rollo Tomassi, author of therationalmale.com blog. My absolute favorite saying of his is, "You cannot negotiate desire." When you say, "the most consistent way to determine if people have unprocessed trauma is to ask them, not to rely on physical markers.", you're implying that it's the first and only thing I've got to do. But it's really the SECOND thing, after "experiencing the genuine, non-negotiated desire to associate with such a woman in the first place." As I've made clear, though, I....don't.....experience.....that......feeling. Hence your advice is not useful to me, *AND* it ignores my genuine desires, *AND* it suffers from the "oh-sure-you-can-make-people-do-unpleasant-things-but-they-do-them-all-WRONG" weakness. Now some people at FDR would say you're being horribly non-empathetic for ignoring my desires and giving me unsuitable advice. But my father pulls this crap all the time, which means I don't experience any strong negative feelings while ignoring your non-empathetic activism. But the thing I can't ignore, (because it's so ironic), is how you're not tuned in to the genuine desires of the tattooed women you're advocating for. No woman, tattooed or otherwise, wants to find out that the man she's intimate with had a decades-long aversion to associating with women-like-her. It doesn't turn them on. It doesn't inspire genuine, non-negotiated desire to be with me. It's a really bad idea. So, in this three-party conversation involving myself, you, and millions of tattooed women everywhere only ONE party is experiencing a benefit from it. And it ain't me. And it surely ain't the tattooed women. Which means there's only one remaining choice, and I'll leave you to consider what self-knowledge can be derived from this observation. The orange-colored text in one of my posts above is my favorite answer to the "Why get tattoos question?" The following responses are my favorite answer to the, "If tattoos are art, why not just hang art on a wall?" question. Each color represents a different person, and neither person is a scientist. If you don't like the political rhetoric that informs their views, I can distill their observations into non-political language. The tattoo epidemic in today's females is a direct expression of the ideology of radical feminism. The point of the tattoo on a girl is to disrupt and trouble the process of a man perceiving her purely as a sexual object -- the dreaded process of "objectification" which the feminists regard as the ultimate evil. The male sexual eye seeks, more than anything else, the smooth and uninterrupted expanse of naked female skin, shaped by its curves and moistened by its juices; it seeks this perfect oasis of responsive smoothness. That is, indeed, the process of sexual objectification, and it is the most fundamental way in which a man responds to the nubile female body, especially the body of a young girl in the prime of her fertility. The male sexual eye concentrates completely on its object, and nothing in the smooth flow of skin and shape disrupts this special concentration; it is requited ever more by the smooth expanse. In a sexually avid man, there is almost no limit to the intensity which this sexual concentration can reach -- it is one of the greatest intensities known to man, as well it should be; Nature willed it so. It is a concentration that commands the man to take possession of its object and to ravish it. The tattoo is designed to fundamentally disrupt this process by despoiling the smoothness of female flesh in a particularly evil way, by essentially turning that expanse into a piece of text -- the one thing in the world to which the human and the male eye must necessarily pay attention, and the thing that is most different from a sexual object. That is precisely what the feminists want: the flesh, the purported sexual object, speaking back, by writing back. The moment it does that, it ceases to be the perfect dumb object that it must be; a terrible dissonance is created, and the sexual concentration on the object is necessarily diminished. It can never be seen the same way. That is also why, in my experience, a small "classy" or "artful" tat, just a little Chinese character on the instep, is just as bad as a "full sleeve" -- indeed, maybe even worse. The eye can almost find a way to blend something crude and coarse like a "sleeve" and reinterpret it as a kind of background, a garish second skin which is however not different in kind. But the isolated black tat speaks back, and there is no escaping it. Just as it can be easier to fall asleep to the loud noise of many people speaking than to the sound of one voice holding a soft but perfectly intelligible conversation. As the single voice speaking is the thing most different in kind from the oblivion of sleep -- so the text nature of that single piece of ink is the thing most different in kind from the other, sexual, oblivion. The one excludes the other. Thus, to say that our revulsion against the tattoo epidemic in females is "reactionary and puritanical" is to have things exactly backward. It is the tattoo that is "reactionary and puritanical", literally; it is there to defeat and diminish male sexuality, which thrives and achieves its deepest realization in the process of objectification -- a process which is more fundamental to human nature and indeed, to the continuation of the species, than any other, but that the radical feminists, in their demented ideology, have decided to uproot and eliminate from life. Now of course it is true that the luscious young sluts who are defacing themselves in this way are not doing it consciously to disturb and nullify sexual objectification -- although being instinctive creatures, I think that many sense to a greater or lesser extent that getting a tat is a particularly deep and nasty (and permanent) "fuck you" to the male sex. And of course the great and serious beauties almost never do it because they know by an instinct that is deadly serious that being the perfect sexual object is their singular privilege and calling in life, and they dare not despoil it. But the ideas of feminism are in the air and spread imperceptibly, aided and abetted by the writings and chatter of many a hag and faggot and mangina, and inexorably they preach the need for females to deface themselves so that their bodies become a "conversation" -- how dreadful -- instead of a standing reserve of meat to be arranged before the male sexual customer, which is what they are meant to be and must be. And more and more of them obey this terrible call. I don't agree with the argument you are making, but this is a masterpiece of writing. The tattoo is to the liberated slut as the ring is to the traditional wife. Both are means of sexual objectification: whereas the ring marks a woman as the property of another man, the tattoo marks her as the property of other men. The apolitical translation is, "People get tattoos because they don't really want to be looked at, nor really want to be understood, nor really want to be judged." My stance is, "I've no desire to associate with anyone who really doesn't want my gaze, my understanding, and my judgment. FTN FTW."

And I already told RJ why this is an incredibly ridiculous thing to ask: one of the major purposes of scientific research is to determine what is a bad-thing-to-do so that you choose NOT to do it. The way he asked the question: "Have you had particularly negative interactions, hell even relationships, with those kinds of individuals? Or is this all just a prejiduce you have against tatoo'd and pierced individuals, MMX? I thank Robert for sharing his experience and that helps me understand where he's coming from. But for you, I just see it as hyper critical prejiduce based on shallow values. Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry." UNTIL I shared my personal experiences with obese, tattooed, and pierced people, I'm JUST spouting bigotry. Not, "I respect your right to not answer my question, and I would NEVER presume that you're bigoted if you don't answer, but what are your experiences with such people?" I might have answered that question. But I'm not going to answer RJ's question as he phrased it. There's an important reason that I asked both you and Josh F. whether you were: (1) merely speaking about your own preferences with regard to tattooed women or (2) trying to convince people who currently don't associate with tattooed women to change their minds. That reason is sample size. In a sample size of one person, the likelihood that unwanted statistical correlations will be "escaped" or "avoided" is maximized, but in a sample size of hundreds, thousands, and millions of people, the likelihood that unwanted statistical correlations will be "escaped" or "avoided" is minimized-to-zero. Thus when Josh F. admits to wanting to reach the largest possible audience, he's admitting that he wants to maximize the sample size - which will certainly result in leading his target audience to undesirable ends. So when you say, "Again, the studies that you cited only say that, at best, it's more likely to happen. Not that it's some sort of certainty.", you're right ONLY insofar as you're speaking for yourself - but you're dead wrong when you're speaking for the large group of people (your target audience) whose minds you wish to change. There is certainty. It is the certainty that your target audience will experience overwhelmingly negative consequences by believing your argument, compared to the consequences they would've experienced if they ignored your argument.

