I’ve been meaning to read Jonathan Haidt’s new book “The Righteous Mind“, on the recommendation of many readers who say it is an epic synthesis of human morality that merges Darwinism with political ideology.
From a customer review at Amazon:
[A]ccording to Haidt’s and others’ research, there are at least six mental ‘modules’ that go into moral and poltical decisions, and it is difficult to argue that any one (or two or three) are more important than others. And they are: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation and liberty/oppression. Some people (often of the political left) care most about care/harm and fairness/cheating in their emphasis on egalitarian politics that aim to provide care for those in need and create fair rules in the sense that everyone, relatively speaking, starts on an ‘even playing field.’ Others (usually conservatives) have tempermants that focus on authority/suversion and loyalty/betrayal, focusing on maintaining or promoting institutions that foster some level of deference to authority (in legitimate hierarchies), and loyalty (whether to country, God, family, etc).
One point Haidt makes is that conservatives score stronger than liberals on the disgust (sanctity/degradation) module of morality. (Interestingly, liberals appear to have no ability to even relate to this aspect of human morality, whereas conservatives can relate, albeit with a weaker degree of intensity, to putatively liberal moral modules such as fairness and care.)
Conservatives feel stronger revulsion toward disgusting things than do liberals, who, apparently, like to wallow in shit, (or to reframe it in a nicer way: like to experience unique vistas). So when the conservative thinks about gay sex and the penis pushing hard into another man’s anus, he recoils with revulsion. The liberal merely shrugs his shoulders. Not a sermon, just a naughty thought.
Which brings me to pondering something critical to the maintenance of our nation’s infrastructure: do liberal men, with their higher threshold for disgusting things, tend to fuck fat chicks more often than conservative men fuck fat chicks? Is the liberal male more open than the conservative male to slumming it?
Have any of you readers noticed differences in the strictness or laxity with which your liberal and conservative friends hold their standards for opposite sex partners? Have you noticed if the libs you know like to dumpster dive with dirigibles more than you’d be comfortable doing? Have you noticed if the conservative men you know are more judgmental of fat chicks? Do your con or lib male friends date skinnier, hotter women?
This post is purely speculative, because personally, I have not noticed much of a difference between men of differing political persuasions in their willingness to tumble with a landfaring tanker that couldn’t be more parsimoniously explained by differences in sexual market value, rather than liberal comfort with or conservative distaste for the dung heap of humanity. Some leftie men I know, while they preach a good bit about beauty being subjective, are quite the unforgiving judgmental pricks when it comes down to decision time, and they make their choice for 0.7 waist-hip ratio slender babes (when they can).
On the other hand, the flabby swingers and dirty scenesters I’ve met were all, to a tee, left wing cranks. As are the postmodern aka smear menstrual blood on a canvas “””artists”””.
I wonder if Haidt addressed this pressing question in his book? If he did, his may be the best book ever written in the PC era. Kudos would go to him.
Now I can already hear the liberals who read this blog whining that disgust is a weak moral module that should have no impact on public policy or personal choice. Consenting adults, and all that. But the utility of disgust is underrated by the neckbeard crowd. Disgust helps uphold lofty norms, and demands the best of society’s members. Disgust makes lebensraum liveable, and raises the beauty aesthetic. Disgust protects a tribe against being overrun by beastly invaders.
Disgust, it could even be plausibly argued, created female beauty. Generations of men over the eons, sufficiently disgusted by ugly chicks and fat cows, have done their part to bang and reproduce with the best looking women, and that gift is bequeathed this day to us, their descendants, in the form of barely legal porn and hot Russian tennis minxes. If our ancestors had all been live-and-let-live liberals with a weak disgust reflex, we modern men might be hitting on hairy cavewomen with long, dangly breasts and anvil-shaped jaws that could shell walnuts.
I mean, if you can pick up a steaming shit without flinching, maybe you shouldn’t have too much say in local zoning laws.
I have a very strong disgust reflex, for those of you wondering. If I see even a tiny superfluous fold on a chick’s belly, I get my whiteboard pointer and poke the offensive fatty deposit a few times, until she takes the hint. Protractors and tape measures are often utilized to emphasize the teachable moment.
Related, here’s a good discussion on the morality of disgust, over at Mangan’s.
Liberal betas will say fatness doesn’t matter, just as they say how superior they are to conservatives for their open-mindedness towards race (even though using that zip code race locator page you tweeted would prove how hypocritical they truly are). Liberal alphas will say they don’t bed the fattie (as long as their friends don’t see them typing on this blog).
I agree. I haven’t noticed a pattern in terms of actual sex partners, though the high value conservative men I know tend to pay a lot less (if any) lip service to things like fat acceptance than the leftist ones.
I disagree. Liberals are actually the most closed-minded people about race. Any discussion conservatives have with liberals about race, genetics and socio-economic outcome is immediately met with hysteria and name-calling. Far from being open-minded, liberals will scream “racist, racist, racist!” to avoid an intelligent discussion on the subject.
On a similar subject, the quote from the book review about liberals valuing fairness is inaccurate. Liberals do not believe in fairness, especially in the context of race. Because there are very pronounced genetic differences among races, social and economic outcome among ethnic groups will be pronounced as well. This happens regardless of any ethnic group’s historical relationship with the white race. Instead of accepting this reality, hard as it might be for an egalitarian, white liberals want to deprive their own ethnic group of job opportunities, college admission opportunities and other things that are deserved by those who have rightfully and fairly earned it. Ironically, these liberals speak as if they aren’t a part of the ethnic group they want to dispossess, and none of them are willing to forgo work and education opportunities for non-Asian minorities despite their ignorant support for affirmative action.
But a flaw in the disgust theory is that too many “males” on the religious right are disgusted with the idea of heterosexual men having sex with 17 year old females.
And, in fact, they seem to have more of a problem with that than with gay sex.
Dalrock has pointed out that feminism has taken ideological control of much of christianity and, as night follows day, “traditionalism” in America. Much of the learned “disgust” comes from what the holy hags have told the obedient males to be disgusted over.
Now we all know it’s really envy and rationalization about the seemingly irrevocable life decisions of the “disgusted males”, but this concept tears a hole in the above theory somewhat.
Well, there’s that whole illegal thing. Two men having sex isn’t illegal unfortunately. Having sex with a 17 year old will get your ass thrown in jail.
In very few places on Earth.
Anonymous is always correct. ALL WAY’S
Why unfortunately? How is it of your concern what those men do with their genitals?
It’s just envy expressed in a socially acceptable form – disgust in their own circumstance, turned outwards.
Most traditionalists are lickspittle beta males. Strong men have left the church a while ago.
Yeah, it’s ridiculous. And there are constant attempts by usually conservative legislators to up the age of consent to 18 in states where it’s still 16 or 17.
I guess they do this because it’s sexual activity the libs won’t jump all over them for trying to restrict. And maybe the conservatives who support this are overprotective fathers with daughters that they don’t want deflowered until they meet a nice man in their church and marry him.
“And maybe the conservatives who support this are overprotective fathers with daughters that they don’t want deflowered until they meet a nice man in their church and marry him.”
This is the more likely and obvious answer. It makes a lot more fucking sense than “Conservative Christians are feminist puppets”.
But the envy theory makes even more sense. In fact, it is not a theory. Fathers of teen daughters who can still get teen tail themselves, will do so, especially if divorced or otherwise free. Whether they will specifically guard their own daughters until the right suitor comes along will have no effect on what they will regard as their alpha prerogative to bed hotter, younger, tighter themselves.
Those who can no longer get teen tail, make excuses for themselves as they boil with envy. They are disgusted with their own situation, often married to a fat cow. I have seen this first hand. It is not a theory. It is a fact. They will even admit it when cornered in real life.
Having a daughter does not make a man a eunuch. Using that as an excuse for one’s own approach anxiety for the hottest women is pathetic. It’s notable that many of the social conservatives who condemn sex with hot, legal teens do not have teenage daughters themselves but talk of hypothetically having one. The rest of us don’t have to buy the dad vs cad bullshit.
Possibly. I agree that envy plays a role in getting conservative betas to support this crap. I also think that their old fat wives play an even bigger one. In the James Hooker case, it seems to be conservative women who bitch the most about him.
I know that a lot of churchgoing men are pressured into doing the “Christian” thing and marrying Susie Seacow if the congregation is short on hotties. This might be one reason why obesity is so bad among Southern white conservatives. The normal penalty of being left high and dry while the men hump the hotties does not apply to churchgoing chubbies, at least in the Bible Belt where the whole town still usually goes to church. And hot women, unless they’re strict Calvinists or Mormons or whatever and are really attached to their fathers, will pick whatever alpha they fancy, churchgoing or not. (Yeah, I’ve run into a few such girls who wanted me to ask their father for permission before dating them — and if you aren’t in their church, or at least a denomination acceptable to him, you’re S.O.L.)
Teenage and college-age girls, ironically, are often easier to get along with than older women, who expect you to be making bank and want to marry you Real Soon Now because they’re getting old and want to have kids.
Interesting point about the marriage habits of the churchgoing. They truly are insular communities.
Guys, I’m inserting this here so my two-cents doesn’t get lost. First, I’m not here to argue theology or apologetics with y’all. I just wanted to say this: I’m a Southern Baptist and regulary attend a nice, farely large church in East Tennessee. I’m happily married. However, I will say that every Sunday I see literally 500-600 (yes, hundred!) incredibly attractive Christian women at our church. I mean dressed up baby dolls, absolutely beautiful. Some are country girls, some are professionals (or wives of professional men), some of those ladies are scorching hot teenage and college-aged daughters, young mothers, housewives, the whole spectrum. So, I’m curious as to how many folks here have actually set foot in these churches. I’m not chiding anyone for not going to church. I’m just saying, I do attend church and I’m not seeing fatties and betas (and yes I’ve been to more than this one church). I see a lot of alpha males with MILFS on their arms and cute college girls and a trail of jailbait, teenage dreams following behind them. Maybe y’all are going to the wrong churches.
Tank, thanks for the comment. I don’t live in that part of the country; all I know is that obesity rates there are very high, even among whites. My best guesses at this point are that 1) you go to a more upscale church, and/or 2) you live in a town where you can walk around a lot and get exercise, and don’t have to drive everywhere. (The Houston, TX suburb I visited was NOT pedestrian-friendly, at all.)
Tank, I’ve gone to churches in several states, including in the South. The only way your church has hordes of beautiful women is if you are in a wealthier area where women are more likely to watch their weight, eat healthy, exercise, and get botox or plastic surgery. This is not the norm in our country or in Christianity.
Some of the more conservative churches I attended expected women to “dress modestly”. They ended up looking like they were wearing tents because they were so fat. In one denomination, the fatness of the women was so legendary it was a standard joke at the Bible college I went to. The guys knew their wives were going to end up like that unless they were really lucky. Most of the girls I went to Bible college with and have reconnected with on Facebook are quite large now.
But really, what else can you expect when everything but eating is denounced from the pulpit as sin? You know a church has gone overboard when they won’t let kids play Dungeons & Dragons, “demonic” cabbage patch dolls, or watch ET (he’s a demon…). If they’d loosen up on the nitpicky rules, people would have something to do besides stuff their faces.
Envy is real, but it hardly manifests itself the way you claim. Not every family dynamic is a footnote to game. Especially since envy naturally turns into paternal concern upon having a daughter, where the well-adjusted dad (especially an alpha) is forced to encounter and plan against the vulnerabilities of today’s woman, perhaps for the first time in his life.
Are we to believe all fatherly behavior is some cryptic Oedipalism waiting to be translated into pick-up jargon? Beta men with beautiful offspring are not automatic slaves to resentment. They can be proud without acting out their sexual frustration through proxies and compensations. It may be difficult to fathom in your world of magically fatherless hotties, but protectiveness is not a projection of envy.
True, “having a daughter does not make you a eunuch.” Then again, it has the common effect of altering a man’s perspective on the sexes. You extend the utility of the “alpha prerogative to bed hotter, younger, tighter” past the point of recognition, taking an important truth and mangling it into a dogmatic flaw.
Matt
How else can you do so and not hang your head in shame?
As “Cordite” said, envy is an even better explanation.
Religious men stuck in their marriages to aging wives, while other guys their own age are dating young chicks.. Plain old sour grapes.
But a flaw in the disgust theory is that too many “males” on the religious right are disgusted with the idea of heterosexual men having sex with 17 year old females. And, in fact, they seem to have more of a problem with that than with gay sex.
Those heterodox institutions and attitudes are moribund, no matter how much the smug left eggs them on with promises of social acceptance and being on “the right side of history.” They took the bait and complied with their own extinction. Their churches are emptying and coming to mine. The “religious right” is much smaller a constituency than is believed, but it is growing exponentially, and it is a more closely-knit force than is imagined.
“So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall.”
Further, do not imagine that the official line is the clearest expression of the Ecclesia Militans in a culture where speaking the truth has become de facto illegal. Being discreet is not stupid when enemies are easily riled into inconsolable, queeny faggot-rage — all the emotion of a woman combined with all the aggression of a man. You’ve probably seen it. You don’t get lured into fighting them. You wait for them to exhaust themselves, then move decisively.
Matt
Matt:
Are you a Jesuit?
Jesuit institution, Jewish teachers — who essentially glossed over the years AD 1 to 1500 right under the priests’ noses. Which cohort should be blamed more for this travesty of education, the academic-Semites and their millenniums of denial, or the oblivious sodomizing fifth-column leftists in S.J. cassocks who infiltrated a once glorious order? I don’t know. Unless you go to seminary, you have to be an autodidact to get a proper theological grounding these days.
The modern Society of Jesus is a shameful shell of its former self, but I count myself a casual Ignatian. If only so that I can go to the victory parties in the upcoming decades as the Jesuits’ original mission winds down to its nonviolent climax, and the triumph of the crusade becomes clear. The Counter-Reformation is over. Protestantism went out with a whimper, not a bang. It lasted almost exactly 500 years. What’s left are mop-up operations.
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, “Bishop” Katharine.
Matt
I’m a Jesuit product too. They’re amazing educators–full of piss and vinegar.
The cut of your jib is resplendent… preach it, brother.
I’m rather happy to see that the androsphere has it’s own Christian apologetics. Although I think he needs to get his own blog, or at least guest post at Dalrock’s. It’s a shame to have to dig through comments threads to read the good Mr. King.
barf.
Merely reading dalrocks drivel is like being kept after school.
Posting there, would be staying after school
with a Jesuit in overly-tight short shorts
Someone learned how to link youtube clips. Looookoutbeloooow!!!
Very minxy.
and tres lol: I actually PICTURE dalcrock as the judge’s pal
That Minister who gets electrocuted during the storm while having the perfect game. I however, do imagine dally’s wife as demanding
“Elihu, please come and LOOFAH my stretchmahks!”
“And please don’t be offended at my views;/They’re really only offered to amuse.”
– The Wife of Bath (Chaucer)
I think men should limit sexual access to their daughters, while at the same time have sexual access to unrelated young women.
If the former were happening, wouldn’t that eliminate the possibility of the latter?
Exactly. That’s where PUA and a fetish for virginity collide. The logic breaks down exactly here.
no, because lots of young women don’t have fathers.
Touché.
And having a beta father equals having no father at all.
Alphas can always afford to have their cake and eat it..
They don’t?
Nope. Ever heard of storks?
lol I was replying from my notifications and I didn’t see your comment.
