Sociopath Community

Missy_ said: 

Proof of misogyny!
Horrified but not surprised to have spotted misogyny, she noted that men publicly abused and trolled online women who were also in the movement. Lois Shearing then spoke to a woman who was formerly in the far right, but now aligns her views with Lois Shearing, this previously wrong women said she had experienced harassment and sexual violence during her time in extremist circles. Which proves how the far right men are all misogynistic. Lois Shearing says some female far-right members believe women must be subservient and submissive to men and that their biology predisposes them to be so, but that the women allow for this because it means they can have power as white people.

Lois Shearing is alarmed and warns that there has been a rise in women being “the faces of far-right movements”. They are exploited by fellow members to “add this veneer of respectability” and make their extremism appear more approachable. “The far right can say ‘we don’t hate women – we have women’”

Women are in it for the money
Another argument heard from this aisle is that they are in it for the money. Although both sides offer similar revenue. To say that women with a different viewpoint only have that viewpoint because they’ve been bought is not only extremely ignorant but they miss the mark by far of the reasons as to why the opposing side has a different view than them. It is a desperate attempt to smear the other side instead of hearing what they are saying. Feminism used to fight for women, women have been dismissed for their views for centuries with various excuses of them not being intelligent enough, them being too emotional, hysterical, easily influenced, and now feminism adds that they do it because they’ve been bought, or because of their skin color etc. Feminism has turned on the very cause they fought. I guess not even feminism could stand against the patriarchy and join the machine.

“And there is the money” Lois Sheaning writes, “female far-right influencers are profiting from hatred” – adding that ‘“they have carved out a niche for themselves to make money by posting offensive content on platforms that reward engagement”. She goes so far as to say “they are just grifters”. She concludes that “the way that social media is set up, wherein stuff that is rage bait tends to go more viral or get shared and promoted more, means that they are rewarded for spreading this kind of bigotry and hatred.”

She further thinks that “these women, if they could make the same amount of money doing fitness influencing or makeup blogging, they would have, but those are very saturated markets and it’s harder to make money”.

To conclude the feminist take on far right women: Women don’t have their own opinions, they are only radicalised, in it for the money and exploited for it.

I think this is highly problematic coming from a movement claiming to lift up women, but only does so with those that submit themselves to their cause and align their opinions with them. When trying to understand women with opposing views they rely on harmful slander of women that they claim to fight.

Reference:
The article "Pink pilled"

 Hey Missy, I read all of this, did you?

It doesn't make a point, and it says nothing. Are you trolling by sharing this without reading or actually sub 90 iq? I am sorry I am asking this as respectfully as I can, because the author simply describes some irrelevant instances, failing to explain anything, and spouting words for the sake of spouting words.

This entire debacle can be summarised as. There is a far right movement and some women take part in it. There was a woman that stopped taking part of it. Maybe it was because she felt empowered by being white despite this far right movement discriminating against her and looking down on her in a way? Some other women are preaching it because its financially beneficial to them.

It fails completely at explaining what this is. You can replace far right with "group A" and it maintains all meaning.

Like jesus fucking christ this is some dumb shit, and a waste of time. What the fuck are you on about?

As a psychological portrait, you are simply virtue signaling the kind of group you want to be a part of. Brainwashed bimbo. I spit on you. Don't try to pretend you're educated ever again.

EpsilonMale said: 

 Hey Missy, I read all of this, did you?

It doesn't make a point, and it says nothing. Are you trolling by sharing this without reading or actually sub 90 iq? I am sorry I am asking this as respectfully as I can, because the author simply describes some irrelevant instances, failing to explain anything, and spouting words for the sake of spouting words.

This entire debacle can be summarised as. There is a far right movement and some women take part in it. There was a woman that stopped taking part of it. Maybe it was because she felt empowered by being white despite this far right movement discriminating against her and looking down on her in a way? Some other women are preaching it because its financially beneficial to them.

It fails completely at explaining what this is. You can replace far right with "group A" and it maintains all meaning.

Like jesus fucking christ this is some dumb shit, and a waste of time. What the fuck are you on about?

As a psychological portrait, you are simply virtue signaling the kind of group you want to be a part of. Brainwashed bimbo. I spit on you. Don't try to pretend you're educated ever again.

 Let me first cite my first paragraph. 

Missy said:

 
To understand someone outside of your own scoop and bias


For this topic I want to start off with an article about the perception of women that are by the opposition labeled “pink-pilled”, which is a liberal attempt to understand what they perceive to be women of the far right. However I welcome other relevant ideas and articles on the topic of understanding groups when coming from another perspective and bias.

