Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

As usual your will to argue has you snapping at every last line I wrote with your perverted view on the truth.

If you stuck to only one idea, I wouldn't have to break it apart. The only difference between your style and my style of posting is a willingness to quote the other person for context. Even your reply towards Legga is doing the same 'snapping' as you'd call it. 

Are you really going to tell me the splits you did in your last two longposts weren't all a bunch of unrelated tangential points over how you see the world? 

Would it be easier on you if I split it into even more smaller posts, like four of them or something? 

 Actually, I'm having an intellectual discussion with Legga and showing him what I see. My approach isn't pessimistic nor am I fencing with every single thing he has to say like your repetitive agenda time and time again.

What does this have to do with your complaint about splitting posts apart? 

Come on Spatial, focus. 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

As usual your will to argue has you snapping at every last line I wrote with your perverted view on the truth.

If you stuck to only one idea, I wouldn't have to break it apart. The only difference between your style and my style of posting is a willingness to quote the other person for context. Even your reply towards Legga is doing the same 'snapping' as you'd call it. 

Are you really going to tell me the splits you did in your last two longposts weren't all a bunch of unrelated tangential points over how you see the world? 

Would it be easier on you if I split it into even more smaller posts, like four of them or something? 

 Actually, I'm having an intellectual discussion with Legga and showing him what I see. My approach isn't pessimistic nor am I fencing with every single thing he has to say like your repetitive agenda time and time again.

What does this have to do with your complaint about splitting posts apart? 

Come on Spatial, focus. 

 

 Well. If it's foolishness that just goes around in circles I'm not obliged to spend time creating walls of text. Maybe I told you half a dozen times by now.

See what this conversation has turned into ? It's not even on topic. And look at this, you even have Jim telling you better.

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

As usual your will to argue has you snapping at every last line I wrote with your perverted view on the truth.

If you stuck to only one idea, I wouldn't have to break it apart. The only difference between your style and my style of posting is a willingness to quote the other person for context. Even your reply towards Legga is doing the same 'snapping' as you'd call it. 

Are you really going to tell me the splits you did in your last two longposts weren't all a bunch of unrelated tangential points over how you see the world? 

Would it be easier on you if I split it into even more smaller posts, like four of them or something? 

 Actually, I'm having an intellectual discussion with Legga and showing him what I see. My approach isn't pessimistic nor am I fencing with every single thing he has to say like your repetitive agenda time and time again.

What does this have to do with your complaint about splitting posts apart? 

Come on Spatial, focus.

 Well. If it's foolishness that just goes around in circles I'm not obliged to spend time creating walls of text. Maybe I told you half a dozen times by now.

See what this conversation has turned into ? It's not even on topic. And look at this, you even have Jim telling you better.

That's a lot of words to try to justify your masculine cowardice. 

And look at this, you even have Jim telling you better.

You and Jim are on the same page, don't you usually use that as a reason to attack another's judgement? 

AlmightyJim said:

 

Nature has gone too far with everything, like pain. A man's purpose is to spread his genes. These guys will end up getting friendzoned, and they will be expected to remain quiet at feminist gatherings.

The friendzone really isn't that bad man. 

If you're only being friendly with them to get laid, then you weren't really being their friend in the first place. The best relationships come from the friendzone, as that's how you know if they are or aren't worth dating and potentially even marrying in the first place. The more you make it about getting laid, the less likely it'll happen, while if you're just cool and casual then the sex kinda just falls in your lap. 

It also helps for reducing the risks of the honeymoon phase. 

This is your 3rd post rationalizing why being in the friendzone is ok, I am assuming it's because you spent your youth in it and you need to deal with it or smth. Friendzone is a tad of an exploitive relationship as women are not known to pay their debt back (money loans) and they fail to stay loyal towards each other, always some rivalry and backstabbing going on, its hard to count on women during hard times.

It's my response to seeing one too many people complain about it. 

Seriously, stop being such babies and adapt. It's not hard to treat women like peers. 