That's not true, though. You said, "Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry." Therefore, you wanted me to share my personal experiences under the condition that, if I didn't, I was just spouting bigotry. I challenged your assertion that I was "spouting bigotry" by stating that those who accept scientific research ARE NOT spouting bigotry. ----------------------- It is not my job to read scientific research, and then say, "Hey, I know! Let's do the direct opposite of what this research advises!" That would be like reading papers upon papers decrying the spanking of children, and then choosing to spank my own children - because "Open-mindedness!" ----------------------- There are four people participating in this conversation: You, me, Josh F., and James Dean. Only ONE person, me, is not trying to change the positions of the other three. On the other hand, you, James Dean, and Josh F. are all trying to convince me to change my position by associating with tattooed / obese women. So when you ask, "Are you not trying to derive a sense of shame with their relationships with tattoo'd and obese women?", my answer is, "No, I'm trying to derive a sense of shame (humility?) for your lack of leadership abilities by both pointing out that I'm not-convinced and mentioning what would be more convincing. As for your relationships with tattooed, obese women, I hope their lovely; not my cup of tea, though." Not true. "Bigoted", according to On Truth, is when you begin with a conclusion (which is always the conclusion you want to be true), and then seek only confirming information while dismissing non-confirming information. The opposite of "Bigoted" is when you begin with zero conclusions, investigate the situation with an open mind - (which, *AHEM*, does NOT entail you to personally BEHAVE in opposing ways) - and then accept whatever the scientific research says. Since I've cited scientific research justifying my position, and since I'm NOT THE ONE counseling anyone else to openly defy what the scientific research has concluded, I dismiss your mentioning of "bigoted" out of hand. ------------------------ The most ironic this is that this is a V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T message board, a place which espouses above all else that our most sacred and intimate relationships must be VOLUNTARY. Because of this espousal, even an irrational position like, "Tattooed and obese women creep me the hell out, and I don't want to associate with them..." is 100% in agreement with voluntaryism! (You don't have to like it; you don't have to agree with it, but you gotta respect it!) Yet, my position is far more evolved than this. It says, "I've a lot of scientific research backing my desire to refuse association with tattoed, obese women. You guys can associate with them if you want to." But this is not acceptable to either you, Josh F., or James Dean. Josh F. brings out extremely serious words like "lack of moral consistency". You bring out extremely serious words like "bigoted". And James Dean lectures me on what I already know, in a way that only strengthens my argument. On a V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T message board, why do I have to defend my right to refuse association with specific types of people?

Hold on, RJ. Could you please explain how I'm "spouting bigotry", when I've already posted a link to a scientifically-supported article that cites four research papers illustrating why tattooed women are "broken"? Because I think that once science has reached a particular conclusion, anyone who disagrees with what the science says is "spouting bigotry". The most familiar example on this board is: (1) Scientific research has concluded that spanking is wrong. (2) Any parent who spanks their children and claims to be a "good parent" is "spouting bigotry" BECAUSE he disagrees with the sciences. Simple as that. Or have the rules changed? ---------------------------------------------------- A thought experiment for you. Let's suppose I introduce you to a particular young woman. Your first five dates with her are a bit awkward, but she relaxes by the sixth date. And after two years, you've decided to marry her. On the very night you've bought your engagement ring, I show you a video from two years ago, before your first date with her. She states that she doesn't like you at all, but I talk her in to it. (She says something like, "RJ is quiet and introspective, and that makes him look like a sissy." I reply, "Oh I get how you feel, but give RJ a chance. You'll see what you deem his 'sissyness' in a positive light.) And then I show you a video from after your first date with her, where she complains about another series of negative traits you have. And, again, I talk her down. Finally, I allude to the fact that I have "over 100 hours of video" depicting her dislike of you, followed by me "talking her into the opposite opinion" using a variety of non-violent forms of persuasion. Could you handle knowing that the very same person who claims to be totally in love with