"Heroics" more like stupidity. Funny how you have no problem with capital or religion etc. manipulating people yet somehow you blame women.
Women who don't want to be approached by strangers are just being smart, two things you hate, smart people and especially smart women.
"Heroics" more like stupidity. Funny how you have no problem with capital or religion etc. manipulating people yet somehow you blame women.
Stupidity yes, I myself warned him to detach from CS. But Tryptamine flying over there to help CS was still heroic.
I do have issues with religion, and I've adapted to society. I gots them currencies.
Women who don't want to be approached by strangers are just being smart, two things you hate, smart people and especially smart women.
Says you.
When asked, ( that is straight from the source, which I am not you ) I'd say I like a smart women. She doesn't have to be a geneious, nor does she have to be all powerful and wise. As long as I can have a piece of mind, and her ways are compatible with mine, then she'll meet my standards.
And yes, there are some women I dislike. I think that's okay.
Physiognomy was debunked in the 20th century, though I kinda use it. I find scrawny people to be more aggressive and more likely to band together for some cause. For example when we see riots, it's always some skinny little weakling in a mask jumping on a car, feeling empowered by the herd does that to them. I'm also weary of short men, they are snappy and more likely to be rude to strangers online or on the phone.
While physiognomy isn't a solid practice, because people do change, it's interesting when the Ai does it.
Here an Ai manages to process physiognomy data and concludes that conservatives are more attractive. I believe sociopathcommunity unanimously agreed on the same thing few months back.
Often it shows on the outside when people are beautiful on the inside. Not always, just often I enough. Physiognomy is dangerous, and doesn't seem to account for behavior.
Well phrenology was debunked…physiognomy, though? Very real. At the most basic level, we can detect things like developmental androgen or estrogen exposure by broadness of face, “softness” of features. People can also recognize trustworthiness in a face, or dark triad traits (specifically, dark triad males can recognize other dark triad people). And then there are dysmorphic traits which are instantly recognizable, and are indicators of health. This is how people discern beauty and ugliness on an instant basis for the most part. I personally believe you can detect someone’s temperament by their face quite accurately, and across life you can see people who resemble other people you have met, and they will be similar in nature. People seem to have varying abilities to detect in that way.
Physiognomy was debunked in the 20th century, though I kinda use it. I find scrawny people to be more aggressive and more likely to band together for some cause. For example when we see riots, it's always some skinny little weakling in a mask jumping on a car, feeling empowered by the herd does that to them. I'm also weary of short men, they are snappy and more likely to be rude to strangers online or on the phone.
While physiognomy isn't a solid practice, because people do change, it's interesting when the Ai does it.
Here an Ai manages to process physiognomy data and concludes that conservatives are more attractive. I believe sociopathcommunity unanimously agreed on the same thing few months back.
Often it shows on the outside when people are beautiful on the inside. Not always, just often I enough. Physiognomy is dangerous, and doesn't seem to account for behavior.
Lol confirmation bias much?
Need I bring up the scores of celebrity endorsements for Kamala? Most of those women are gorgeous.
Or the MAGA retards in the numerous vids I watched in October? Oooogly lol
And the cons I've met who I'd consider beautiful inside, I can count on one hand.
Anybody who thinks I should starve in the street after all the work I put into following the rules is not a nice person.
Anybody who thinks the tax contributions of the poor should pay for some billionaire's teenage hooker habit is not a nice person.
Anybody who thinks they need a whole collection of fancy guns that can shoot through body armour is an assassin, not a hunter. And assassins are not nice people.
Anybody who thinks Ukraine should just lie down and get invaded, raped, tortured and looted is not a nice person.
Need I go on?
@ Missy: Nah. Hate the war, love the warriors. Hate the ideology, care for the poor dupes who vote against their own interests.
I'm nowhere near this vocal irl, btw. I was, but then I went back to school and discovered just how many dupes do vote for ppl who are screwing them. I mean, none of them can really be trusted. But the cons are worse.
I'm inclined to agree with Lois.
Being a female anti-feminist is like being a black anti-abolitionist.
Like who does that? Only people who are profiting so much from the status quo that they can't see how it causes others to struggle.
The western women who took part in the 4b feminist movement, shaving their heads and making themselves less appealing to the typical man. What's your thoughts on that ?
Personally I think it's self destructive and signals a form of mental disorder. Not to mention a guy wouldn't want to settle down with someone who'll self destruct as a form of punishment.
Yeah that does sound strange and self destructive, imo. It might work for women who are trying to punish their spouses, but it definitely does not work for single women who are trying to scare away creepy guys. Been there, done that. I've even gone so far as eating garlic and not brushing my hair when I want to be left alone. It doesn't work. Some idiot will always be creepy, no matter how bad a woman looks.
The stupid part is that the quality of the creeps gets worse as the woman sabotages her own fuckability.
The only thing that truly keeps creeps away is turning 50 and/or walking with a male.
I know lots of women who lie and make up boyfriends when they want to avoid harassment when walking alone. I've done that, too.
I'm inclined to agree with Lois.
Being a female anti-feminist is like being a black anti-abolitionist.
Like who does that? Only people who are profiting so much from the status quo that they can't see how it causes others to struggle.
Remember that time I walked in on your naked ass rippling on Justin Trudeau's wii wii as you bounced up and down. How's your relationship with him now, you still with him or what ?
Lol wtf? I wish.
Nah Daddy Justin has started to annoy me lately, too. He's made a few very bad decisions.
But I can't see how any of the other parties could do better.
I certainly would not vote for Peter Pecker. The guy can't open his mouth without spewing lies and slander.
And I only agree with 2 or 3 points of his platform.
And the NDP won't win, so a vote for them is also a vote for Pecker.
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.
Delicious retort. I like it.
You are right, it's not the topic for me, I didn't punctuate and explain myself properly.
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."
You know, if you got off the couch and got a job to make some money you could own land.