 

My ex is like this. Last time she told me she wanted a child she added that I can stay at home and take care of it while she goes to work, and how she would be more interested in them when they are older, which is funny cause I said the same thing to her. Aside from that, I honestly wouldn't mind looking after an infant but I do think it's a major red flag when a woman claims to have little to no interest in her child when they child needs a Mother the most. 

This makes sense, considering how you don't work well within conventional constraints. If you're doing freelance work, investing in stocks, or otherwise just wasting your time then why shouldn't you be the stay at home dad? 

If your ex was making the big bucks, why not? 

I think what he means is that he is worried about how she wants to deal with the children only when it's most convenient for her, that she is lacking motherly instinct.

I'm sure Spatial's motherly enough for the two of them. 

 

Black people kill black people more than white people kill them. They also kill more white people than white people kill them. Last year a black guy killed a 4 year old boy, after the boy's Father had the black guy over the dinner that same evening. There was no public outrage.

The fuck is this portion of the ramble? 

 What kind of gaslighting retardation is this? He is addressing Legga's "hatred against black people" by giving his own take on why black people are hated, no rambles here.

 This part more in particular: 

'Last year a black guy killed a 4 year old boy, after the boy's Father had the black guy over the dinner that same evening. There was no public outrage.'

What's that about? 

@Spatial:

I'll respond to a few of these, so maybe we can narrow down the discussion.

As a general note, I am fine with the notion of defending men's rights. I have heard of MRA There are gender-specific issues that men also face. If people study those issues and demonstrate that they cause problems on the large scale, I'm more than happy to support addressing them.

However, what I'm not particularly fond of is making it men vs women. As a counter to maltreatment of women, I tend to hear a lot of "men also have it bad!" I believe the feminists who have batshit crazy views are still in the minority, so I don't see the issue.

Most feminists are quite reasonable and their goal is to, in general, support women's rights. E.g., (https://wgefund.org/). I'm worried that bashing feminism will also damage those genuine efforts that are now put under the same umbrella as the few outlier batshit crazy people that 9gag and other degenerate e-platforms spotlight.

I consider myself a feminist and support feminist activities. Would you describe me the same way you described those other men who are feminists?

Probably wouldn't serve anything. But it goes to show, a grown ass man who lived a criminal lifestyle gets more coverage than a black person killing a white innocent child.

If the news coverage of this murder of a white kid does not serve to do anything, and the news coverage of Floyd's murder does, then does that not give a reason why the latter might've gotten more news coverage? I do not believe that the US law endorcement system needs to be changed because George Floyd was murdered, I believe that the incident served as a catalyst to shine spotlight on existing issues. 

I'd imagine if someone sounds like they are carved from the same stone, they would be in favor compared to someone with a thick accent.

We seem to agree that people tend to hire others similar to themselves. That is, when the applicants are not represented at the top levels, it seems that both you and I agree that discrimination occurs? However, then I don't understand where we disagree.

LeggaLegga said: 

@Spatial:

I'll respond to a few of these, so maybe we can narrow down the discussion.

As a general note, I am fine with the notion of defending men's rights. I have heard of MRA There are gender-specific issues that men also face. If people study those issues and demonstrate that they cause problems on the large scale, I'm more than happy to support addressing them.

However, what I'm not particularly fond of is making it men vs women. As a counter to maltreatment of women, I tend to hear a lot of "men also have it bad!" I believe the feminists who have batshit crazy views are still in the minority, so I don't see the issue.

MRA doesn't make it about men vs. women. The reason why I brought them up is because they point out how western women have it better than men do, and it's true. In the process they are attacked by feminists.

In my opinion feminism makes it about Women vs. Men or in the name of equality the feminist does absolutely nothing for males. Most men aren't rapists nor do we intend to pay women less. If that were the case, men would have a hard time finding work regardless of the boss's gender.

Most feminists are quite reasonable and their goal is to, in general, support women's rights. E.g., (https://wgefund.org/). I'm worried that bashing feminism will also damage those genuine efforts that are now put under the same umbrella as the few outlier batshit crazy people that 9gag and other degenerate e-platforms spotlight.

Why can't we just be 1 people though ?

I see this Women's Global Empowerment fund offering a loan service only to women, In Uganda times are rough not just for women either, this group only supports women and not their Son's or Husbands, what's the point of that when they have it just as rough ? But yes I see your point, this is that same argument again, "but men have it worse" okay I get it, fuck'em.

According to that clip, this is how it works.

- You donate money

- They "loan" the money to these women

- The women pay the Women's Global Empowerment fund back "with interest"

- WGEF is more of a business than a charity considering their clients fall into debt with interest. 

You're the doner, WGEF is the loaner.

It is of course an example of what I was talking about earlier when I said women have all kinds of programs. Though what they are doing is good for women, it's not good as a whole let's be honest. That and they make interest off of your donation from the very people, sorry, women you think you're supporting.

I don't suggest it's entirely a bad thing, but if such a program was just for men, they would probably get a lot of backlash, and still not just women are struggling over there.

I consider myself a feminist and support feminist activities. Would you describe me the same way you described those other men who are feminists?

Yes. At this point if you decided that feminism isn't for you, it would probably be in your best interest not to tell your wife. Though if your wife one day said "You know what ? Feminism is bullshit" then the joke would be on you.

People see a cause and they think it's a good thing, and it is to a degree, but the things feminists are fighting for are already in place. Because of that, feminism breeds a lot of hate and generalizations toward men. 

Yes I'm all for women going about their business and making something of themselves. I don't like rape and like I said first wave feminists are the real deal. 3rd wave feminism is like beating a dead horse at this point, as it supports only 1 gender. If we evolved into a higher consciousness feminism would historically be a part of our barbaric past. The fact it had to come out is bad enough, while such a movement still exists in 2021 isn't a good thing either, right ?

Judge Judy dismantles feminism in the first 2 minutes here

I respect that.

And she's really successful and well grounded on her own power. With that in mind feminism is great for those with low self esteem or if they limit themselves or place blame on society because they aren't getting high pay. Everyone has to negotiate or else we won't get it.

Probably wouldn't serve anything. But it goes to show, a grown ass man who lived a criminal lifestyle gets more coverage than a black person killing a white innocent child.

If the news coverage of this murder of a white kid does not serve to do anything, and the news coverage of Floyd's murder does, then does that not give a reason why the latter might've gotten more news coverage? I do not believe that the US law endorcement system needs to be changed because George Floyd was murdered, I believe that the incident served as a catalyst to shine spotlight on existing issues. 

When we have millions of people in a nation of various races. Sooner or later there'll be some incident that triggers a mob. George Floyd was no exception, and the only reason why it's the big one, is because it was caught on video. 

The point I'm making is, in the process of calling out racism, some blacks are becoming racist themselves. 

Was it last year or the year before ? There was a black guy who was selling his car. Another black guy showed up to see the car, then the buyer ended up unloading 6 bullets into the seller and took the car. The seller survived and called the police. Cops tracked the shooter who at the time was streaming on facebook. He ended up getting into a shootout with the police and got killed. A riot still broke out. No one ever asks how it went down, it's just a matter of, was the cop white.

I'd imagine if someone sounds like they are carved from the same stone, they would be in favor compared to someone with a thick accent.

We seem to agree that people tend to hire others similar to themselves. That is, when the applicants are not represented at the top levels, it seems that both you and I agree that discrimination occurs? However, then I don't understand where we disagree.

 If it's on the phone, at best that would be booking an interview. Some jobs require a demonstration. In my profession, they don't care if you have a mohawk and your face is covered in tattoos, if your output get's a thumbs up and you get along well, you're in. They just want the skills, and when it comes to that a gender quota is a backward approach. 

wgefund hands out microcredit loans and also provides literacy services, leadership training, etc, but that's not really important in my opinion.

Why can't we just be 1 people though ?

If I'm understanding this correctly, our disagreement comes down to whether or not you should separate men and women into groups.

Would you have an issue with a program that helped children in Uganda? Or autistic people?

Funding programs usually have a target, and they want to usually address some problems. Those problems might be related to schooling, gender, sanitation, politics, higher education, mental health problems, and so on. Presumably, you are ok with a program to improve children's or autists' education? However, if I'm understanding you correctly, a fund targeted to solve gender-specific problems is an issue?

I've no problems with the notion that by broadcasting racism we might indirectly incite racism in some people or that  quotas don't guarantee that the best applicant will get the job. We might agree there. However, you seemingly agreed that people tend to hire those similar to themselves (did you?). So, at least on some level, you seem to agree that having a non-representative group at the top level can be unfair to the non-represented groups, in some ways.

I agree that MRA has been attacked by some feminists, or some women in general. However, I believe some men have attacked feminism, also. Why is attacking feminism ok but attacking MRA is not? Or is it? Or do you mean that the majority of big feminist organizations are vocal against MRA but not vice versa? I do agree with you that there are certain things where women have it better than men, but do you not believe that the vice-versa is also true?

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

As usual your will to argue has you snapping at every last line I wrote with your perverted view on the truth.

If you stuck to only one idea, I wouldn't have to break it apart. The only difference between your style and my style of posting is a willingness to quote the other person for context. Even your reply towards Legga is doing the same 'snapping' as you'd call it. 

Are you really going to tell me the splits you did in your last two longposts weren't all a bunch of unrelated tangential points over how you see the world? 

Would it be easier on you if I split it into even more smaller posts, like four of them or something? 

 Actually, I'm having an intellectual discussion with Legga and showing him what I see. My approach isn't pessimistic nor am I fencing with every single thing he has to say like your repetitive agenda time and time again.

What does this have to do with your complaint about splitting posts apart? 

Come on Spatial, focus.

 Well. If it's foolishness that just goes around in circles I'm not obliged to spend time creating walls of text. Maybe I told you half a dozen times by now.

See what this conversation has turned into ? It's not even on topic. And look at this, you even have Jim telling you better.

That's a lot of words to try to justify your masculine cowardice. 

And look at this, you even have Jim telling you better.

You and Jim are on the same page, don't you usually use that as a reason to attack another's judgement? 

 I recognize Spatial's attacks and devaluation as him feeling threatened by me and knowing his place against me, since I smashed his crush while he got rejected and surpassed him on crypto knowledge, which lead us to his revenge fantasies of me going broke (I am up on bnb cake and dot now btw) and lonely.

He mirrors the mannerisms and behavior of the whitey, hoping to achieve whites intelligence and knowledge, then gets mad at us for being effortless at it.

LeggaLegga said: 

wgefund hands out microcredit loans and also provides literacy services, leadership training, etc, but that's not really important in my opinion.

Why can't we just be 1 people though ?

If I'm understanding this correctly, our disagreement comes down to whether or not you should separate men and women into groups.

Would you have an issue with a program that helped children in Uganda? Or autistic people?

Funding programs usually have a target, and they want to usually address some problems. Those problems might be related to schooling, gender, sanitation, politics, higher education, mental health problems, and so on. Presumably, you are ok with a program to improve children's or autists' education?

Those are special needs and the programs are functional given our subjects circumstances.

However, if I'm understanding you correctly, a fund targeted to solve gender-specific problems is an issue?

The issues at hand aren't gender specific, it is providing humanitarian aid to the broken as long as they are women only. But why not the men as well ?

I've no problems with the notion that by broadcasting racism we might indirectly incite racism in some people or that  quotas don't guarantee that the best applicant will get the job. We might agree there. However, you seemingly agreed that people tend to hire those similar to themselves (did you?). So, at least on some level, you seem to agree that having a non-representative group at the top level can be unfair to the non-represented groups, in some ways.