“And having a beta father equals having no father at all.” That’s a pretty harsh statement that seems to have the stamp of truth upon it. It also suggests to me that if men want virtuous women, they will have to be the ones to rein in their oat dissemination. What do you think about that?
“What do you think about that?”
I see what you mean and I think that you will find this link very interesting:
http://goo.gl/2PWS3
LOL Its nice to know you still care
“I have a very strong disgust reflex, for those of you wondering.”
Oh my god, me too! I feel nauseated all the time and I even vomit a lot. It started after some non-consensual sexual experience years ago. I always say that disgust saved my life so it’s one of my favorite emotions. Whenever I feel disgust I’m very grateful because it forces me to improve my life (or, for example, leads me away from people with disgusting personalities).
“But the utility of disgust is underrated by the neckbeard crowd. Disgust helps uphold lofty norms, and demands the best of society’s members. Disgust makes lebensraum liveable, and raises the beauty aesthetic. Disgust protects a tribe against being overrun by beastly invaders.”
Exactly! I enjoyed reading this part and I agree 100%. <3
“Some leftie men I know, while they preach a good bit about beauty being subjective, are quite the unforgiving judgmental pricks when it comes down to decision time, and they make their choice for 0.7 waist-hip ratio slender babes.”
True! Liberals are usually childish and selfish hypocrites, IMO. Politically, it’s best to be something in the middle (if this is possible).
Maybe get rid of some mirrors to cut down on the nausea?
If it worked for YOU
It’ll work for
anybody
good comeback.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Pretty common knowledge that Bible Belt / Southern states tend to be fatter than blue states. If conservatives cared about slimness enough to shame the loathsome fatties in their midst, I don’t think the stats would look like this.
Yes, but don’t those states also have higher proportions of black people?
Yup, and Hispanics too (especially in Texas). But their whites are also somewhat fatter.
Have you even been to Branson, Missouri? Fat and white. It looks like a waste hauler full of lipo biowaste collided with a grease truck.
My impression is that in the south even the proles tend to vote republican. It is not necessarily an indicator of conservatism but of racial identity.
Yes, blacks are responsible for everything.
Actually, the south is the “fattest” specifically because of blacks and hispanics. The whites there overall are not fat compared to average. The fattest whites are in the mid-west.
Peterike, I’ve lived in the South. There are tons of fat white women there. They’re often married to really skinny guys too. Let’s hope the kids take after the dads.
Some of the fattest white women I’ve seen are in the South. Men included. The South is fat, period.
NT that could be due to them marrying earlier…marriage->weight gain
Nope. For women, it’s getting older -> weight gain. Marriage or children is not really a factor, although everybody seems to think it is.
I’m conservative, in pretty much every sense of the word. To get a first date with me, you must be attractive and slender. For a second date, you must on the first date have proven yourself sweet and feminine. I would rather do without than lower those standards.
At my age, and with those standards, I don’t get many dates. OTOH, I get asked out a lot by…well, the not-so-slender segment, and have a lot of fun putting them in the friend zone. And the more I do it, the more I get asked out. Go figure.
+1.
Loser guys in general will dumpster dive with fat beasts. Not sure it matters left/right on the political spectrum. Anyone who does is disgusting in my mind.
I agree – it’s not about left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative but Beggars vs. Choosers. Tapping fuglies is like driving a crappy car – everyone wants to drive a sexy car but for some they’d prefer to drive a crappy car than riding a pushbike.
My girlfriend has slacked off a bit from her diet/exercise regimen in recent weeks; she looked incredible about a month ago. Last night, she was lounging in the recliner watching TV, and I caught a glimpse of superfluous fluffiness emanating from her tummy. I just had to look away. Last night, I dreamed she was walking around my house with a bowlful of candy in her hand that she was slothfully munching on.
Happily, my disgust reflex remains turgid.
Cut her off.
Nietzsche also made the connection between the morality of care and absence of the disgust reflex. He likened the constant bemoaning of suffering and misery to painting the world with excrement.
Morality of distance.
This post smacks of self-affirming ego investment. The need to identify as liberal/conservative is self flagellation induced by a culture and national soul pissed upon by the ‘elite’. Fatties get fucked by lesser men of both mindsets. Finish the unplugging and step outside of the pre-programmed choice of either liberal or conservative. I am a man and my roots here go back before my ancestors booted the imbred island monkeys more affectionately known as redcoats. And while I’m at it FUCK Is re eel and the zionist faggots that created it.
Interesting that in Haidt’s book (which I too strongly recommend), he traced moral disgust to the “omnivore’s dilemma” – eat a lot of things but not the wrong things.
While I can’t trace DIRECTLY a liberal openness to porkers, I would suggest that a vegetarian develops a disgust for meat as a way to consciously deal with omnivore’s dilemma. I think carnivores are more welcoming to the zaftig since most vegetarians are dealing with malnutrition. Liberals and vegetarians overlap more than conservatives do so…ergo, liberals have a slight tendency to be disgusted by fatties.
But, I’m not sure of my logic here. Counterarguments welcome.
You have unwittingly given the liberals a means to prevent the infiltration of their ranks and gatherings. A cabal of liberal mafia can make a defilation pact with each other or one may have to do the fat biker chick at the door before they may enter. I now believe I have lost my chance to ever attend the democratic convention.
On the other hand I suppose the conservatives can also make use of them. Only by offering a cruel humiliation of the fat chick at the door may one enter.
That is a truly twisted version of the trope “If you’re so evil, eat this kitten!”
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYoureSoEvilEatThisKitten
So, dumpster diving will for liberals become what murdering someone is for the Mafia.
Fatties disgust me. So do ugly people. My whole life I’ve been shamed into thinking that judging these people is wrong! Fatties moreso than uggos because they can do something about it. Well, uggos can generally work with hair (and in the case of women–make-up), clothes, fitness, and the way they carry themselves to improve.
The worst are fat and ugly. And they are all over the city I live in.
“Disgust, it could even be plausibly argued, created female beauty.”
Yes, but in the negative, meaning that it was truly beauty acting as a magnet for men’s attention–a form of sexual selection at play, no pun intende. It’s been shown with DNA studies that beauty positively correlates with enhanced immunity. There was a very interesting study on the “milkmaid theory” that demonstrated the evolutionary selection pressure that occurred when our ancient northern Euro ancestors began to domesticate dairy herds, putting young women into close, frequent contact with the hind end of animals. It was the most beautiful young women who had the greatest resistance to the various pathogens that ruminants carry. This event was epochal, significantly modifying the bone structure of northern Euro’s. I’ll have to see if I can dig up that study/literature review.
More pertinent to the post’s question re: lib/con sexual preferences: I’ve noticed a wider extreme with liberal men. They tend to have tastes and tolerances that bookend the more middle of the road conservatives. The conservative men I know tend towards the cute, if slightly plain, middle of the envelope girls, where liberal men tend to either demand perfect facial symmetry and no greater than 0.775 WHR, or they’re down to date walruses.
Though I will say the most mismatched SMV I’ve seen a man on the wrong side, i.e. a stud dating a fat warpig, was a devout Christian conservative woh had so much going for him, dating a very overbearing land whale, all in the name of churchian sanctity and chastity. It was obscene. I pray that young man finds his nuts and realizes his own value as a man, leaving the sea mammals to Greenpeace.
Fascinating first paragraph. I recall Jared Diamond in Guns Germs and Steel made special note of the pathogenic pressure that our domestic animals put upon us, which lead to the extermination of the Nativer Americans. He over emphasized the environment and seemed to ignore too much the innateness the environment was selecting, but still offered interesting insights nonetheless.