 With this said yes, the topic is exploring how Group A interpret Group B (a group outside of your own scoop and bias). I used the article as an example of how Group A made false assumptions, following a false narrative and misinterpreting the group they are studying. An error common in gender studies and social sciences in general. I find the topic of how to study something we don't understand interesting. This could be applied to any groups trying to understand and study another group. People brought up examples from America and their political groups.

As I started this thread it isn't the group itself or the opinions that is interesting in this article but the lack of science, and the prevelance to biases that blindsight the conclusions of the data that she collected in this article. However as I stated in the first paragraph it is not the opinions and biases I'm interested in but the process of collecting data and understanding it in social sciences, such as psychology. 

The topic I wish to discuss is how biases corrupts science in social sciences and how that affect assumptions, narratives and conclusions.

I understand that this might not be the topic for you, and that's okay.

Nice write-up.

I'm familiar with the far-right—and I identify with that myself—and I can think of numerous reasons women I have known give for associating with the ideology. Demographics is almost always at the forefront. If you change the composition and culture of a nation, you change that nation. A man (guess his race, if you don't know) drove a car through a Christmas market in Germany this week, killing 11 or so. Same thing happened less than a decade ago, with about the same amount of casualties. I can bring up tons of incidents, but I think everyone here is familiar...well women have just as good of reasons to not want to live that way as men do. If anything, they have more reasons.

Then there is the collapse of social roles. Many women yearn to be mothers and live a traditionally feminine lifestyle, and don't wish to be part of the rat race, or even to accept "biological equality", when clearly we are divergent in our functions as gendered social animals. Think for a second of why there is a sugar daddy phenomena replete with web sites for connecting, and not really a "sugar momma" equivalent. Men have a role and women have a role...and we have not "transcended" anything by rejecting these things. In fact we even find liberals rejecting newest modern developments; that's what a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is. Maybe all of these new paradigms—like mass acceptance of sex work—really aren't helping all these 18 year old girls out who start up an OnlyFans, even though on the surface that's socially-sanctioned easy money.

Many women gravitate toward the right from a desire to return to traditional religious structures as well. A lot of the stuff going on now isn't compatible with the Bible.

Wanting to preserve your culture, and realizing that you can't replace yourself demographically, is not racist. And a woman is not self-hating for wanting to be the raiser, not the provider. Lois notes that the far-right is predominately white. No shit...restricting immigration and preserving our original culture is contra to what other ethnic groups in our countries want (particularly true of Europe). Well, you've already pointed out how a lot of her points are specious. But I thought it would be worth pointing out as well why women want to be part of the far-right. Without these bullshit notions from Lois, like they're just in it for the money.

Tryptamine said: 

Nice write-up.

I'm familiar with the far-right—and I identify with that myself—and I can think of numerous reasons women I have known give for associating with the ideology. Demographics is almost always at the forefront. If you change the composition and culture of a nation, you change that nation. A man (guess his race, if you don't know) drove a car through a Christmas market in Germany this week, killing 11 or so. Same thing happened less than a decade ago, with about the same amount of casualties. I can bring up tons of incidents, but I think everyone here is familiar...well women have just as good of reasons to not want to live that way as men do. If anything, they have more reasons.

Then there is the collapse of social roles. Many women yearn to be mothers and live a traditionally feminine lifestyle, and don't wish to be part of the rat race, or even to accept "biological equality", when clearly we are divergent in our functions as gendered social animals. Think for a second of why there is a sugar daddy phenomena replete with web sites for connecting, and not really a "sugar momma" equivalent. Men have a role and women have a role...and we have not "transcended" anything by rejecting these things. In fact we even find liberals rejecting these modern developments; that's what a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is. Maybe all of these new paradigms—like mass acceptance of sex work—really aren't helping all these 18 year old girls out who start up an OnlyFans because on the surface that's socially-sanctioned easy money.

Many women gravitate toward the right from a desire to return to traditional religious structures as well. A lot of the stuff going on now isn't compatible with the Bible.

Wanting to preserve your culture, and realizing that you can't replace yourself demographically, is not racist. And a woman is not self-hating for wanting to be the raiser, not the provider. Lois notes that the far-right is predominately white. No shit...restricting immigration and preserving our original culture is contra to what other ethnic groups in our countries want (particularly true of Europe). Well, you've already pointed out how a lot of her points are specious. But I thought it would be worth pointing out as well why women want to be part of the far-right.

 I didn't read any of this at all I just want to know if we are still talking 

Delora said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Nice write-up.

I'm familiar with the far-right—and I identify with that myself—and I can think of numerous reasons women I have known give for associating with the ideology. Demographics is almost always at the forefront. If you change the composition and culture of a nation, you change that nation. A man (guess his race, if you don't know) drove a car through a Christmas market in Germany this week, killing 11 or so. Same thing happened less than a decade ago, with about the same amount of casualties. I can bring up tons of incidents, but I think everyone here is familiar...well women have just as good of reasons to not want to live that way as men do. If anything, they have more reasons.

Then there is the collapse of social roles. Many women yearn to be mothers and live a traditionally feminine lifestyle, and don't wish to be part of the rat race, or even to accept "biological equality", when clearly we are divergent in our functions as gendered social animals. Think for a second of why there is a sugar daddy phenomena replete with web sites for connecting, and not really a "sugar momma" equivalent. Men have a role and women have a role...and we have not "transcended" anything by rejecting these things. In fact we even find liberals rejecting these modern developments; that's what a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is. Maybe all of these new paradigms—like mass acceptance of sex work—really aren't helping all these 18 year old girls out who start up an OnlyFans because on the surface that's socially-sanctioned easy money.

Many women gravitate toward the right from a desire to return to traditional religious structures as well. A lot of the stuff going on now isn't compatible with the Bible.

Wanting to preserve your culture, and realizing that you can't replace yourself demographically, is not racist. And a woman is not self-hating for wanting to be the raiser, not the provider. Lois notes that the far-right is predominately white. No shit...restricting immigration and preserving our original culture is contra to what other ethnic groups in our countries want (particularly true of Europe). Well, you've already pointed out how a lot of her points are specious. But I thought it would be worth pointing out as well why women want to be part of the far-right.

 I didn't read any of this at all I just want to know if we are still talking 

i think you've been messaging the wrong account XD

i did reply to you about this in chat. i have an account that has been banned, and one with the same avatar which is active 

Tryptamine said: 

Delora said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Nice write-up.

I'm familiar with the far-right—and I identify with that myself—and I can think of numerous reasons women I have known give for associating with the ideology. Demographics is almost always at the forefront. If you change the composition and culture of a nation, you change that nation. A man (guess his race, if you don't know) drove a car through a Christmas market in Germany this week, killing 11 or so. Same thing happened less than a decade ago, with about the same amount of casualties. I can bring up tons of incidents, but I think everyone here is familiar...well women have just as good of reasons to not want to live that way as men do. If anything, they have more reasons.

Then there is the collapse of social roles. Many women yearn to be mothers and live a traditionally feminine lifestyle, and don't wish to be part of the rat race, or even to accept "biological equality", when clearly we are divergent in our functions as gendered social animals. Think for a second of why there is a sugar daddy phenomena replete with web sites for connecting, and not really a "sugar momma" equivalent. Men have a role and women have a role...and we have not "transcended" anything by rejecting these things. In fact we even find liberals rejecting these modern developments; that's what a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is. Maybe all of these new paradigms—like mass acceptance of sex work—really aren't helping all these 18 year old girls out who start up an OnlyFans because on the surface that's socially-sanctioned easy money.

Many women gravitate toward the right from a desire to return to traditional religious structures as well. A lot of the stuff going on now isn't compatible with the Bible.

Wanting to preserve your culture, and realizing that you can't replace yourself demographically, is not racist. And a woman is not self-hating for wanting to be the raiser, not the provider. Lois notes that the far-right is predominately white. No shit...restricting immigration and preserving our original culture is contra to what other ethnic groups in our countries want (particularly true of Europe). Well, you've already pointed out how a lot of her points are specious. But I thought it would be worth pointing out as well why women want to be part of the far-right.

 I didn't read any of this at all I just want to know if we are still talking 

i think you've been messaging the wrong account XD

i did reply to you about this in chat. i have an account that has been banned, and one with the same avatar which is active 

DUDE 

I FOUND IT

Tryptamine said: 

Delora said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Nice write-up.

I'm familiar with the far-right—and I identify with that myself—and I can think of numerous reasons women I have known give for associating with the ideology. Demographics is almost always at the forefront. If you change the composition and culture of a nation, you change that nation. A man (guess his race, if you don't know) drove a car through a Christmas market in Germany this week, killing 11 or so. Same thing happened less than a decade ago, with about the same amount of casualties. I can bring up tons of incidents, but I think everyone here is familiar...well women have just as good of reasons to not want to live that way as men do. If anything, they have more reasons.

Then there is the collapse of social roles. Many women yearn to be mothers and live a traditionally feminine lifestyle, and don't wish to be part of the rat race, or even to accept "biological equality", when clearly we are divergent in our functions as gendered social animals. Think for a second of why there is a sugar daddy phenomena replete with web sites for connecting, and not really a "sugar momma" equivalent. Men have a role and women have a role...and we have not "transcended" anything by rejecting these things. In fact we even find liberals rejecting these modern developments; that's what a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is. Maybe all of these new paradigms—like mass acceptance of sex work—really aren't helping all these 18 year old girls out who start up an OnlyFans because on the surface that's socially-sanctioned easy money.

Many women gravitate toward the right from a desire to return to traditional religious structures as well. A lot of the stuff going on now isn't compatible with the Bible.

Wanting to preserve your culture, and realizing that you can't replace yourself demographically, is not racist. And a woman is not self-hating for wanting to be the raiser, not the provider. Lois notes that the far-right is predominately white. No shit...restricting immigration and preserving our original culture is contra to what other ethnic groups in our countries want (particularly true of Europe). Well, you've already pointed out how a lot of her points are specious. But I thought it would be worth pointing out as well why women want to be part of the far-right.

 I didn't read any of this at all I just want to know if we are still talking 

i think you've been messaging the wrong account XD

i did reply to you about this in chat. i have an account that has been banned, and one with the same avatar which is active 

DUDE 

I FOUND IT

Tryptamine said: 

Nice write-up.

I'm familiar with the far-right—and I identify with that myself—and I can think of numerous reasons women I have known give for associating with the ideology. Demographics is almost always at the forefront. If you change the composition and culture of a nation, you change that nation. A man (guess his race, if you don't know) drove a car through a Christmas market in Germany this week, killing 11 or so. Same thing happened less than a decade ago, with about the same amount of casualties. I can bring up tons of incidents, but I think everyone here is familiar...well women have just as good of reasons to not want to live that way as men do. If anything, they have more reasons.

Then there is the collapse of social roles. Many women yearn to be mothers and live a traditionally feminine lifestyle, and don't wish to be part of the rat race, or even to accept "biological equality", when clearly we are divergent in our functions as gendered social animals. Think for a second of why there is a sugar daddy phenomena replete with web sites for connecting, and not really a "sugar momma" equivalent. Men have a role and women have a role...and we have not "transcended" anything by rejecting these things. In fact we even find liberals rejecting newest modern developments; that's what a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is. Maybe all of these new paradigms—like mass acceptance of sex work—really aren't helping all these 18 year old girls out who start up an OnlyFans, even though on the surface that's socially-sanctioned easy money.

Many women gravitate toward the right from a desire to return to traditional religious structures as well. A lot of the stuff going on now isn't compatible with the Bible.

Wanting to preserve your culture, and realizing that you can't replace yourself demographically, is not racist. And a woman is not self-hating for wanting to be the raiser, not the provider. Lois notes that the far-right is predominately white. No shit...restricting immigration and preserving our original culture is contra to what other ethnic groups in our countries want (particularly true of Europe). Well, you've already pointed out how a lot of her points are specious. But I thought it would be worth pointing out as well why women want to be part of the far-right. Without these bullshit notions from Lois, like they're just in it for the money.

Demographics is not the same thing as composition and culture. There are many mass violence incidents from every race, if anything white people and right wingers (abortion clinic attacks etc.) are high up there. If anything the media constantly falsely reports attackers as being much more left wing than they actually were, and it turns out they were more on the right but then you don't hear much about it after that. Not even Luigi turned out to be as left as people thought he was. So the statistics are really skewed to favor people like you.

Part of the "sugar daddy" phenomenon is the capitalistic exploitation of workers promoting this type of situation while also opening the flood gates for dangerously backwards sentiments such as what you promote.

Funny how you have a problem with women getting money off of OnlyFans yet promote the idea of women being dependent on men for money.

The Bible is dangerously backwards and fully of fallacy and superstition that is unhealthy for the human race and leaves people in an exploitable mindset and position. What you want is what we've already had and still largely have and we already see the problems it causes.

Essentially, you want people to be oppressed and go backwards, just so you can fulfill a commercial idea of the past that only exists in your sentimental and darkly ignorant mindset.

kuhne said: 

 Many people are seeing the hypocrisy of the Left. I am happy you've woke up. Inclusion and tolerance don't extend to others with different views.

I suspect there are many happy women in traditionally right leaning families. Roles are well defined.

 There is no reason to tolerate intolerance and the desire to use capital to oppress others, or as you put it, "the desire to own land."

If you ask me, in a straight relationship in most cases the men are the prize.

Take Quintasia. All the times she fucked up with those guys, each time she could've been in a better place. Even when it came to Tryptamine, his heroics would've been more of a blessing if she never ruined it. Like many cases she never had anything to offer.  

That's in most cases the man is the prize. Almost all of them I reckon. 

These days men are aware that women will try to train and manipulate them, which of course makes those of them very undesirable. Left wing feminist ideology lol, has done a real number on the dating scene, and while men approach women less these days, it only appeases the women men should stay away from the most. For such reasons women lean toward the right.