I did narrow it down to it being a phone call to set up a job interview, while it's the interview that makes or breaks the job applicant. I mean If the applicant had bad English or a thick accent on the phone and the employer has difficulty understanding them, of course they'll warm up to another applicant they can understand better. It's not a race or discrimination thing either. It's just how it is and my opinion about it is indifferent. I get a phone call and I hear Cantonese, I'm going to say sorry I don't understand you, then hang up.  

I agree that MRA has been attacked by some feminists, or some women in general. However, I believe some men have attacked feminism, also. Why is attacking feminism ok but attacking MRA is not? Or is it? Or do you mean that the majority of big feminist organizations are vocal against MRA but not vice versa? I do agree with you that there are certain things where women have it better than men, but do you not believe that the vice-versa is also true?

 I can't speak for those who attack feminism but I can see why they do it, and there are various reasons.

Feminist want women to be paid the same for the same job. They do get paid the same, sometimes they don't, this is the same for both genders.

Feminist fight for equality, which is a vague request considering Women can apply themselves to any field of study and become it. They have equality of opportunity, but the feminist seem to want equality of outcome, which happens to be a Kamala Harris idology where everyone gets paid the same no matter what job we ( as a whole ) do for a living. 

Gender pay gap is a myth. If an employer is cutting pay for a female, they probably do it to males too, but from what I understand the complaint here is that women get paid less for doing the same job as their male coworkers. Back in the day I was performing miracles at work, and while I was living paycheque to paycheque riding the bus for 3 hours a day, the many secretaries ( all happen to be female ) were driving their modern cars, dressing nice and eating much better than me. Now that's just my case, but I can assure you there are cases where key members in a work environment are underpaid. When I left that job they had to get 3 guys to replace me.

Studies suggest that men in general pick higher paying jobs and work more hours in our lifetime. Such is the case when choosing dangerous jobs or jobs that require intense physical labor like construction. Not all of these jobs pay well, but some of them do. They do work a lot of overtime and they do invest money to have more.

Rape. That's a male issue too, though I personally never had a problem with it. By definition I've been sexually assaulted because someone touched my crotch, it's not ruining my life. Feminism kinda redefines what rape is by calling it rape culture, while in effect makes it difficult for a man to approach a woman. It's like those political commercials directed at men, and a nice piece of ass walks by so the man is like, yeah I'm gonna talk to her, then his friend comes along and stops him while saying, nah bro you're better than that. 

I'll tell you this. I'm from a different time, when women wanted men to take the initiative to approach them, and though it maybe still be that way, the man better tread carefully, cause if she doesn't like him his advance is intrusive taboo that's an inch away from harassment, though his gesture will be seen as a compliment at a later date.

Feminists often complain of patriarchy, which defaults them to a matriarchy ( how often do we ever use that word ?) which is hypocritical of them while everything they stand for is for the women. 

It's hard long hour over time work, which is like slavery, it's simply because most women are not interested or no longer interested in doing it. And damn 40% isn't good enough, they need at least 50% and they surely wouldn't beat their drums if 80% of the workforce were women.

But watch this. Oh my gosh ! those women over there going about their business, something has to be done !

This is what I understand. People think it's the right thing, and why not, it comes across as virtuous, but for the strong successful woman, For the traditional woman. For the women wise men love and appreciate the most, and all of the women out there who ARE what the female feminist aspires to become, 3rd wave feminism is an insult to the power the we already possess.

Hmm, I find it somewhat difficult, in that case, to find common ground. It seems like we have no overlap in our ideologies at all?

If that's the case, I don't really know where to start in justifying my position. I've said that I accept MRA and the ideologies that come with it. I accept that men work longer hours, and I accept that men also have issues.

However, seemingly, we can't agree that some problems are gender-specific or that, generally, people hire those that are more alike than dissimilar. I believe there's a decent amount of research to justify both, but where I imagined you would disagree is on how dire those issues are, but it seems I was wrong.

If that's the case, it's hard to go forward, if our starting premises are so different.

How would you best summarize what I believe? I don't have much problem with most of what you say, and I am aware of most of those arguments you listed.