On your last paragraph the current state of the church is in the direction of being rather brutal on men. “Sexual sin” is at the top of the list while gluttony is encouraged with buckets of fried chicken and glazed donuts in the basement. Men’s urges are demonized ruthlessly and continuously while their fat wives sit on the arm rests. Yes there are still the biological rules that apply where the dominate men still win the most attractive women, and this is ameliorated by the better sex ratio given that it is a place hospitable to women. But the overt social pressure is intense. Also, the promotion of the weak and passive effeminate “love” is pervasive with no observation at all of the rather masculine and alpha attacks of John the Baptist against the Herodian household and Christ at the pharisees. The churches have become flabby wallows of fat women and eunuchs.
Let the heavenly host hear your prayer and demand the sacrifice of the fatlings.
Jared Diamond is interesting, but somewhat wrong-headed. Read Landis’ book “The Poverty of Nations” as a counterpoint (or vice versa).
But I think sorting disgust on a unidimensional scale might miss something. I am relatively hard to disgust (I have shoveled shit and I have cleaned sewers, really). On the other hand, seeing a tick BEFORE it had attached and was running around had me freaked out. This says more about my neural wiring than about the tick. (But it was a truly disgusting, grasping, creepy greedy little bastard).
As to sacrifice, it works. Keep sacrificing enough virgins and
famine will go away….in time….
Thor
Fascinating comment. Thanks.
In as strange a transvaluation of presumable ideological norms as the existence of “neoconservativism”, the conservatives I’ve known have almost always been more likely to harbor a short-term mating strategy, which by definition makes them less discerning in who they fuck. The liberals may be more likely to commit to a fat woman (because their love of humanity leads them to pursue love in the form of a mutualist fantasy relationship) but the conservative assumption that humanity is base and animalistic makes them less likely to find it degrading when they say fuck it, get hammered, and fuck a fat girl one night.
To clarify, I live just over the dividing line in the South, in an east coast city. Nobody is really conservative, but many apolitical types have conservative personalities. I don’t know any religious people.
Liberals and betas: I’m reminded of a classic comment from Sailer’s, circa 2008: http://isteve.blogspot.co.il/2008/06/tattoos.html
“Creepy” is a pretty interesting word when leftists use it. I remember talking to a leftist friend of mine about a series of painting an art class had done of the same nude model. It was interesting to compare the paintings – different styles, same subject matter. (Quite different than looking at two paintings of different subject matter, in different styles.) Some fine artists in that class, who didn’t IMHO capture the sexiness of the model but created largely worthwhile art anyway. Anyway, he eventually cut short our little armchair art history class, shamefully admitting that looking at a naked woman was “creepy and sexist”.
But of course, he wasn’t a Leftist Big Man (LBM), who could cheerfully go to strip clubs and get lap dances and be hailed by the left as “annihilating puritanical middle-class morality” or something. He was a Leftist Little Man (LLM), a man trained to believe that heterosexuality is inherently – uhh … “creepy”, I guess. Think of the LLM as Kerensky while the LBM is Lenin.
LLMs believe that any appreciation they show of women constitutes sexual harassment. LBMs cheat on their wives, and say it’s perfectly okay to do that, because it “makes the Christians mad”. LLMs court women haltingly, by talking about abstract subjects, or by talking about how guilty they feel about the poor, or whatever. Not surprisingly, that leaves plenty of success opportunities to the LBMs. This makes the LLMs pretty sad and lonely, and the lonelier they get the more leftist they tend to get. The creepier they feel they are, they creepier they seem to others. They don’t really understand why the LBMs get to drool over everything female and everyone pats them on the back, while the LLMs aren’t allowed to even notice that they women they love have, e.g., feminine bodies.
It’s all a racket, created by the mental institutions we send our children to. The LLMs obeyed the rules; they listened intently to the PC crap and noticed it made no sense, and tried to believe it anyway, and got socked in the brains by the inevitable neurosis. The LBMs didn’t notice the PC crap made no sense, because they never paid attention in the first place. They made their scatalogical jokes, which the proles have decided is ample proof of “non-creepiness”. And the LBMs got rewarded in exactly the way that matters most to adolescent males – fawning attention from females.
In truth, of course, LBMs differ very little from other Big Men. The former have just learned to put a political icing on their cake of barbarism, to attract a few more flies. While an old-fashioned Big Man would say, “I don’t care about anything except getting sex for numero uno” and LBM says “I don’t care about anything except getting sex for numero uno … and fighting racism” and the girls just swoon. (Some of them do! My guess is that young women from outside the institutional schools from our urban areas are less susceptible, but I have no statistics.)
You want to find an LBM … pick a male comedian out of a hat and you may well have one. These are the guys who joke about how great is to be dump women and be an alcoholic … and then scream their heads off about how someone frowned at a black guy once. Bitter, easily enraged, red-faced hippies with drug problems – I’ll admit they’re easy to laugh at.
I think that covers lib-alphas and lib-betas pretty well.
Now for con-alphas and con-betas? One large difference between the two is that in the sexual market, they look for women to marry rather than fuck, since they believe premarital sex is wrong.
Con-betas are willing to follow the con-alphas and sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the team. They know they’re low in the pack, but accept that’s the way things are. They’re the exact types who will marry the plain, fat girls who go to their church, and in business, are the reliable types who get promoted seldom, if at all.
Con-alphas will marry the hot women in their church and have a solid marriage and several kids. Their wives may even stay relatively thin and attractive over the years. Their exact political attitudes are shaped by whatever religion they belong to.
I got called a John Bircher here so I’m pretty sure I’m conservative. I had lots of premarital sex as well as extramarital sex, post marital sex and marital sex. Its all good. I believe in God too, but don’t really go to church.
I was thinking of LBM as Bill Clinton…until you mentioned male comedian and Russell Brand was the first that came to mind.
“Conservatives feel stronger revulsion toward disgusting things than do liberals, who, apparently, like to wallow in shit, (or to reframe it in a nicer way: like to experience unique vistas).”
Once again Heart sums up years of confusing observations about my fellow humans…of course if you aren’t a sensation seeking stimulation junkie non judgmental novelty whore, you’re ‘vanilla’….someone either shoot me or the rest of the world; fucking shithole it’s become.
Nothing wrong with vanillas. They are, by and large, more stable.
i think the liberal/fat chick association is just a side effect of conservatives just being more judgmental, and liberals being less judgmental in general. extremes notwithstanding of course.
Except liberals are incredibly judgmental against those they don’t agree with.
While the SMV of the women a man gets is almost certainly more directly tied to his own SMV than anything else, it seems completely reasonable and likely that liberal men are disproportionately low-value than conservative men.
While there is a liberal elite that contains their alpha males, the ranks of liberalism is mostly beta, as constantly asserted on this very blog.
If you have success with women, you know it does take some money to date them (and hide them from each other and pay some to leave early) and, that every one hundred dollars the government takes away is less one really cool romantic getaway weekend with a babe. I can’t see how liberal men are OK with progressive taxation.
The alphas substitute status within the intelligentsia for money. The betas just follow along because that’s what they do.
Liberal guys get more hot,young chicks because they are natural assholes…
Before they get a job, when they are benefiting from not having to fund their own student loans and those of the coeds they shag. After they have a job, they are natural betas if they are OK with being taxed to death in order to subsidize a wild sex life for young males and females still in college.
The term liberal, to me, has always been very confusing. Liberal seems to imply acceptance of all, but I haven’t experienced many liberals who accept conservativism, whereas conservatives are often forced to accept liberal ideas. So, which group is truly liberal? Conservatives.
The essential difference in the intellectual classes between liberals and conservatives is that the liberal believes in the dominance of the rational mind(lets eliminate the liberals who want free shit). They are not more open to ideas at all, but that the ideas they have come from some sort of thought process. They are subject to the change more because of the prevailing conditions that they believe exist. They will abandon traditions as being outmoded readily like say resistance to homosexuality, but will have little tolerance for people who do not recognize it like they do.
