The Right & Obsession with Maniliness?

Ajidica said:
While a few tumbleristas sometimes leak out into the real world and should be ignored, are you saying that if a person makes a racist/sexist/xenophobic/bigoted statement they shouldn't be called out or held accountable for it?
Click to expand...
If you're going to actually explain why you think what they said was bigoted, then go for it. However, most times it's just a name-calling tactic, used in place of an actual argument.

Traitorfish said:
I don't think that's equivalent. Racism, sexism and bigotry are objectively bad things, but there's nothing objectively bad about effeminacy, homosexuality or even, really, being a big ol' ****. The tone might be similarly shrill, but the content is very different, and content is at least occasionally important.
Click to expand...
A "beta" isn't someone who is effeminate or homosexual, it's someone who is weak, someone that lets people walk all over the them. Similarly **** is someone who is so weak that they'll stay with a partner who cheats on them. Both are no less "objectively bad" than racism/sexism/bigotry.
 
I personally find anyone who constantly brings up the words 'beta' and '****' into every conversation is someone coming from a place of a massive inferiority complex. They have to compensate for their lack of masculinity by bringing up stupid buzz words that didn't exist 10 years ago like 'beta' and '****'. They are effectively just as bad as the Tumblr SJWs, in that they have to create new words to make up for their own insecurities.

Similar to how someone not that smart will go around telling someone they have a genius IQ, that's what I think of these kinds of people.
 
civver_764 said:
A "beta" isn't someone who is effeminate or homosexual, it's someone who is weak, someone that lets people walk all over the them. Similarly **** is someone who is so weak that they'll stay with a partner who cheats on them. Both are no less "objectively bad" than racism/sexism/bigotry.
Click to expand...
Bollocks it is. Weakness is a character flaw, not a moral failing. Weak people make their own lives more difficult, but unlike racists, sexists and bigots, they don't make the world a crappier place simply through their continued existence.

Put simply, there's a difference between losers and jerks.
 
I wouldn't call weakness a character flaw. I would call it a potential character flaw. Some of my favourite people to hang out with are weak in one way or another. I don't like hanging out with them because that allows me to walk all over them, but rather because they are more likely to have empathy for others. And that's the sort of person I enjoy spending my time with.
 
Traitorfish said:
Bollocks it is. Weakness is a character flaw, not a moral failing. Weak people make their own lives more difficult, but unlike racists, sexists and bigots, they don't make the world a crappier place simply through their continued existence.

Put simply, there's a difference between losers and jerks.
Click to expand...
You don't think weak people bring people around them down? If someone can't take care of their own business others have to step in.
 
Hygro said:
You don't think weak people bring people around them down? If someone can't take care of their own business others have to step in.
Click to expand...
That depends on the nature of the weakness. If some guy is letting other people shtup his wife, even though he'd really rather she didn't, that's not really any business of mine. The social miasma is limited to his household. Can't say the same for a racist or a homophobe, who carry their stink everywhere they go.
 
Traitorfish said:
That depends on the nature of the weakness.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. I guess my point is that people who dominate relationships (i.e. "alpha" people) tend to not have been in a position of non-power. So they can't relate to it. Plus their alpha-ness has likely lead to them getting what they want, so a lot of them are just not fun to hang out with.
 
warpus said:
I wouldn't call weakness a character flaw. I would call it a potential character flaw. Some of my favourite people to hang out with are weak in one way or another. I don't like hanging out with them because that allows me to walk all over them, but rather because they are more likely to have empathy for others. And that's the sort of person I enjoy spending my time with.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. What these macho lunks see as weakness, is most usually just everyday human frailty. The "betas" and "****s" are just people, as you find them, and fascistoid objections to their "weakness" don't represent a high moral standard, but simply misanthropy.
 
I mean, it's also obviously super sexist to presume women to have no agency, and that their moral or immoral action is entirely dependent on the strength and general doucheyness of their spouse.
 
"I would never let my girlfriend cheat on me if somehow I ever managed to get a girlfriend" is not all that compelling as a statement issued from a claimed position of strength.
 
It's just so drearily reductive. At its richest, this schema has six types (I guess there are gammas, deltas, sigmas and omegas). What if you're a nu man? Or a pi man?

Renaissance humoral psychology looks positively sophisticated by comparison.

By the way, we got nothin' on the Elizabethans in this respect. Every other joke in a Shakespeare play is a joke about ****oldry.
 
Last edited:
Traitorfish said:
That depends on the nature of the weakness. If some guy is letting other people shtup his wife, even though he'd really rather she didn't, that's not really any business of mine.
Click to expand...
Not much of a go-getter, eh? I'd make it my business. :groucho: Afterwards I'd tell her she should really stop doing that (since I'm a good friend of course)
 
Traitorfish said:
Bollocks it is. Weakness is a character flaw, not a moral failing. Weak people make their own lives more difficult, but unlike racists, sexists and bigots, they don't make the world a crappier place simply through their continued existence.
Click to expand...
Well this kind of makes sense, as people on the right tend be more individualist and people on the left tend to be more collectivist. Maybe they should reverse their insults so they would actually sting :lol:
 
civver_764 said:
Well this kind of makes sense, as people on the right tend be more individualist and people on the left tend to be more collectivist.
Click to expand...

This seems to be contrary to conservatives preaching family values and liberals preaching respecting all regardless of creed or birth. The desire for homogeneous society is more collectivist than desiring cultural mixing.
 
civver_764 said:
Well this kind of makes sense, as people on the right tend be more individualist and people on the left tend to be more collectivist. Maybe they should reverse their insults so they would actually sting :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL...people on the right like to believe they are individualists...right up until they clique up with "their own" to perform some hate crimes they lack the courage to try by themselves. There is no one in my experience more likely to worry about whether their "buddies have their back" than some white nationalist or other iteration of the alt-right.
 
caketastydelish said:
I personally find anyone who constantly brings up the words 'beta' and '****' into every conversation is someone coming from a place of a massive inferiority complex. They have to compensate for their lack of masculinity by bringing up stupid buzz words that didn't exist 10 years ago like 'beta' and '****'. They are effectively just as bad as the Tumblr SJWs, in that they have to create new words to make up for their own insecurities.

Similar to how someone not that smart will go around telling someone they have a genius IQ, that's what I think of these kinds of people.
Click to expand...
Kind of like people that go around accusing people of racism all the time. I'd imagine a lot of them are trying to compensate for their own bigoted thoughts, so they project them onto other people.

Vincour said:
This seems to be contrary to conservatives preaching family values and liberals preaching respecting all regardless of creed or birth. The desire for homogeneous society is more collectivist than desiring cultural mixing.
Click to expand...
Honestly those are probably not the best words for the point I'm trying to make. I guess what I mean is, people on the right are more concerned with individual success, whereas people on the left are more concerned with collective success.

People on the right would hate to be considered weak, but couldn't care less if you thought they were racist. People on the left would hate to be considered racist, but couldn't care less if you thought they were weak.
 
civver_764 said:
Honestly those are probably not the best words for the point I'm trying to make. I guess what I mean is, people on the right are more concerned with individual success, whereas people on the left are more concerned with collective success.

People on the right would hate to be considered weak, but couldn't care less if you thought they were racist. People on the left would hate to be considered racist, but couldn't care less if you thought they were weak.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. Yeah, I can agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom