1027: "Pickup Artist"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:54 pm UTC

felltir wrote:Oskar, HULK going to tell you one part of that where she could feel uncomfortable.

Do you see how, if you've been doing the talking, she could be fine with that, but no more?

Then you might spray "Butts, come here you!" and go to hug her. She's been fine talking to you, but she'd rather not hug you. You've just met. But saying no would make her seem frigid, weird, and odd in front of her friends (or so she might, potentially, think), especially as you have been flirting fairly clearly, and she hasn't told you no. Do you see how, with those feelings, she might hug you even though she's not comfortable doing so?

And how that might then lead to more misunderstandings, as you think she's fine with hugs and therefore maybe fine with more, whereas she in actuality is uncomfortable with hugs, and probably progressively more uncomfortable with any further steps?

Another thing: There's a difference between tapping someone's shoulder to get their attention, and putting your hand on their shoulder. One is normal, one gives of definite creepy/threatening vibe.

All the situations I make this move, have been situations where I'm 'isolated' with this girl (which means: we're not standing in front of her friends. This doesn't mean I'm alone with her in a dark alley though ;), most of the time it's just somewhere else in the venue, with plenty of other people around.). The whole reason I take a girl aside is to remove the "I need to keep in mind that my friends are watching." factor out of the equation. So the situation as you present it here actually isn't applicable.

And when it comes to putting my hand on their shoulder, I'm afraid my skills in the English language are limiting me a bit. It's clear to me know that what I wrote, wasn't what I meant to say. When I want to get attention, I briefly touch a girl's shoulder / upper arm. Not "creepy long", but a tad longer than just "tapping". Yes, I can see how someone laying his hand on your shoulder would creep you out :P. I hope I expressed myself right this time.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:58 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:I guarantee you that you will have a P.U.A. watch a regular interaction between a guy and a girl, write a field report about it, and fill it with P.U.A. vernacular. The average onlooker will think that it's filled with "power politics" and "manipulation", but it's not. It's just codified human interaction.

It's both. The thing that makes nose picking especially horrid is the fact that they are consciously doing these things, even after they have been examined and codified.
Spoiler:
J Thomas wrote:
TheHMan wrote:All women i've come across have easily been able to spray no if they weren't interested way, WAY before it even got close to the "accidental rape" stage. There's something fundamentally wrong with even the term "accidental rape".


With at least some of the people here, your claim is completely inadequate.

The argument is that you are clueless and you wouldn't notice a woman saying no unless she hit you in the nuts with a sledgehammer. All the women you have ever had sex with were saying no the whole time, but you went ahead anyway because you are so bad at communication with women.

If you were a good person you wouldn't have done it. You would have been sensitive to women's needs, and you wouldn't have raped them. But you are not a good person. You are a scum-sucking maggot and it would be best for all the women of the world if you never try to talk to one ever again. Don't try to improve yourself. You won't.

How do they know all this? Because they are good people who are good at communicating with women and good at reading women's body language. And some of them are women who understand how women feel, and they know how the women you have met must have felt because they know how they feel when they read your comments.

Well, maybe I've exaggerated the tone a smidgen. But the essence of the argument is presented correctly. They spray they understand the truth, while you are wrapped in illusion. Your experience is worthless because you misinterpreted it. They know what really happened.

There's no arguing with such people.

It is pretty useless to try arguing against strawmen.

But there's something that the nose pickers haven't addressed: why do you prioritise getting laid over the ēmotional health of other people?
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby felltir » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:04 pm UTC

Oskar: Okay, I understand the tapping thing better now.

She's even more likely to be uncomfortable if she's not in front of her friends, actually. Her friends will back her up/call you out if you're too creepy, even if they might joke about her being frigid if she stops you over a little thing. On her own, she has no protection from you, a guy who (although this is unlikely) COULD physically restrain her.

Do you see how she might think "Well, he's been a nice enough guy so far, maybe a little forward. But I guess a hug is fine, even if I am a bit creeped out."? And then how you might get the wrong idea from that, that she's fine with hugging/more (as well you might because, well, she hugged you!)?

Do you see how you could avoid all these problems by just asking her what she wants?
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

kram2301
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:57 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby kram2301 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:19 pm UTC

Is Black Hat Guy's girl called Black Hair Girl?
When an acronym meets itself...

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:25 pm UTC

felltir wrote:Oskar: Okay, I understand the tapping thing better now.

She's even more likely to be uncomfortable if she's not in front of her friends, actually. Her friends will back her up/call you out if you're too creepy, even if they might joke about her being frigid if she stops you over a little thing. On her own, she has no protection from you, a guy who (although this is unlikely) COULD physically restrain her.

Do you see how she might think "Well, he's been a nice enough guy so far, maybe a little forward. But I guess a hug is fine, even if HULK a bit creeped out."? And then how you might get the wrong idea from that, that she's fine with hugging/more (as well you might because, well, she hugged you!)?

Do you see how you could avoid all these problems by just asking her what she wants?

I'm glad my explaination regarding the tapping on the shoulder is clear now :).

If a girl is not comfortable with me, I don't think she'd let me take her aside (= isolate her by taking her someone else in the venue). The situation is like this: she's with her friends, a random dude joins in and talks some random stuff. Next, he's telling one of their friends he's "got to show her something". It would be very socially acceptable for her to turn down my request.