The conservative has a faith that the existence of something is the result of some process beyond our immediate understanding. That is why they have more respect for faith, or perhaps they have less respect for human rational thought which is the camp I fall into. Selective pressure is usually more reliable than our ideas. The liberals often assume that what they are discarding is some arbitrary social construct, so they toss around the bricks on a whim, unaware it is some key stone. Picture the equatorial liberal who thinks fur is just a fashion in the north.
I’ve never heard it put exactly this way, but it makes sense.
I would say conservatives have a better grasp of the limitations of rational thought. Most ideas that you folks want to implement are not good ones.
Roughly speaking, “conservatives” are Aristotelians; “liberals” are Platonists. In the modern sense of those terms.
You can pretty well draw a line from Plato to Hegel to Marx, at least if you agree with Karl Popper.
Its a deliberate attempt to confuse people to conceal progressives’ Marxist motives. A liberal is actually closest to a Libertarian. What we call Liberals are actually progressives, who are actually Marxists, as progressive is another attempt to hide their true intentions.
Okay. And how do you define Libertarian.
I’d say the Reason magazine editorial staff come pretty close. Essentially a Classical Liberal, one who believes in incremental improvement through pragmatic observation, application of science, and, maximizing personal freedom. These definitions are inexact, I’m afraid.
Well, I appreciate the information. I really should know more about it.
Don’t worry your pretty little head about the matters of men, love.
Seriously.
It’s hard to get a quorum of virtuous citizens from among the pool of men, much less homogenize our politics for the mass consumption of women. This rankles a modern girl’s sense of entitlement, sure, but the problem will have to be addressed all the same.
You really shouldn’t “know more about it.” A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is best to be humble in one’s limitations, and you are halfway there with your confession of ignorance. Now don’t go spoiling that all-powerful humility by reading up on the latest energy bill or Fast and Furious scandal. You have no idea of the futility.
Do you really care who runs the sewers? Do you really care who is elected dog-catcher? We have devolved into a politics of pettiness because women felt they needed to get involved. If and when men regain the exclusive franchise, we will stop trying to micromanage nationwide school lunches, prescription drugs, and workplace behavior, and concentrate on those few, broad areas where politics truly apply, as signified in the original Departments of State, War, Treasury, and Justice.
Consider this. We have a cabinet-level department today called “Housing and Urban Development.” It is run by corpulent black women. The founders would have been disturbed, then baffled, then horrified. This sassy snap-snap ghetto queen of a Federal Department almost single-handedly plunged the world into a half-decade of economic chaos that, if unchecked by men in politics and finance, will consume free enterprise in America, Asia, and Europe until mid-century, with war to come in bursts.
It’s not that curiosity is bad. Women should be generally conversant in all manner of subjects. But the chemistry has become so volatile that we must begin emergency quarantine between matters of import and matters of frivolity. The house is burning down around us. It is no time to talk about replacing the curtains with more fashionable ones. When sanity is restored and peace regained, female specialties are even more important than the masculine arts. But crises are men’s time.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger…
It has gotten to the point where the harmless flattery of the female intellect has become absurd policy at odds with reality and in danger of annihilating us. So forgive my bluntness but the ship is sinking, get the fuck on the lifeboat and don’t make me slap you.
Matt
Finally, all my nautical training pays off! Can I at least get a kiss goodbye? Go do your manly duty, but I shall be very displeased if you drown.
we will stop trying to micromanage nationwide school lunches, prescription drugs, and workplace behavior, and concentrate on those few, broad areas where politics truly apply, as signified in the original Departments of State, War, Treasury, and Justice.
this.
x1000.
Words mean what people agree on them to mean. In America, a liberal is a soft social democrat (in Europe you would call them center-left, or even center-right given the political center of gravity over there). Most American liberals would like society to be organized like the Nordic countries and populated like the UN. There is a problem here, of course.
In Europe, a liberal is a free-market enthusiast who believes in freedom of speech, religion, sex, etc. In America, this is a libertarian. I can think of no examples of a libertarian society in practice (though some might argue the Internet qualifies).
Thank you.
“I can think of no examples of a libertarian society in practice (though some might argue the Internet qualifies).”
What a fascinating thought! A last vestige of freedom. A truly international forum.
Think of the resources that would be saved if not only schools, but government went online.
Sure, but there are various reasons things that work online don’t work off. Most of us need jobs, for instance.
I don’t give a shit about liberals or conservatives. I just wanted to tell you that I think you have a really nice ass.
Oh, why thank you.
This needs verification, where exactly did you see her ass?
Click on her little photo thingy.
The term liberal, to me, has always been very confusing.
It was deliberately made confusing. That’s why I avoid using it as much as possible. I prefer using some derivation of “leftism.” And the left destroys certain enemy philosophies by redefining words.
“Liberal” means a prejudice for liberty and an acknowledgment of the individual’s rights against the state, whether that be king or majority. The term properly understood ceased to apply to our politics with the demise of the Whigs, and the slow adoption of “progressivism” by the Democratic Party in the 20th century.
Libertarianism, like any ism, fetishizes one facet of a philosophy, and so they cannot be the modern equivalent or the proper heirs of classical liberals like Locke and Smith, as they pretend to be. Their obsession about liberty devolves into license/relativism and makes a hash of any consistency in thinking. Libertarianism is essentially “philosophical” cover for any self-proclaimed “freethinker’s” random slate of policy preferences, which necessarily contradict their comrades’ own pot-luck-dinner of an agenda.
Today’s true liberals take refuge in the Republican party, in the form of the WSJ/Reason Magazine crowd (“Free Minds, Free Markets”). Because our founding institutions in this country are liberal and small-r republican, conservatives are conserving liberal — and by now, venerable — institutions, like the Declaration and the Constitution.
So, you have liberal conservatives on the right, European-style social democrats on the left, and “libertarians” consigned to permanent runt status for lack of philosophical coherency. Clear?
Matt
Sure.
Euro obsessed nanny state promoters are less coherent than libertarians if you ask me.
Libertarians are very coherent. Their problem has always been their unwillingness to compromise their principles to any degree in order to get elected.
Cool logic bro.
There is a big difference between being empathetic and being attracted to someone. According to your logic liberals are more attracted to the physically and mentally disabled as well.
Someone who has more education, a higher income, is less religious, and has less children is more likely to be: what?
Use some Bayesian Updating
Liberals don’t date fatties, we make it easier for them to get fatter and create institutions to trap conservative men with these fatties. Pretty subtle humor imo.
Conservatives are fooling themselves about their ”self-reliance” and ”moral values” just as much as many urban dwelling SWPLs are fooling themselves about their ”tolerance” and ”egalitarianism”.
This blog entry seems interesting:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/are-conservatives-fatter-than-liberals/
All that shows is that conservatives and fat people live in the South.
Correlations don’t always run together. Education and conservatism both correlate positively with income, but education correlates negatively with conservatism.
“education correlates negatively with conservatism.”
Something I’ve been trying to point out, without saying those exact words, for the couple of months I’ve been on this site. Thanks.
Relevant because DISGUST is missing from this list.
‘When Men Don’t Want Sex”
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/24/when-men-don%E2%80%99t-want-sex/
A WTF quote:
“New research suggests that female sexual response depends on the quality of emotional intimacy and overall relationship satisfaction. That means that when a woman feels comfortable and secure in her relationship, she’s likely to feel more sexual desire – to the point where curling up on the couch in sweats and a T-shirt is more of a turn-on than donning some sexy lingerie.”
I’ve never felt “more” sexual desire when laying on the couch in slovenly clothing. Not sure where this is coming from.
If I ever get to the point where I am lounging around in sweats and t-shirts instead of underwear or tight pants, I hope my husband chastises me so that I never do it again. If you feel compelled to let yourself go in that way, it is a slippery slope to other disgusting actions.
Speaking of disgust – I was at a popular amusement park last night. Nowhere else will you find such a large array of tattooed greasy fat fucks.
