[worry]

I'd like to see him pounce at her near a cliff while she's practicing the matadorial arts. Barring that though, yeah, I kinda do hope he attacks her looks. Anything he can possibly do to further expose his fundamental spinelessness is more than welcome.

[Mentalist]

When is Cali primary? My understanding is that's all we need to realize there'll be no miracles this time.

[Mezla PigDog]

Briar King, on 17 May 2016 - 05:11 AM, said:

Damn. Just saw a clip of her mocking a Trump debate and she looks horrible/tired/run down/sick. Anyone else pick up on that if they saw that event aired??

I'm curious to see if Trump will pounce on the look offensively. It seemed very obvious to me when I saw it.

Is it not just that you're not used to seeing older women on tv when they're knackered from the campaign trail?

[amphibian]

He hates Hillary irrationally, so stuff like this, he'll notice more than most people.

[worry]

CA primary is June 7.

[Macros]

Yeah cause passion is always totally rational.

Jumping on a woman for looking tired and run down, man oh man the trump train just runs on pure class doesn't it?

[Nicodimas]

Trumps gonna win...I see the energy he creates and neither Dem really is doing the same thing...

http://blog.dilbert....cal-chess-board

This is what I have also been noticing:

Quote

The longer he proves he can moderate his behavior to fit the situation – as he did in the Megyn Kelly interview – the more people trust that he isn’t crazy

[Terez]

Nicodimas, on 19 May 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Trumps gonna win...I see the energy he creates and neither Dem really is doing the same thing...

http://blog.dilbert....cal-chess-board

From that blog:

MRA blog said:

Now imagine Clinton and Trump selecting VPs. If Clinton picks a woman, she overplays the woman card to destruction. If she selects a beta male, it will seem cringeworthy to the sexist public. If she selects an alpha male it will annoy her base without gaining a single vote. Clinton loses on every path.

This post has been edited by Terez: 19 May 2016 - 11:46 PM

[worry]

The alpha/beta stuff is pop psychology at its worst, and Scott Adams is an MRA rape apologist whose finger is on the pulse of men who think "cuck" is a legitimate insult and not an accidental confession of insecure manhood -- and nobody else.

http://www.salon.com...t_rape_remarks/

[Terez]

Briar King, on 20 May 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

Terez, on 19 May 2016 - 11:45 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 19 May 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Trumps gonna win...I see the energy he creates and neither Dem really is doing the same thing...

http://blog.dilbert....cal-chess-board

From that blog:

MRA blog said:

Now imagine Clinton and Trump selecting VPs. If Clinton picks a woman, she overplays the woman card to destruction. If she selects a beta male, it will seem cringeworthy to the sexist public. If she selects an alpha male it will annoy her base without gaining a single vote. Clinton loses on every path.

Do you concur or no?

How can I concur with something that makes zero sense to anyone who is not a MRA?

[Terez]

It was just meant to demonstrate what kind of blog Nic had linked us to.

[EmperorMagus]

I love this Alpha/Beta stuff. Literally everybody he uses the terminology claims to be an alpha male, so the term "beta" is something they call all outsiders who don't agree with them.
The moment somebody uses that terminology you can be assured that any argument they are making based on it is complete and total crap.

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 20 May 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

I love this Alpha/Beta stuff. Literally everybody he uses the terminology claims to be an alpha male, so the term "beta" is something they call all outsiders who don't agree with them.
The moment somebody uses that terminology you can be assured that any argument they are making based on it is complete and total crap.

I think a lot of people (like me) were unaware of the MRA phenomenon before that dude in CA who killed a bunch of people because he felt he wasn't getting the attention from females that he so obviously deserved, and he wrote this long wombling manifesto on the subject which journalists dutifully read and quoted for us so we wouldn't have to read it. After that we realized that his crazytalk was actually a widespread thing, so that now when someone like Dilbert dude comes along, we only have to provide an example of his crazytalk to alert people as to what kind of guy we're dealing with. But I guess BK still doesn't know, bless his heart.

[Terez]

I didn't read anything into your posts other than the obvious: that it wasn't immediately obvious to you why I quoted that particular bit from that blog.

[Tattersail_]

Puppets. Puppets on a string. That is how I see these candidates.

Those in the background who want a particular person in power make it so you have no choice. Person A looks and sounds reasonable, even though they are part of a party you don't agree with, the party you do agree with has the most ridiculous person at its head. Any sane person will vote for the most reasonable looking person. Look at David Cameron becoming Prime Minister as one example. Labour who most people in the UK would normally vote for had 2 ridiculous choices in a row. Gordon Brown, and then Ed Miliband. Gordon Brown was no where near Tony Blair in terms of rational or charisma. Ed Miliband was an absolute joke with a lisp. His brother would have been a much better candidate and if he ran instead of Ed we would not have David Cameron as leader.

So, go back to Barack Obama's election. Who was his opponent? John McCain then Mitt Romney, regardless of values and beliefs if you put the three of these in a room who would you say was the most charismatic, charming, reasonable?

Now what are you faced with?

There is no way on earth that I can see Trump as a President. No way. The sane people will vote the reasonable choice, Hilary
.

But you won't realise that you had no choice in the first place.

[D'rek]

Terez, on 20 May 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

They actually have conventions for this stuff. There's another term I'm forgetting, not MRA, but specifically about the Alpha-Beta philosophy. Something like pickup culture, but that's not it.

Red-pillers? Ladder theory?

[Gorefest]

D, on 20 May 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

Red-pillers?

Holy crap, that's an actual thing. I just googled it. Live and learn. We normally just call such guys jerks.

[Mentalist]

worry, on 20 May 2016 - 12:12 AM, said:

The alpha/beta stuff is pop psychology at its worst, and Scott Adams is an MRA rape apologist whose finger is on the pulse of men who think "cuck" is a legitimate insult and not an accidental confession of insecure manhood -- and nobody else.

http://www.salon.com...t_rape_remarks/

God save us from wannabe psychologists. You have idea how irritating pop psych is to an actual psych major (esp not a BA one)

[HoosierDaddy]

This has nothing to do with the topic. That being said:

Humanities studies at the professional level should always be based on primary (1st person) resources, with analytical based research based around primary resources. If you want to put forward a point professionally, you better damn well have a primary source with which to do so.

Any student can parrot secondary sources, the key is learning to distinguish and learning to develop your own sources.

*Bernie needs to bow out gracefully. If he goes full attack mode he jeopardizes the general.

[Grief]

As Hoosier pointed out, this thread has gotten pretty far off topic.

If you want to discuss red pill stuff, or research issues (such as agenda driven research, or clashes between popular and academic work) in their own right then please start separate threads for that; I'm happy to shift any posts you want to keep (I've set a bunch of invisible since they're off topic, but I'll shift them if there's an appropriate thread for them). Otherwise, please try to keep your points related to the topic at hand.

Edit for clarity: Discussing those topics as they relate to US politics is fine. What I've removed were posts which I felt were basically discussing those topics in themselves, without really adding to the discussion of US politics.