You're right, if she's hugged me, I conclude she's fine with hugging me. But going from hugging to more intimate contact, kissing and sex is a BIG step.

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby felltir » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:49 pm UTC

Oskar: You're missing how much pressure there is on girls that we, as guys, don't have. They HAVE to be open to guys, because society says if they're not, they're frigid bitches, and that's bad. They can't be too open though, because that'd make them sluts, and that's bad too.

The fact that we don't have that pressure, or really anything like it, is referred to 'round here as "Male privilege". It's something you have to realise, and take account of.

She'd seem rude, and frigid, if she didn't go. There's no reason not to go with you. You've not been too creepy so far. Maybe a little forward, sure, but not creepy, so she goes.

You try to hug her after a few minutes talking. Again, there's no reason not to, you've been decent... she's not comfortable, but you don't pick up on the non-verbal cues.

You go to kiss her. She leans back a little, to show she's not interested and you misinterpret that as her being coy, and kiss her. She doesn't kiss back, but you're still kissing, and you're having fun, so you miss that. But she is getting more and more uncomfortable, and if you miss the non-verbal cues, you'll never know.

However, if you just ask her, she'll tell you. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

WithinThisMind
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby WithinThisMind » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:54 pm UTC

FireZs wrote:Well, it only comes up when I do more, um, "adventurous" things, so it's usually not a issue til the middle of a relationship, but in the conversations about the topic that arises afterwards, HULK often informed in no uncertain terms, that had I sought explicit verbal consent earlier on, they would've been so turned off that the relationship would've never happened, so I don't think it's just because HULK doing it in the middle of a relationship.


This is where I pull out my 'I don't believe you' card. Either that or the 'you are deliberately misinterpreting' card. But I'm more inclined to go with the 'you are full of it'.

You seem to have it in your brain that my husband was asking my permission every thirty seconds. That's not how it works. And what's more, you actually know this, you are just trying to pretend otherwise to make your so-called point.

No, no woman is turned off by you seeking her consent (note - it may not necessarily be verbal, it could be as simple as you moving your hand closer to hers and letting her close the distance for the touch). Or offering her your number instead of asking for hers and letting her make the decision to proceed. They could be turned off by you doing it awkwardly or sarcastically, but that's another matter.

It's making sure she is right there with you rather than just barreling forward without determining first what she wants. Why is this such a hard concept?



Oskar, based on your description of your 'technique', you've done an excellent job of proving my statements about you correct.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Nylonathatep » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:05 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
But there's something that the nose pickers haven't addressed: why do you prioritise getting laid over the ēmotional health of other people?


Some do, some don't. I can't speak on behalf of everyone (include the strawman) whether the goal is to get laid at any cost. The skills and social techniques that are taught can be used to enhance a male's chances to get a girl interested. People can just take it from there and do whatever they want from there, including establishing a casual relationship, or even a long term relationship.

Again We understand that there's a stigma attached to the PUA in general that they are out to get laid as much as they can and do what they must to get inside a girl's pants. While most of the infamous personalities are portrayed as such. There are people that just wanted some tips on how to engage in conversation with females better... or even just to understand why their previously genuine attempts with the opposite sex doesn't work.

Basically, if the two people involved are consensual, there's no such dilemma. A lot of people assume that girls have to be manipulated in order to engaged in no strings attached sex, and that everything that was taught is about taking advantages of girls. The more respectful ppl are just learning how to ask, how to spot girls that wanted the same thing, and having the confidence in general in asking.

My biggest concern to those that are against the PUA is that they keep assuming having social skills equates to manipulation, that anything that is use to enhance a conversation with females is consider evil, and that we neglect a women's feeling when we talk to them.. However it is taught early that we remain respectful, and that we move on when the girl is not interested ... cuz hanging on is what scrubs do.

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:27 pm UTC

felltir wrote:Oskar: You're missing how much pressure there is on girls that we, as guys, don't have. They HAVE to be open to guys, because society says if they're not, they're frigid bitches, and that's bad. They won't be too open though, because that'd make them sluts, and that's bad too.

The fact that we don't have that pressure, or really anything like it, is referred to 'round here as "Male privilege". It's something you have to realise, and take account of.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but here in the Netherlands, girls don't have to be open to guys. It's quite common for girls to just tell you to get lost even when you're just saying "hi" (yes I've had that happen on numerous occasions). This is a point I think may differ between the area you live in, and the area I live in. I'll check with my female friends to see how they feel about this.

felltir wrote:She'd seem rude, and frigid, if she didn't go. There's no reason not to go with you. You've not been too creepy so far. Maybe a little forward, sure, but not creepy, so she goes.

Again, see above.

felltir wrote:You try to hug her after a few minutes talking. Again, there's no reason not to, you've been decent... she's not comfortable, but you don't nose pick on the non-verbal cues.

You go to kiss her. She leans back a little, to show she's not interested and you misinterpret that as her being coy, and kiss her. She doesn't kiss back, but you're still kissing, and you're having fun, so you miss that. But she is getting more and more uncomfortable, and if you miss the non-verbal cues, you'll never know.

However, if you just ask her, she'll tell you. Do you understand what HULK saying?

I'm going to let WithinThisMind answer you here:
No, no woman is turned off by you seeking her consent (note - it may not necessarily be verbal, it could be as simple as you moving your hand closer to hers and letting her close the distance for the touch).

Which is what I do when it comes to kissing. No consent from her, no kiss.

Marlayna
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:43 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Marlayna » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

davver wrote:A good post, but messed up at a fundamental level. Differences between male and female behavior and preferences are not (entirely) social constructs. They are biological constructs as a result of evolution, and they are not going to change the the rate our man made civilization has changed. Everything you spray is good, but it is also often contrary to human nature.


You don't know that.

Evolutionary psychology is a field where everyone can hypothesize without proof.
There are 10 kinds of people.
Those who can read binary numbers and those who can't.

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby felltir » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:41 pm UTC

Well, then. If it's a cultural thing, seeing as you don't know what culture the girl is coming from, and what I just told you is certainly true in British, Swedish, German and American cultures (And quite easily possible to be true in yours too, you might just not know. In my experience all western cultures have it so I'd be surprised if your country was an exception.)

I am glad to hear you just move close as in moving in for a kiss, then let her kiss you. That is what you meant, right? If so, that's a good way to get (non-verbal) permission. I approve.
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

felltir wrote:Well, then. If it's a cultural thing, seeing as you don't know what culture the girl is coming from, and what I just told you is certainly true in British, Swedish, German and American cultures (And quite easily possible to be true in yours too, you might just not know. In my experience all western cultures have it so I'd be surprised if your country was a exception.)

I'll check.

felltir wrote:HULK glad to hear you just move close as in moving in for a kiss, then let her kiss you. That is what you meant, right? If so, that's a good way to get (non-verbal) permission. I approve.

Yep.

fffudge
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:16 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby fffudge » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:A real, reliable way to find out the truth. Not one you want to rely on too often.


Right, which is why red flags like "disrespects boundaries outside of the bedroom" are very helpful. If he had already been making a game out of prodding at my boundaries I wouldn't even have been there. It's not perfect -- some people are good at hiding their predatory tendencies until it's too late. But you definitely don't want to be alone with someone who enjoys making a game of chipping away at your boundaries. In a sexual context, there's no difference between the messages "I am willing to disregard your boundaries" and "I will rape you given the chance".

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7590
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Zamfir » Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but here in the Netherlands, girls don't have to be open to guys. It's quite common for girls to just tell you to get lost even when you're just saying "hi" (yes I've had that happen on numerous occasions). This is a point I think may differ between the area you live in, and the area I live in. I'll check with my female friends to see how they feel about this.

Try to find a male equivalent for 'frigide', or jokes like 'ijsmuts' or 'die heeft een beurt nodig'. And 'sletje' and its many synonyms on the other side.

That doesn't mean that every 'yes' or 'no' will place a girl in a category, but the risk of becoming a stereotyped joke exists, in a very different way as for guys.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby J Thomas » Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

fffudge wrote:
J Thomas wrote:A real, reliable way to find out the truth. Not one you want to rely on too often.


Right, which is why red flags like "disrespects boundaries outside of the bedroom" are very helpful. If he had already been making a game out of prodding at my boundaries I wouldn't even have been there. It's not perfect -- some people are good at hiding their predatory tendencies until it's too late. But you definitely don't want to be alone with someone who enjoys making a game of chipping away at your boundaries. In a sexual context, there's no difference between the messages "HULK willing to disregard your boundaries" and "I will rape you given the chance".


I'll quibble slightly -- there's a difference between those, but it isn't a difference you need to care about. The penalty for guessing wrong is mostly on one side.

I emphaticly am going to make sure my daughters get training in that.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Jave D » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:11 pm UTC

davver wrote:Once you get good enough with women to get some notches, to know that you will at least fulfill that bottom part of Maslow's hierarchy, then you will move on to higher order stuff and not be so focused on it. But don't put the cart before the horse.


Women are not NOTCHES ON YOUR BELT.

I can't help but notice you rely heavily on Maslow and insist that you have to get those "basic needs" like sex before moving on to "higher order stuff." And I can't help but notice that MORALITY is one of those higher order stuff. Are you really advocating a system where you HAVE to have sex BEFORE you can be a MORAL PERSON?

Do you really not see why this might be troublesome, especially in a culture with so much sexual assault, domestic abuse, date rape and general rape culture?

I'm gonna say this again: fuck Maslow. Maslow put sex as a more fundamental need than the need for personal safety. Yeah, right. If your personal security is threatened, what's more important, sex or staying alive and unhurt? For you, I guess sex. For most people, including women, staying alive and unhurt.

And this is just one reason why PUA is indeed a filthy pond of loathsomeness and filth. You honestly think that before you can have "higher order stuff" like respect of others, self-confidence, achievement, morality, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts, you just HAVE to get your fuck on. It's just absolute nonsense that really just appeals to the idea that hey! if you haven't been getting "notches on your belt" and you're an immoral impatient insecure scumbag, sex is the answer. Sex as much as possible. Sex with five different women at once. Sex sex sex solves everything.

But it doesn't. As you are a noteworthy demonstration, no amount of sex can change the fact that you have a twisted, ugly, and frankly dangerous paradigm.

Marlayna
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:43 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Marlayna » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:13 pm UTC

Apart from the coercion angle, there's something else that bothers me with these guys: The damn condescension.

I look at those "pickup lines" they listed and I get this vibe that they treat us like children. "Ooh, your nose moves when you talk! Lookee here!" is something I wouldn't say to anyone above the age of 4.
There are 10 kinds of people.

Those who can read binary numbers and those who can't.

blue_eyedspacemonkey
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Salford, UK
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby blue_eyedspacemonkey » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:16 pm UTC

Marlayna wrote:Apart from the coercion angle, there's something else that bothers me with these guys: The damn condescension.

I look at those "nosepick lines" they listed and I get this vibe that they treat us like children. "Ooh, your nose moves when you talk! Lookee here!" is something I wouldn't spray to anyone above the age of 4.
This. I think one dude used the word quaint. If someone called me quaint I'd start to worry I'd turned into a cottage in the countryside. Or a doily.
"Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes"

So. Twitter

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Shro » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

Not to mention the absolute failure to see this absurdity:
I hate being a Nice Guy-jerks get all the girls.
I'm going to study these jerks and see what it is that makes them successful with women.
I am going to emulate these jerk behaviors so I can be successful at picking up women!

Congratulations! HULK being a jerk!
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:If a girl is not comfortable with me, I don't think she'd let me take her aside
You people keep saying things like this, assuming how a girl must be feeling, what she'd do if she felt differently, why she did what she did, and so on. And yet when someone else, such as most of the women in this thread, makes different assumptions, which are based on at least as much information as yours, you complain about how they're thinking for the girl and couldn't possibly know what she was thinking or why she did that or blah blah blah. But neither can you!

So once again, all of us who are not the woman herself are faced with a choice:
1) Assume she might be uncomfortable, or at least don't assume she felt completely unpressured to do any of the things she did. Pay very close attention to her spoken and body language and take it at face value if she seems to want to leave.
2) Assume she is comfortable with everything, and that she didn't feel pressured to do anything, and that if she makes slight non-explicit indications that she wants to leave it's just because she's "testing" you or because she doesn't want to seem a slut.

The advantage of (1) is that you pay better attention to whether she's actually enthusiastic about going further with you, meaning that if she does go further with you it's really truly what she wants to do, and the sex is happy and great for everyone ever after. The disadvantage is maybe she "gets away" and you don't get to have sex with her. Worse, this might just be due to a misunderstanding where you took one of her actions too seriously when she really was only "testing".

The advantage of (2) is that you're a lot more likely to get further with her, possibly up to and including sex. Which will be good for you since you're convinced it's what she wanted (yeah, you're pretty sure that it was your PUA techniques that got her to want it, but whatevs). The disadvantage is that you're also a lot more likely to be seen as creepy and somewhat of a sexual assailant. Worse, you might end up committing actual rape. In this way, (2) is a lot like GHB.

J Thomas wrote:I emphaticly am going to make sure my daughters get training in that.
And what about sons? (This is more general, since for all I know you yourself have actual living daughters and no sons, and this is why you only mentioned daughters.) There's always tons of stuff about teaching women how to avoid rape, but never quite so much about teaching men how not to be rapists. Yet as a parent, you are equally responsible for the actions of both your sons and your daughters. And your sons can do a hell of a lot more to stop rape than your daughters can, seeing as a hell of a lot more rape is committed by men than by women, and one of its core defining traits is that the person it happens to doesn't get any choice in the matter.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby J Thomas » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:08 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:
davver wrote:
....

You won't ask men to put sex into perspective until they conquer it. Its a lower order need, it has to be satisfied before higher order needs will be satisfied.


I don't know. Possibly tantric training might be enough. Throughout our written history we've had a whole lot of people who didn't consider it a lower order need that had to be satisfied. Across most of Hellenic greek areas, people were having sex in church. Medieval christians considered it normal and proper to tame their lust. Etc. It's our culture which has taught men that they're deeply inferior unless they have a lot of sex with a lot of women.

Sex is easier to get now, but only for certain people. Its easier for wooers, its easier for good looking men with charisma. If you are ugly or awkward, its actually harder. Your post implies you think casual sex is easy to get, but I think this betrays a vast misunderstanding of the sexual options many men face. They simply won't get sex with nearly any woman.


I don't know what's possible there. I noticed that people do a tremendous amount of hypocrisy about sex. When they do things they think the dominant society will disapprove of, they try to keep it secret. Then sometimes it leaks over gossip networks anyway. I think it's plausible that there might be a whole lot more sex going on than shows up, and that most of it is long-term arrangements. The rates of STD discovery indicate that if that's happening it's a lot of small closed groups and not a lot of random mating. On the other hand, applying that logic to the spread of syphilis in the early 16th century would imply that they were doing considerable random sex, Church or no.

100 years ago if you were ugly or awkward you put your effort into a trade, school, or a business and then a women would marry you pretty young. Today getting that career really isn't the ticket, so all that's left is to work on wooing. For nerds (people who read this forum) that usually means approaching things from a left brain perspective, studying them, categorizing them, practicing them, etc. That's all bottom feeding scum sucker is.