My sister is working for a female prof right now who relies solely on the “latest research” for her teaching methods, rather than trail and error like any normal person would. My sister was chastised for using some method which she knew worked, because the prof said “new research suggests” that it doesn’t. This prof, besides being a complete idiot, is a morbidly obese sow.
“fat fuck” can be funny when a guy uses it.
You’re a female, watch your effin mouth.
Conservatives who don’t incorporate hypergamy and bold anti-feminism in their ideology are as deluded as liberals.
That’s why you meet many conservatives who do stupid shit like marrying single moms, or banging fat cows.
This whole question is moot. Obesity transcends self-identified politics.
The reasons behind obesity are more physiological and (especially nowadays) the result of a particular community’s mores.
For example, here in Los Angeles, an incredibly liberal city, obesity is almost nonexistent, because of the year-round availability of fresh vegetables and the immense emphasis placed on physical fitness for the camera and stage. (The few fatties here are Mexicans recently arrived, and their fat is probably physiological.)
On the other hand, Chicago, another largely liberal city, is one of the fattest in the nation, most likely due to their savage winters and long-standing beer-and-brats-and-deep-dish food culture.
Michelle Obama is doing a good job, however, of politicizing it — getting those swing-state undecided mothers on board with her eat-healthy campaign.
Still, I’ve found that obesity is one of the few safe go-to subjects that I can talk reasonably with right wing lunatics about. That bodes well for the future. If we can all get behind a few good solutions, the next few generations should shrink down to normal weight again.
When I was in a Houston suburb for a couple of weeks, I noticed that there were absolutely no sidewalks anywhere. You absolutely must have a car. I went out to take a walk a few times like I normally do, and was constantly having to hop over curbs and ditches and dodge traffic pulling off the roads. It became blatantly obvious to me why so many people are obese. As they say, walking or biking burns fat and saves money, while driving burns money and saves fat. (That plus the high-fructose corn syrup plague, among other things.)
I lived in the Los Angeles area for decades.
Ever driven by a school? The mass of obese
teenagers is shocking. Blacks, whites, browns, girls,
boys. Plenty of fat all around. There may be statistical
differences, but that is not the point.
Thor
kids are getting fatter and fatter with each generation. we can thank shit food and video games. 30 years ago when i was in grade school, we still had shit food (the early years of the ill-conceived ‘low fat’ movement), but because the video games back then couldn’t be played for more than 10 minutes at a time before boring the fuck out of us, we burned off energy with physical activity.
do they even have phys ed in schools any more?
in the not too distant future, humans will look like the ones in wall-e.
One of the problems is the movement to ultra-safety. This is driven by many players, starting with governments, going on to any entity that fears a law suit (almost everybody sane), including schools etc. And parents are hounded by safety-promoters. So the result is helmets for everything, jungle gyms that are two feet high etc. BORING!
So the only “safe” exciting thing to do is video games. And the parents etc lay the foundation for life-long obesity – now that ‘s safe or what?
Thor
So why are Right wing people lunatics? Not ignoring negative feedback does not make one a lunatic. I would say that would be following one’s reason.
You do realize that 75% of social spending goes on administration costs of distributing the modern day corn dole. The social justice issue is really about state jobs for the greatest number of people. We’d be better off cutting every citizen a check, but you guys would want to include all of Central and South America too. Why do you want to subsidize asocial behavior?
Not ignoring negative feedback does not…
Brother, until today I had not failed to never witness a quadruple negative. I say bravo.
“If I see even a tiny superfluous fold on a chick’s belly, I get my whiteboard pointer and poke the offensive fatty deposit a few times, until she takes the hint. Protractors and tape measures are often utilized to emphasize the teachable moment.”
I kind of doubt it. If you did that to any of the girls I know, the reactions would range from slapping you across the face to just drawing away and complaining for the next ten minutes about what that creep did to them. You would not be getting to do it more than once.
I think he meant a girl he was already involved with. It’s a wonderful way to weed out future manatees.
Working in theatre, I’ve noticed a trend between liberals and conservatives.
The liberals I work with are of two groups. The majority are feel good liberals that totally eat up the ‘inner beauty’ diatribe. They’ll date the land whales, push for women’s plays to get done (seriously, look at this new works festival here. http://www.athenaprojectfestival.org/pip.html#synopsis And then they wonder why women’s plays don’t get produced and men’s do.), and in general just push the feminist agenda.
Then there are the dandy’s. Skinny men who, while you’d think they’re effeminate by their clothing, are completely able to flip the script on any woman and push her down by the sheer size of their ego. It’s a minority group, largely composed of the rare, in shape, straight actors. Some directors can do it. Theatre Carpenters can pull chicks, but they’re actually much more conservative, built, masculine, and don’t put up with people’s shit. Anyone else usually falls in the first group.
Conservatives seem to be more average on, well, average. Instead of the extreme ends, they’re able to pull numbers matching their own, instead of diving into the pig stalls for an evening of hog wallowing.
And anyone with game rises above.
since fat girls are terrorists, and liberals support terrorism, then it only makes sense that liberal men are more likely to bang fat girls.
Argentina is a great example, they are on the extreme end of tolerance. Which socially is wonderful, everyone seems to get along, enjoy each other, take care of each other. In a big city like LA people on the street will help you to get to where you are going. There is absolutely a price to this..good people make for good government right? No it is the exact opposite, tollerant people make for horrible government. So as far as I can tell you pick one or the other..do you want good social life or do you want good order? They seem to be mutually exclusive. I had to laugh when people would ask me if high school was really like in the movies, with the popular kids and the geeks. In Argentina everyone just gets along.
What a ridiculous post.
But to answer your click bait posting, since you usually do at least a decent job, I have a conservative friend and he has porked 3 fat chicks this year. But he is a fat ass too by my standards.He is also about to get married (I just recieved the invite today, by coincidence) to a chubby, yet pretty, blonde (only white will do, of course) who has a child who is half hispanic from a dude that banged her back when she was hot.
I’ve also toured almost the entire US, and let me tell you.. you want fat? go find some southern white people (everything is big in Texas- especially the people) A diet of meat, potatoes and mayo, with a side of fat tends to do that.
I live in Alabama and most of the women here are slender. I’m in Oklahoma for the first time too, as I write this and was pleasantly surprised at the women here. Most are attractive and slender too. I see land barges, but the trend seems to have peaked.
alabama is one of the most obese states in the u.s. i guess you should be thankful you haven’t seen the women that are contributing significantly to the statistics.
They live on the other side of the railroad tracks. I was talking about white women. I call them LABs- Large, Angry Black women.
I get the feeling it’s more class-based than race-based. In the South, poor whites and blacks get fat because, hey, Southern food is tasty and fattening, and poor people have poor impulse control and decision-making abilities (which is why they’re poor).
Once you get up to the richer side of Southern, though, you find an entire class of young ladies who all want to be Scarlett O’Hara. And that suits me just fine, because I want to bang Scarlett O’Hara. It’s a shame I don’t look good with a mustache.
Seriously though, a dainty southern girl from a good family is about the best value you’re likely to get in the United States.
I would agree with that assessment.
Scarlett O’Hara married two men she didn’t love, was indirectly responsible for the death of the one she stole from her sister, was a horrible mother, exploited the weak, and, don’t forget, shot a man
Still, she is a fascinating character.
Scarlett O’Hara married two men she didn’t love, was indirectly responsible for the death of the one she stole from her sister, was a horrible mother, exploited the weak, and, don’t forget, shot a man
yes. she’s a woman.
Only a woman could describe such amoral, cuntish behavior as “fascinating”.
Don’t mistake men’s “fascination” with merely a coarse desire to defile the haughty bitch.
On disgust and morality. Its actually a very feminine form of morality. Masculine virtues are judgement and reason. To decide your morality and laws based on emotion is as feminine as it gets.