you today needed to be persuaded, using over 100 hours of discussion, into "finally seeing how wonderful a person you are"? Maybe you could, maybe you couldn't. But the harder and harder Josh F. and James Dean try to convince me (or anyone else) about "the legitimacy of tattooing", (1) the less and less appreciative any tattooed person with self-respect and dignity ought to get, and (2) the more and more pointless their persuasive attempts become. Because I definitely know that the woman you're engaged to WOULD NOT appreciate me showing you those videos. Why should she? What likelihood would showing you those videos make you say, "Wow. I'm so glad that MMX2010 took the epic amount of time to convince a chick who was strongly disinterested in me to give me a first, second, third, fourth, and fifth chance! I had no idea how open-minded I was towards convincing a disinterested woman to like me in comparison to allowing a disinterested woman to just not associate with me!"? ----------------------------------------------- Lastly, I got this from the RooshV message board. (No one I'm quoting is a scientist or anything like that, and each color represents a different poster.) Interesting... So if I am tracking right. A lot of women get tattoos to memorialize highly personal events in their lives. Things that they don't want to forget. Things to learn from, etc. These highly personal events, seem to me, to be generally tragic, unhappy events. I don't often see tattoos celebrating getting straight As, or passing their CPA exams, etc. Generally, it seems to memorialize pain. So if they are remembering pain, that means they have been hurt, so then maybe they are fucked up from the pain? Some people mentioned they spent years trying to figure out the right tattoo, wouldn't it be better spending years in therapy? Maybe my logic is off. Just seems like if they are trying to remember incredible painful moments by inking themselves, it may mean they are broken. In Freudian terms, they are symbolically mourning a lost object, most commonly some phantasmic conception of their innocence, usually romanticised and exaggerated by emotional fictions. They are fixated on the mourning of the trauma - not the trauma itself, particularly as the truth of the experience fades from memory. A tattoo to symbolise abuse or damage keeps them grieving and is a public monument to their melancholy, inviting others to share and enable their melancholic fixation and provide sympathy. This refuses a natural and healthy 'stages of grief' process, where you refuse fixation and eventually build resilience and move on, which is why tattooed chicks are usually-prone to depression, mood swings and other mental instabilities. Remember the degenerate thinking triad: emotionalism / irrationalism / symbolism. Everyone has emotions which they find deeply satisfying. And they aren't necessarily positive. For me, sometimes that's a sense of righteous anger - especially when driving. I knew this woman at work who no matter what was going on, she would complain and sound off as if her life was just an endless series of tragic events. Being unhappy satisfied her on some deep, emotional level. It's what she was comfortable with. If she were happy for a moment, it would feel foreign, fake. For these girls, it's pain and heartbreak. It's what fulfills them, what make them feel 'true to themselves,' what makes them feel 'real.' They are rooting themselves to that feeling, anchoring themselves to it for eternity. To give their life some meaning... Parenthetically, this woman I knew is no longer like that, and is now more pleasant. I don't know why, perhaps her circumstances improved. People can grow out of it. If I may try to simplify for myself. They just don't wanna get over it? Sounds like they are fucked up and stupid. Edit: Don't get me wrong, I have things in my life that are not great, but I am trying to make them better (fix, mend, heal, etc.). I don't want to hang onto any of the nonsense that is in my life. Why drag an anchor around all the time? Yeah, but you're rational. They're not. The dopamine in the brain produced whilst processing negative emotions is both pleasurable and creates a sense of reward, so the feeling of negative-drama becomes a highly-addictive sensation for them. For me the main issue with girls with tattoos and piercings is not that I find them physically unattractive. On the contrary, I often find that tattoos add to the attractiveness of a girl in reflecting her personality. The problem is that they generally tend to reflect the sort of personality that finds guys like me unattractive. The more tats and piercings a girl has and the more visible they are, the stronger a preference she is advertising for alpha bad boy fucks. It is really not that I don't like her or don't respect her, so much as that before she even opens her mouth, she is signaling that she doesn't like me. And if this be so, why would I invest any time or energy in courting her? Moreover, this outcome is exactly what she wants, which makes it all the more incomprehensible that the girl in question would be upset about it. After all, her strategy to deter the kind of man that she doesn't want is working! And conversely, if this strategy is not working to attract the kind of man she wants, why would that be my fault? Since it isn't the tattooed girls' fault that my beta-ish strategies to attract their amorous attentions don't work. They are just as free to exercise their sexual preferences as Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer and Harley McBadBoy are. What the outrage is really about: to ensure that tattooed yougogrrrls SMP strategy works and she gains the preferential, fast-track access to hot alpha cock that she so deeply craves, she needs to be the one who is rejecting the beta and not vice versa. The beta establishing himself as the Stackelberg leader in the game by publicly committing himself to a preference for non-tattooed women is an outcome that must be resisted at all costs, since this causes tattooed women to rank below him in the SMP, thereby nullifying her strategy. The monkey banana pants explosions of outrage are due to the simple fact since alphas will not be interested in fucking a woman who has been rejected by betas, they can only re-establish their SMP rank by forcing said betas back into submission- by shaming them, by threatening them, and/or by attempting to suppress their free speech. (The reason I told Josh F. to talk about his wonderful relationships with tattooed, obese women, (and implied that James Dean should do the same), is that they've limited their persuasion techniques to rhetoric and shaming. Leadership-by-example would be much more effective, but I don't see any Leadership-by-example from either of them.)

Not "date". "Have sex with".

I agree with you, but there's a different possibility. http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/10/30/stop-thinking-negative-thoughts/ For whatever reason, Nathan Diehl decided to type "worst examples of child abuse" into a YouTube search bar. No one can read Nathan's mind. Maybe his intentions were good, maybe not. But the predictable outcome of his decision was that he couldn't handle it. He got really, really angry and felt really, really helpless. So he had no choice but to post all of those videos on this board, without so much as a question-asked. If Nathan can somehow understand that it wasn't in his best interest to go deliberately searching for child abuse videos, then he can acquire some self-knowledge. But if he's unwilling to analyze why he did that, nor to even explain why he did that, then he (weeks after posting this thread) is not interested in using the FDR message board to pursue self-knowledge about this event - even though his post caused a lot of anxiety.

Your argument is, "Even though I stated that MMX was morally inconsistent for not associating with tattooed individuals, I'm completely unfazed that MMX refuses to associated with tattooed individuals." Josh, you cannot use phrases like "moral inconsistency" - (the second most serious accusation you can make on FDR) - and then say, "Me? Fazed? Oh, not-at-all. He can associate with whomever he wants." -------------------------- Pay-dirt! You're not interested in a philosophical message that preaches non-association with certain individuals. So you know what that means? It means you can associate with whomever you want and blog about it. Tell us about your awesome adventures with obese, transgender, muli-tattoo'ed individuals. Tell us about your awesome sexual escapades with them. Tell us about the great virtuous adventures you all share. Tell us about the superlative relationships you have that put the best relationships of the non-associators to shame. Tell us how you and 450-pound, transgender, multi-face-tattoo'ed individual convinced an entire municipality to enact peaceful parenting laws. Do that FIRST and see who follows your lead. But don't say, "I'm not interested in a philosophical argument that believes in non-association..." on a libertarian message board, without expecting a large amount of pushback and a calm-assertive questioning of your methods and motives.

Right. And I'm saying that, "If you want to change my behavior, you'd better make it obvious that you care about my needs, my preferences, and my future." He's NOT saying, "Have an open mind about tattooed individuals, because it'll maximize your ability to find lovely people to have awesome relationships with." (This is an incentive-driven argument that enhances my quality of life.) He's saying, "Have an open mind about tattooed individuals, because I feel anxious and sad when tattooed individuals are rejected. And I don't want to feel anxious and sad." (This is a non incentive-driven argument that enhances the quality of his life, at my expense. And if NOT at my expense, then definitely at the expense of the majority of people who follow his argument - because the majority of people will always suffer whenever they defy scientifically-discovered truths, such as the ones I linked in this article.)