Sure. And people with a whole lot of disposable income can spend it on learning seduction techniques, or on fur-lined handcuffs and velvet whips, or whatever. People who have more money than they know what to do with.

And the anti-study crowd is mostly a fem-dom faction playing mind games. It's a variation of the idea that kids should not get sex education. It concerns me that i don't see who is funding them. If nobody's making money off them yet, who knows how it will get twisted around when somebody does see them as a market and looks for ways to make that market pay?

Once you get good enough with women to get some notches, to know that you will at least fulfill that bottom part of Maslow's hierarchy, then you will move on to higher order stuff and not be so focused on it. But don't put the cart before the horse.


From where I am now, this whole situation looks perverse. Do we need such a competitive society? People of both genders so worried about what other people think of them that they do regrettable things.... We'd be a lot better off with a whole lot of tolerance.

zmic wrote:I agree that all human interaction will be interpreted as some form of manipulation. But it most of bottom feeding scum sucker seems to consists of forcing some kind of chemistry when no such chemistry is present to begin with, by play-acting "affectionate moves", by play-acting "a display of interest in her logic", then really what are you doing? HULK not judging this as immoral or anything, it just seems like a pretty weird hobby to me.


Lots of hobbies seem pretty weird to me, but people enjoy them. Like professional wrestling. i felt sick watching that. I'd see the move and then notice that just a little bit different it would kill the victim. It was almost like they were demonstrating one killing move after another, and I wondered how many people were watching it, imagining doing that themselves. It made me think that maybe every time I'd gotten into a fight with a wrestling fan, he knew hundreds of ways to kill me I had no idea of, and the only reason I was alive was that he chose not to kill me.

Tai chi was the same way exactly. It just looked like exercise, and then then somebody explained the moves. "Crush the sternum, pluck the testicles, mangle the larynx, fracture the temple. Stomp the instep, crack the elbow, collapse the knee, crunch the ribs." Yuck.

We're a diverse people and we have diverse hobbies.

P.U.A.'s answer the question of "there's this pretty girl sitting down over there! What do I do?" And I will tell you from experience that applying this stuff affects the way you think, affects the way you act, etc. For example, I become more jovial and playful after using a well-placed fap. I also place lower stakes on getting her approval after a fap as well. I become more outcome independent after blowing out 5 times during the night, and usually have more success the 6th time. After doing some rapport-building exercises like asking about family, friends, music, school, childhoods, goals, dreams, etc., I end up liking a girl more.


People are spending years out of their lives refining their ability to attract the opposite gender in superficial ways. Women have been doing this for longer, and now men are starting to catch up. What's it all for? The most pressing immediate need for US society is cheap safe alternative energy. If we put a fraction of the effort into that, that we put into this negative-sum game of competitive sex appeal, we might get a solution pretty fast.

Which reminds me that I've put nearly 2 days into this forum. It's been kind of fun, and I learned a little, but I can't justify the effort. I'll try to read every 5th post and maybe comment a little, and if that still takes too long I'll have to make myself stop.

Really, this stuff is about manipulating yourself as much as it's about "manipulating" a girl.


How could it be otherwise? You want to bet that gets you any slightest reconciliation from the "you are an evil abomination" camp?
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
TheHMan
Winston the Privileged Donkey
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby TheHMan » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
With at least some of the people here, your claim is completely inadequate.



Yes that was the vibe I got, from the violence of the reactions around here. But guess what, if a woman says "no", I respect that. Talk about a far-fetched concept? I think the one thing that got twisted beyond belief around here is that concept. Yes, sometimes a woman says "no" when she means "not right now", and anyone with half a brain is able to tell. Those who force themselves upon a woman that says no should be punished to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, a woman shouldnt be afraid to say no "just because the guy might rape her". Maybe i'm just living in a fantasy world, but in this reality, most guys arent' date-rapists.

User avatar
TheHMan
Winston the Privileged Donkey
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby TheHMan » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:09 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:And this is just one reason why bottom feeding scum sucker is indeed a filthy pond of loathsomeness and filth. You honestly think that before you will have "higher order stuff" like respect of others, self-confidence, achievement, morality, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts, you just HAVE to get your fuck on. It's just absolute nonsense that really just appeals to the idea that hey! if you haven't been getting "notches on your belt" and you're a immoral impatient insecure scumbag, sex is the answer. Sex as much as possible. Sex with five different women at once. Sex sex sex solves everything.


If that's really what you believe, then nothing will make you see the truth. See above about men who "get it" and those who don't. If that's really what you think it's all about, then you have absolutely no clue (and if you really want to understand, the point has been made many times fold in this thread already).

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:22 pm UTC

You shall henceforth be known as Winston the Privileged Donkey. I refuse to acknowledge the posts of anyone who doesn't refer to you by this name.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:24 pm UTC

TheHMan wrote:If that's really what you believe, then nothing will make you see the truth. See above about men who "get it" and those who don't. If that's really what you think it's all about, then you have absolutely no clue (and if you really want to understand, the point has been made many times fold in this thread already).