I can see the value of disgust as a way of determining your personal choices, but to base your morality on it is to base your morality the way women do- by how it feels, rather than on higher reason and intellect.
Good point. One all too easily forgotten these days.
All of the guys I know who buy into the two party bullshit system and identify as republican or democrat are betas that will kill their own mother for a chance at ANY pussy. Those of us that have standards are almost all openly fascist. Not enough data points for statistical significance, but still something to think about.
Fascism and republicanism are not necessarily incompatible. Both are against the democratic illusion anyway, and both seek to protect the most productive from the ignorant r-selected mob.
The republican party could be a viable option if the religious zealots, the bleeding heart “humanists” and the female pedestalizers are thrown away…
Oh wait, that would be a fascist party.
Nevermind, carry on.
You two geniuses are about as knowledgable about the differences between small-r republicanism and fascism as a kindergartener is about particle physics.
I’m a hard core constitutional conservative, a Tea Partier, a lifelong registered Republican, a Christian, and a veteran. I grew up in a family of immigrants with wartime US Army service, all of them conservative anti-communists, all of them calm alphas.
Fascism is an ideology of massive, intrusive state power, as is communism, as is modern American progressivism. It is all of the Left. Don’t lump us conservatives in with the statists. We’re oil to their water.
Hear hear. So many of these hipster wannabes just don’t get it.
With them, it’s all about antagonizing the “godbags” with the first stupid cliché that pops into mind. No basic grasp of history required.
An omega strategy, if you ask me.
You are, of course, just another ignorant tool of the Jews running shit in the west. Go right ahead thinking that being a republican means that your candidate is any different than Obama.There is nothing ‘conservative’ about your party. It’s just neo-liberalism with a different name.
“Best insight into what motivates the ideologies: liberals love humanity but hate humans, while conservatives love humans but hate humanity. ”
Then you would like Dostoevsky. A very Brothers Karamazov thing to say.
“The more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.”
I don’t know that conservatives “hate” humanity as much as they fear and mistrust it.
Like some others I don’t feel I fit squarely into lib/con archetypes. Individual perceptions and geographical differences being what they are, I’m not sure anyone does anymore.
I’m pro-choice and pro gun.
I’m pro business and pro-environment
I’m a capitalist but I believe capitalism needs some restrictions.
I want social programs that teach useless people how to be useful, instead of just throwing money at them.
I don’t want our government giving tax incentives for companies sending jobs overseas.
I live in a little blue college town, the capitol of a big red state.
I feel that religion is the worst thing that ever happened to humanity. ALL religion.
I don’t ride mopeds , I don’t care if my friends are watching or not.. and I don’t drink and drive. I don’t hate fat chicks for being fat, I just don’t feel any attraction to them, regardless how sweet their personality might be.
I don’t know the BMI scale well enough to visualize its ratings. I date thin women ( Milla Jovovich is my ideal type , Kate Moss is not too skinny for me. ) usually white but I catch a case of yellow fever from time to time. Most the women I date are liberal or at least left leaning. A few I would classify as middle of the road. But I wouldn’t know where to meet conservative women if I wanted one .. Church ?… No thanks .
There are the self-important in-your-face feminazi liberal landwhales here. The types that will accuse you of being rapist just for having a penis, but I don’t run in those circles either. I cross their paths once in a awhile and see them pulling their castrated beta-boys around on an invisible leash. I’m empathetic enough fell sadness and shame for such pathetic losers, even if they don’t have the sense to right themselves.
Where I live, most conservatives are overweight, three toothed, 8th grade edumacated, trailer dwellers from the sticks that look like Larry the cable guy… and that’s just the women. The rest of them serve in the state government. So , from the perception of my “unique vista”, the disparity is based on SMV not political leanings.
Corso – you live in Austin, TX, yes?
I always figured the most alpha thing to do would be to make up your own philosophy. Or just not bother with politics at all.
Leftist politics is actually a pretty good hunting ground for a man with game, actually. Lots of women with an ideology that says premarital sex isn’t a bad thing. And you can use those extra IQ points to construct your own complicated interpretations of their silly ideas.
The lead singer for Against Me! is in the process of getting a sex-change operation. Yes, really.
Perhaps relevant.
That’s not an alpha thing. That’s an IQ > 155 thing. Otherwise it’s incoherent horseshit.
Sure, but who cares? Your chances of winning elective office are miniscule anyway. And plenty of people get elected anyway.
I think that making a link between liberal/progressive ways of thinking and having an impaired gag-reflex for that which is disgusting will become accepted wisdom. Because the concept is so testable!
Bilbo
Leave Austin out of this. There are a lot of people in the world who are so in love with the place that there is nothing to be gained by even speaking her name.
I have been known to drive for hours at high speed accross the desert in the dark just to get to watch the sunrise from atop Mount Bonnell.
A leftist site I visited many moons ago had a discussion on bestiality. Many, if not most, of the members thought it should be legal. Perhaps they thought the government should not only stay out of our bedrooms but our barnyards too. Anyway, some members were raising objections, but all were rebutted (of course, those objecting couldn’t raise the argument that it was unnatural, since much of what the left advocates is unnatural. Case in point: homosexual interracial adoption, etc.).
I concluded that even if I couldn’t find a logical objection to bestiality, or if my seemingly logical objection were rebutted, I would still oppose it. To me this isn’t strange. I think most of our views are the results of our instincts; our intellect just rationalises them.
It’s weird, though, because I find water sports and sex involving faecal matter gross, yet I don’t advocate banning it apart from when it’s done in public. And to a lesser degree, I find it gross when watching a porno where one guy has been getting a blowjob and takes his dick out, revealing a glaze of jizz on the girl’s tongue, and another guy puts his dick in. But then sloppy seconds are a book by themselves. Even sloppy seconds after long periods of time aren’t ideal, but you can only ask for so much. This was reinforced the other day when watched a spider documentary. It showed the mating ceremony of 2 spiders. The narrator said “The male spider approaches the female’s web and pulls on a thread of her web. By doing this he can tell if she’s a virgin”. I thought “fuck, even the spider gets a virgin, but I can’t get one”. If by some stroke of incredible luck I found myself hugely rich and the desire of the world’s women, however, I would invite only the highest quality 17-year-old virgin ass into my palace.
The Left-Right political configuration is the manifestation of female-male characteristics and societal roles. IOW, the Left expresses female concerns and the Right male concerns.
Female political expressions relate to the social welfare state. Women are more “accepting” because they evolved dealing mostly with the in-group.
Male political expressions relate to defense. Men are more “conservative” because they evolved needing to “discriminate” between out-groups for alliances, trade, and war.
The globalist elites have done an effective job of separating the men and women of the West by encouraging a political system that puts men and women at odds.
They redirect man’s desire and nature towards defending to fight wars for globalist, Israeli, and corporate interests (Republican Party role). They redirect woman’s desire and nature towards caring for others to push for forced integration and assimilation with the non-White world (Democrat Party role).
A healthy system would maximize both natures and desires for the interests of the population (and not a globalist elite that puts its interests above all national and/or ethnic interests).
off topic question for the phorum:
Hyper-shy/awkward girls: how does one go about “gaming”/dating/fucking/building rapport with them…?
General archtypes associated with this personality type?
It seems that a shy girl would need to be paired with her extreme: the outgoing/extroverted guy type. Or would they more comfortably bond with an introvert?
I’ve never seen a good Game treatment of nerd-girl pickup, largely because most PUAs aren’t interested in them. But I’ll share my own experience. I’ve gotten a few into bed, so I guess I can say. Any actual PUAs with experience picking these up can chime in.
In general, go easier on the negs. Negs are used by PUAs to break down the resistance of 8s or 10s, but girls with low self-esteem may just be turned off.
Initiate everything. Take the lead. If you’re both introverted, nothing will happen.
Apply small amounts of kino and watch her reaction. Advance or back off as necessary.
The Hot Girl (frequently a 6 or 7, of course) at the Convention? Can’t say, I never bothered to fight off the hordes. I imagine they’re attention whores who’d be gamed the way most PUAs would tackle a normal 9 or 10.
In my personal experience, (just graduated college) the conservative guys do get the hotter girls. The conservatives in college are generally the frat guys and football players who the girls flock to.
The stereotype of conservatives being uptight and liberals being fun loving is completely reversed in college. The conservatives are the laid back alpha guys who don’t give a shit about anything whom the girls love. The liberals are the uptight ones constantly protesting the slightest thing that may have hurt their feelings.
I want to add that this is probably only true in upper middle class areas. Obviously, there are a ton of poorer conservatives dating hambeasts.
Everything you’ve said is right. Conservatives want to let rich people keep more of their money, so richer people tend to be more conservative. Rich men tend to be more alpha. So the correlation works at the middle and upper middle class levels.
If you know you’re on the money-and-power track, you tend to lean to the right, for obvious self-serving reasons.
But it’s hard to separate out SMV (which correlates pretty well with income for men) and politics. The question is, all other things being equal, do liberal men tolerate fat women more (ie, even when they don’t have to)?
My personal experience is not really. Conservatives have other things that cause them to settle–I knew a Greek-American fellow who wanted a Greek-American woman (seemed perfectly normal to me, though he was embarrassed when I suggested it)–and uglier women are more likely to embrace religious conservatism because they have less to gain from sleeping around. Liberal men are awfully quick to invent justifications for not going after fatties if they have the option.
And at the end, you know the old joke. A guy is offered three women to marry. One is an accomplished cook, another clever and entertaining, another rich. Which one does he marry? The one with the big tits.
I’ve found that considerations of politics tend to vanish when the little head is involved. Has feminism ever stopped Democratic (male) politicians from sleeping around? If anything, they tend to get more tail because their constituency will forgive them.
That was my experience too, way back when.
Bestiality, IMHO, deserves a second look. The beasts rarely have any fat on their bodies and no matter what happens they will NEVER call an attorney afterwards.
Cows and pigs are smaller than some modern American organisms of human parentage I have seen at conventions.
I agree with your first sentence. Bestiality could be the reason why some of the Blimps still get laid.
This thread is full of people *wanting* the above to be true, but I don’t see many indications that it actually is.
I think this is because disgust and sexual attraction are two very different things. Honestly, only a small percentage of women are unattractive enough to actually *disgust* me. On the other hand, I’m only genuinely sexually attracted to women at the other end of the spectrum. There’s a huge protective gulf in the middle filled with ordinary-looking women who neither excite me nor make me want to puke, and I react to them pretty much as I’d react to a man.
“But the utility of disgust is underrated by the neckbeard crowd.”
Disagree. They feel disgust on an average basis like everyone else. They know to hide it otherwise they couldn’ t live with themselves or indeed get a fuck.
These are actually pieces in whatever realm of experience you are in. Filtering the world in each of those lights creates the personalities that provide the benefits and flaws to society. Hats for some, permanent fixtures for others.
Your ability to move through those phases creates good ltr material.
This just does not resonate in SoCal. Women cannot afford to be fat. Their attitudes are terrible, but they are nothing if they are out of shape.
You can be behind a woman and think she has a hot body, and then she turns her head and her face is all wrinkled because she’s 50.
Watch Haidt give a speech on the book here. http://www.booktv.org/Program/13277/The+Righteous+Mind+Why+Good+People+Are+Divided+by+Politics+and+Religion.aspx
“I mean, if you can pick up a steaming shit without flinching, maybe you shouldn’t have too much say in local zoning laws.”
Hum.. yeah, it pretty much sums up everything.
On a side note… geez… you anglos think a lot about useless stuff. How come the forefathers of utilitarism spend so much time in byzantine discussions.
Austin Texas has, on any given Tuesday night, about 150 live music venues open for ones enjoyment. It can be taken for granted that most of what you will hear will be that-which-has-not-been-heard-before. Austin bands are virtually incapable, on genetic grounds, of regurgitated lame versions of cover songs. They play what they wrote or they stay at home in the basement. It is unnatural to stay in the basement.
There is no place on earth where obesity is less tolerated.
There is no place on earth where low IQ is less welcomed. When I was an intern at the local medical center, every single orderly, janitor, or lab-tech had at least a Masters degree.
The UT PUF keeps at least 1 billion USD in physical gold in its vaults at all times.
Test for disappearing comments.
Strange… many of my comments seem to be getting lost. Are there perhaps key words that, when used, cause postings to disappear into the snows of Cyberia?
Kike nigger spic chink slant sheeny bitch ho honky
Naaah, I think it just shuts off if you post too many times.
I hadn’t really been posting all that much… ah, well… some things must remain a mystery.
Those weren’t the words I was using anyway… the chateau is one of the few sites where censorship seldom, if ever, takes place.
The post of mine that refuses to print was addressing the father/married man envy hypothesis.
Outhouse psychiatry at it’s you’re just jealous lamest.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and rightful rancor is merely that.
Don’t worry about it. Honestly, posting too much on these boards is a sign of a beta.
Go out and get laid. Or get drunk. Either way, it’s a better use of your time than stressing over a post.
This is not stress… this was merely a point of curiosity, since I had been posting here for several weeks already and never saw five or six posts in a row refuse to print.
Use words properly, grasshopper. One can get laid, drunk, AND post several messages in the space of a day.
Disgust protects a tribe against being overrun by beastly invaders
A very nice way to put it…
5 minutes of alpha can apparently kill too:
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/akron-restaurant-owner-dies-hours-after-meeting-president-obama-1.318594
at first sight I thought he might just have chaired one of the dreaded “death panels”.
In NY, plenty of liberal guys have plenty of disgust for fat chicks.
Exercise. Eat Organic. Stay Healthy. Go for a Hike. Ride your Bike. Don’t eat McDonald’s. Be Vegetarian. Or Vegan. Or Caveman. Go to Yoga.
Fatness is of course, more prevalent in the Red states. Liberals, being smarter and more self-aware, are much less likely to eat themselves into a heart-attack than brainwashed red-staters who see eating Big Mac as a sign of American Freedom.
Liberalism is beta and feminist, and your only claim to intelligence is the liberal echo chamber of academia and the media which serves to (constantly) remind liberals how intelligent they are. Nevermind the fact that you fail at life and sit around whining about “the distribution of wealth”–wealth which you are not sufficiently intelligent or virtuous enough to produce on your own.
You are pussies and incompetents who think the government can pinch-hit for your existence. Well I must be a right-wing libertarian wingnut (proudly), because I’m here to tell you that no one else can live your life for you, and you will be the first to perish when your worthless paper dollar collapses and all the cannibals of your welfare state come out from under the woodwork to devour you.
“Nevermind the fact that you fail at life and sit around whining about “the distribution of wealth”–wealth which you are not sufficiently intelligent or virtuous enough to produce on your own.”
No, sorry. The other anonymous (both of you get handles, for Christ’s sake) wasn’t saying that at all.
First, any student of American history sees that making money has ZERO to do with being “virtuous”. That’s patently ludicrous. In fact, they’re often opposed to one another.
Second, you can make a lot of wealth and STILL be dismayed by how the system is rigged against poor people. It’s called empathy. That’s why rich people are signing the Buffett oath about giving away all their money before they die.
Don’t underestimate the inequal distribution of wealth. It upends societies as efficiently and ruthlessly as anything else. For proof, see France, circa 1790.
Why is the manosphere ignoring the 2012 election process? Are we all OK with Condi Rice as VP?
Check out the Daily Female in the UK today reporting the findings of a womyn’s studies professor that say women have finally overtaken men in IQ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overtake-men-IQ-tests-time-100-years-multitasking.html