Thank you. For everyone who wants to read this thread, start from page 20. We, the pro-P.U.A. crowd, made our case without strawmen and ad hominems. Everyone else, including the m.o.d.s., made their case by attacking our character (through w.o.r.d. f.i.l.t.e.r.s., no less), not listening to a reasonable discussion, and by banning people. I honestly thought that people here would be much more open minded.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:34 pm UTC

You know that the wordfilters aren't always about you, right? Not everything is about you. And it's not our fault that your case sucks.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:
TheHMan wrote:If that's really what you believe, then nothing will make you see the truth. See above about men who "get it" and those who don't. If that's really what you think it's all about, then you have absolutely no clue (and if you really want to understand, the point has been made many times fold in this thread already).


Thank you. For everyone who wants to read this thread, start from page 20. We, the pro-P.U.A. crowd, made our case without strawmen

Ah, so all that shit about how I "honestly believe that there's nothing you can do to create or amplify attraction with a particular girl" or how I don't think there's any acceptable way to handle a situation when someone isn't into you? What was that? Straw turkey?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Hawknc » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:Not everything is about you.

Pretty much most of the thread right there.

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby philsov » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:48 pm UTC

We, the pro-P.U.A. crowd, made our case without strawmen and ad hominems. Everyone else, including the m.o.d.s., made their case by attacking our character (through w.o.r.d. f.i.l.t.e.r.s., no less), not listening to a reasonable discussion, and by banning people. I honestly thought that people here would be much more open minded.


The people with being open minded is that dense, ignorant people keep on trying to shove stuff up in there.

You are flat out mistaken in your statement. The majority of the discussion (especially 20 onward) is saying how sinister many techniques and mindsets are. Most of the pro-PUA posts have been apologists citing all the positive aspects of a PUA, which wasn't even the qualm of the fora in the first place. It's the negative aspects that are the problem. The entire comic and basis of discussion was drawn in by the practice of negging. Then some PUAs go "oh no, that's not me, I'm not like them. PUA just made me more extroverted and sensitive to other's emotions! I'd never coerce a female!" Guess what? Then the discussion isn't about you.

That's all well and good, but to paraquote Graphite it's not that there's a few bad eggs, it's that the entire carton is rotten and a few good eggs remain.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:51 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:
TheHMan wrote:If that's really what you believe, then nothing will make you see the truth. See above about men who "get it" and those who don't. If that's really what you think it's all about, then you have absolutely no clue (and if you really want to understand, the point has been made many times fold in this thread already).


Thank you. For everyone who wants to read this thread, start from page 20. We, the pro-P.U.A. crowd, made our case without strawmen

Ah, so all that shit about how I "honestly believe that there's nothing you can do to create or amplify attraction with a particular girl" or how I don't think there's any acceptable way to handle a situation when someone isn't into you? What was that? Straw turkey?


It's a fair point that I didn't address directly.

Confidence. Speaking in a downward inflection. Standing up straight with good posture. Dressing well. Not acting clingy. Acting as if the current interaction has no stakes for you. Having friends and demonstrating social intuition. Being good at conversation. Appropriate touching at appropriate times. Humor. Everything that the literature teaches, along with some common sense stuff.


Sorry. I misread your post and confused your point with Belial's point.

philsov wrote:You are flat out mistaken in your statement. The majority of the discussion (especially 20 onward) is saying how sinister many techniques and mindsets are. Most of the pro-PUA posts have been apologists citing all the positive aspects of a bottom feeding scum sucker, which wasn't even the qualm of the fora in the first place. It's the negative aspects that are the problem. The entire comic and basis of discussion was drawn in by the practice of fapping. Then some bottom feeding scum suckers go "Butts no, that's not me, HULK not like them. bottom feeding scum sucker just made me more extroverted and sensitive to other's logic! I'd never coerce a female!" Guess what? Then the discussion isn't about you.

That's all well and good, but to paraquote Graphite it's not that there's a few bad eggs, it's that the entire carton is rotten and a few good eggs remain.


Didn't we establish that certain techniques that you call "manipulative" are only manipulative in certain contexts and when executed in certain ways? I.e. when done "knowingly" and "against ones wishes", but are fine otherwise? And didn't we establish that the purpose of n.e.g.s. are either to: 1. Create humor by poking fun, 2. Showing that the current conversation has no stakes for you, and 3. Separating yourself from the hundreds of men that flirt with very attractive women? And didn't we establish that the schools of thought are very wide and diverse, and that if you cherrypick what a few people say *and* put it in a context where you can imagine it to be manipulative, then you can show that it's manipulative?

We considered your points fair- 1. Don't use Tyler Durden's claw, 2. Don't use the Jealousy Plot with someone you're intimate with who you know will be upset with it, 3. Mystery was advertising the neg to a bunch of sexually frustrated men 15 years ago. I don't think those 3 points justify using the w.o.r.d. f.i.l.t.e.r. to turn "p.u.a." into "pua".
Last edited by ddxxdd on Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:01 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:53 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:It's a fair point that I didn't address directly.

What? No. These are not points I made that you ignored. They are points that I did not make that you insisted that I was making. This defines a strawman. You kept insisting that this was my argument even when I kept denying it and reiterating the differences between what I was saying and what you thought I was saying. This defines persistence. Now you're saying that your participation in this thread was free of strawmen. This defines bullshit.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Army1987
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:49 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Army1987 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:59 pm UTC

http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/ ... reepy.html

I wish I had read (and taken seriously) that a long time ago.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Jave D » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:59 pm UTC

TheHMan wrote:
Jave D wrote:And this is just one reason why bottom feeding scum sucker is indeed a filthy pond of loathsomeness and filth. You honestly think that before you will have "higher order stuff" like respect of others, self-confidence, achievement, morality, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts, you just HAVE to get your fuck on. It's just absolute nonsense that really just appeals to the idea that hey! if you haven't been getting "notches on your belt" and you're a immoral impatient insecure scumbag, sex is the answer. Sex as much as possible. Sex with five different women at once. Sex sex sex solves everything.


If that's really what you believe, then nothing will make you see the truth. See above about men who "get it" and those who don't. If that's really what you think it's all about, then you have absolutely no clue (and if you really want to understand, the point has been made many times fold in this thread already).


Yeah, yeah, yeah - you get it, other men don't, you understand TEH TRUTH, I don't, etc etc. You already unloaded that one. It doesn't really negate anything I've said this time than the first.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:00 pm UTC

Show me the ad hominem. Do it. Now. Jetzt! Zeig mir ein Beispeil des Argumentum Ad Hominem.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:00 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:It's a fair point that I didn't address directly.

What? No. These are not points I made that you ignored. They are points that I did not make that you insisted that I was making. This defines a strawman. You kept insisting that this was my argument even when I kept denying it and reiterating the differences between what I was saying and what you thought I was saying. This defines persistence. Now you're saying that your participation in this thread was free of strawmen. This defines bullshit.


My apologies. I misread your post, and confused you with Belial.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Show me the ad hominem. Do it. Now. Jetzt! Zeig mir ein Beispeil des Argumentum Ad Hominem.


Instead of looking through pages upon pages of insults laid against us, I'm just gonna ask you to do one thing:

Type in "P..U..A..", "n.e.g.", or "p.i.c.k. u.p. a.r.t.i.s.t" without the periods. Or look at the main forum page, and read what it says under "Individual XKCD Comic Threads". If you'd like proof beyond flagrant mod abuse, just ask, and I'll eventually sort through hundreds of comments.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby FireZs » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:14 pm UTC

WithinThisMind wrote:
FireZs wrote:Well, it only comes up when I do more, um, "adventurous" things, so it's usually not a issue til the middle of a relationship, but in the conversations about the topic that arises afterwards, HULK often informed in no uncertain terms, that had I sought explicit verbal consent earlier on, they would've been so turned off that the relationship would've never happened, so I don't think it's just because HULK doing it in the middle of a relationship.


This is where I pull out my 'I don't believe you' card. Either that or the 'you are deliberately misinterpreting' card. But HULK more inclined to go with the 'you are full of it'.

You seem to have it in your brain that my husband was asking my permission every thirty seconds. That's not how it works. And what's more, you actually know this, you are just trying to pretend otherwise to make your so-called point.

No, no woman is turned off by you seeking her consent (note - it may not necessarily be verbal, it could be as simple as you moving your hand closer to hers and letting her close the distance for the touch). Or offering her your fish instead of asking for hers and letting her make the decision to proceed. They could be turned off by you doing it awkwardly or sarcastically, but that's another matter.

It's making sure she is right there with you rather than just barreling forward without determining first what she wants. Why is this such a hard concept?


And this is where I pull out my 'Don't deny other people's experiences' card. The world is not obligated to conform to your expectations.

I never said it's "asking for permission every thirty seconds." It's "asking for permission to do something during sex." Repetition isn't the point.

Anytime you say "No woman is turned off by X" there's a problem. You do not speak for all women. Don't make those kind of generalizations.

Some women (and, as I said, every single woman I've dated) love "barreling foward", and are turned off by the opposite. Why is this such a hard concept? More importantly, why do you care so much what other women prefer?

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby J Thomas » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
J Thomas wrote:I emphaticly am going to make sure my daughters get training in that.
And what about sons? (This is more general, since for all I know you yourself have actual living daughters and no sons, and this is why you only mentioned daughters.)


Yes, that's right.

There's always tons of stuff about teaching women how to avoid rape, but never quite so much about teaching men how not to be rapists. Yet as a parent, you are equally responsible for the actions of both your sons and your daughters. And your sons will do a hell of a lot more to stop rape than your daughters will, seeing as a hell of a lot more rape is committed by men than by women, and one of its core defining traits is that the person it happens to doesn't get any choice in the matter.


You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there. You keep slopping your moral assumptions around.

OK, first off, I feel responsible to provide good learning opportunities for my children. I am not morally responsible for their actions, because they are people who make their own choices. I can help them game out the likely consequences, and teach them about comparative religion and competitive moral systems, but I can't make them do the right thing.

Second, I tend to doubt that a large fraction of men are rapists when they are not drunk. It's hard to get good statistics about rape because people lie and keep secrets, but probably no more than 50% of American women are raped over a lifetime. (The statistics say 20%, but they are probably biased and it's hard to estimate how biased.) Is it 50% of the men who do this, or under 10%? I say it's plausible it would be 10% or less. If I have a son, and I successfully persuade him not to rape anybody, other things equal it's more than 90% likely he wouldn't have anyway. Fathers teaching their sons not to commit rape is an ineffective way to reduce the rape statistics.

(Incidentally, I once attended a parent meeting about sexual abuse at my school. A big dominant woman gave a dramatic talk, assisted by her assistants. She had them divide the room into three sections. Then she had all the men in the middle third stand up. "One third of women will get raped. The men standing are one third of the men in this room. These men are the problem. Look at them. The problem is that one third of the men in this room are rapists." I wanted to stand up and yell at her that she was getting her statistics all wrong. But I was already standing up.)

Third, if I can teach my daughters how to do things that make them much less likely to be raped, that helps my daughters. If I have a son and teach him not to rape anybody, that might possibly help some random woman. But to help him, I need to teach him how to avoid getting accused of rape. This is a much more difficult skill than not being a rapist. If you get accused of rape it's improbable you'll be convicted, but you may have to suffer an investigation that might include jail time awaiting trial, and the accusation is likely to follow you the rest of your life. Police forces around the country will notice it when they are looking for suspects for other crimes, though they will not introduce it in court. It can affect job prospects and security clearances. It's important not to be suspected of rape, and the best advice I can give to avoid that is try to look normal in every way. Never give anybody the impression that you are creeepy, and never say anything that implies you have an unusual opinion.

Fourth, I try to show my daughters how to resist sales techniques, manipulation, etc. I do this by discussing the methods with them, and practicing those methods with them. Sometimes I try to manipulate them into eating spinach or doing their homework. Sometimes they try to manipulate me into letting them stay up late or skip school. I reward them for saying what my method is and rejecting it, or for using a method particularly well themselves. (Though I don't consider staying home from school an acceptable reward.) In today's world, these are vital life skills. You can't do a good job of resisting manipulation unless you practice, and it helps a whole lot to see it from the manipulator's point of view as well as your own.

They're making a start at rejecting social expectations without opposing them. See, you have to conform to an extent or horrific social forces will be brought to bear on you. But you don't have to take it seriously beyond conforming adequately.

At ages 11 and 8 they don't have a lot of curiosity about sex, except for reading juvenile stories about kids getting all bent out of shape about relationships. The children's stories define the norm they are expected to conform to, and they both are contemptuous of the stupidity they see in the stories. The older is becoming an expert on internet memes and keeps pointing out memes I never heard of, while the younger watches Minecraft players griefing each other. They are both firmly getting the idea that random people are not particularly trustworthy and may do strange things that don't make sense, things that may be actively self-defeating.
Last edited by J Thomas on Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

LettersAndNumbers
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:19 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby LettersAndNumbers » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

philsov wrote:You are flat out mistaken in your statement. The majority of the discussion (especially 20 onward) is saying how sinister many techniques and mindsets are. Most of the pro-PUA posts have been apologists citing all the positive aspects of a bottom feeding scum sucker, which wasn't even the qualm of the fora in the first place. It's the negative aspects that are the problem. The entire comic and basis of discussion was drawn in by the practice of fapping. Then some bottom feeding scum suckers go "Butts no, that's not me, HULK not like them. bottom feeding scum sucker just made me more extroverted and sensitive to other's logic! I'd never coerce a female!" Guess what? Then the discussion isn't about you.


I have to agree with what I bolded 100%. I cannot stand this line of thought at all. If you're not the people being discussed then you have no reason to be offended, plain and simple. If you're not a PUA who is a total creep then you don't have to defend anyone since they're not talking about you.

This whole thing reminds me of one time when I commented on how it's awful that Americans don't support gay rights, and some of my friends got upset with me. They knew I wasn't talking about them, and yet the got offended anyway. Ugh, so dumb.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:38 pm UTC

I'll just speed up this entire process by saying that you're speaking the truth and how everyone else is just refusing to listen. That's what the rest of you scum suckers were going to say, right?
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby philsov » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

Didn't we establish that certain techniques that you call "manipulative" are only manipulative in certain contexts and when executed in certain ways?


You're blurring us all together and I know I certainly didn't make some statements to that effect. You in the general sense, sure. I failed to see the definition of a neg anywhere previously and using such words. I mean, if it's banter, just call it banter. Negging has definition X, and if you jump up and down and go "ah, but it's also Y, and Y is okay!", so what? The problem is X, and its (mis)use. Telling me all the ways in which negging is acceptable doesn't change that it's warped to hell and back.

Instead of looking through pages upon pages of insults laid against us, HULK just gonna ask you to do one thing:

Type in "P..U..A..", "n.e.g.", or "p.i.c.k. u.p. a.r.t.i.s.t" without the periods. Or look at the main forum page, and read what it says under "Individual XKCD Comic Threads". If you'd like proof beyond flagrant Puppetmaster abuse, just ask, and I'll eventually sort through hundreds of comments.


Ad hominem is a (fallicious) logical argument that basically goes "because you're an asshat, you are wrong." An insult is where we go "you're an asshat." Follow that up with non fallicious logic and semantic gymnastics to get "you're wrong."

So the final culmination of "you're an asshat, AND you're wrong" is not ad hominem.

The more you know!
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chridd and 118 guests