I have seen the error of my ways.

Post Reply New Topic

Hardcore? like KSA?! You can't be serious.

the negging in this thread is off the hook.....

If by 'off the hook' you mean 'not working', then I agree.

What is 'negging' and what is 'off the hook'?

What this thread is really missing is some Harry Enfield to explain the problem.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w[/youtube]

Now that we have that sorted out, make me a cup of tea, woman!

I can't watch YouTube at work, so I'll just respond to your interpretation. Feel free to correct any erroneous perceptions on my part. Anyway.....

It interests me that these issues are framed as cultural "problems" rather than "this is just how things turned out after several thousand years of socio-cultural and biological progression." It's like taking a handful of gravel, throwing it, and then claiming there's a "problem" with how the rocks land. Ultimately, the universe doesn't give a sh!t and there's no "way things are supposed to be."

Just because individuals, or even groups of individuals, are unhappy with a facet of "society," it doesn't necessary translate into a "problem" in any objective sense. In fact, these same facets benefit other individuals quite well, and, if the benefits change, the individuals who currently reap rewards will be bemoan "cultural problems" because the system is no longer in their favor.

From personal observation, I've noticed it boils down to everyone wanting a bigger piece of the pie for a cheaper price. When they don't get it, it becomes a "cultural or social problem that needs fixing" as opposed to an issue with the individual themselves. For example, this peculiar notion that there are legions of dateless, sexless males and that this is the direct result of some conscious feminist plot, or supposed "evil alpha males" who are "steeling all da wimmins." Do we actually have any evidence for this phenomena? Is the birthrate around the world in sharp decline? No? Then whose "problem" is it, really?

I've concluded that blaming people for their own problems is one of the most controversial and politically incorrect things one can do.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 08 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought "negging" was what I mixed with rum and drank during Christmas at family gatherings......

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=negging

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... f+the+hook

well, that too (that was assumed by me)...haha....but I meant 'out of control' metaphorically speaking.


And negging (from Urban Dictionary):



I took the first entry, but feel free to read others.

I'd say that's brilliantly accurate so long as you're fine with applying that to one and all groups.


You could also say that any problem experienced by one group indirectly effects all, that its one tangled web of human interaction and that finding the most pragmatic means of action and improving society from these standpoints is what we'd consider human progress. With gender it likely becomes even more apparent than race in that what women collectively go through will translate into something that men go through and from there vice a verse. Blame and finger-pointing are emotional junk food, it makes those aiming it feel a bit more powerful for a minute but it wares off fast and they're left worse off just as much as the people they were finger-pointing at.


That happens to be a problem only when you're dealing with a zero sum game. I don't see any evidence to suggest that we are. For men to say that they want rights back from or at the expense of women or women to say that they want rights back from or at the expense of men - that's wrong. For a group to decide that things aren't situated in a practical way (and what's dealt with in four videos is violence against males and males being the universal whipping post in that sense) - if men feel that its impractical, that this sort of role playing turns more men violent to begin with and possibly creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where other men need to be focused on being experts with violence to have the right to father kids for the honor lost if he can't protect his family - in a cultural sense its obviously a very un-Keynesian thing to do but, pff, nothing wrong with efficiency and reducing or even hoping to eliminate circular self-feeding problems.


I will admit that there are crybabies out there. I'll also admit that there are people who want to try and 'play the system', I really really hope that if a mens'.......organization of identity and discussion of role comes about that it never resorts to political games, PC, etc., that keeps people in the past and keeps the connivers running the show.

The problem I have, and what irritates me the most - beneath all the whiny geeks, beneath all the PUA's, there is a real dynamic here, one that's worth being examined, worth viewing the angles of to see if we - as at least a semi-matured society - can resolve or at least work together to significantly improve. If we decide that its simply uncomfortable and leave it on the back burner no one becomes the wiser, people find even more ways to profit from other people's misery, and at the end of the day we aren't one step closer even in terms of understanding ourselves as human beings, understanding our emotions vs. that of other people, its all kinds of things like that which when improved from any angle tend to aid people's emotional health and maturity immensely.

As far as birth rate there are a couple things at play here; economics and education play a very big role. The other peace, with regard to relationships - we did throw off our cultural roles, they needed to change obviously because the whole structure we live on is changing that drastically. Unfortunately they're still up in the air, still a mess, and to make matters worse gender and relationship knowledge, what's real and what isn't, is a blur as well. Any clarification, any de-mudding in this area leads to both men and women having happier and healthier relationships.

The trick is looking at the dynamics to see what's really there, pushing the whiners aside and dealing with the core issue undistracted by them.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 08 Sep 2011, 5:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I beat you to it!

Not a conscious plot or evil alpha males. There are a few nutjobs in the MRM, but afaik most like me regard it with cold indifference. A return to a more primitive (default) mating strategy.
Regarding the birth rates, yes in first world countries there has been a massive decline, most of them are producing children below the necessary 2.1 replacement rate. However I don't think anyone has attributed that to those evil alpha males, usually the finger is pointed at the widespread availability of contraceptives, abortion and women waiting later and later to have children (sometimes to the point of infertility).

1. "First-world countries" are not "the world."

2. I'm not really sure where you're getting "massive decline" from:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-12/tech ... _s=PM:TECH

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/cen ... tion_N.htm

Nope, no "massive decline."

Duh, but first world countries are the only places where feminism has made inroads and the gender dynamics has suffered. So they would be the only countries where evil alpha males could have affected the birth rate. (which I don't think they did)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so ... birth_rate . I'm sure theres an exception or two, but data suggests the more advanced the country the lower the birth rate. The rates have definitely dropped in the last few decades, so much so that when combined with a lowering death rate, it's on its way to becoming a crisis. Lotsa old folks peddling around with not young'uns to look after them with their taxes.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html See here for the US change over the last 100 years, I exaggerated the decline, but there is a trend nonetheless and you'll see similar trends for most first world countries. I believe the US finally dropped below "replacement rate" a year or so ago.

My intent is to apply it to all groups, yes.



And I return to my point about what constitutes a "problem" and what is regarded as "improvement." My hesitation lies in the lack of a "gold standard" as to what humans should aspire to. As far as I can tell, there's no commonly agreed upon "goal."



From my own peculiar philosophical perspective, I don't understand the anger and the finger-pointing. Sex and romance are not "entitlements" and I don't subscribe to the notion of intrinsic rights. Someone wanting to, or not wanting to, engage in sexual congress with you is an expression of their free will, so, unless you want to argue that their free will should be violated for your pleasure, it's pretty ridiculous to get pissy over failure to obtain sex. It would be the equivalent of me ranting and raving because someone wouldn't give me their sports car. Sex and romance aren't "entitlements" any more than sports cars.

This is one of the reasons I don't comprehend the attempts to frame "datelessness" as some sort of social issue when I find it is clearly an individual issue. The alpha/beta male thing is just so much pseudo-intellectualism and pop-psychology.



A keen observation and I agree. And my "pie analogy" was poorly worded. I meant to say that most people (IMHO) are primarily interested in the pursuit of pleasure, the avoidance of pain, and sucking up as much resources as they can to forward those goals.



Like I said, I can't view the videos at work, so I'll take your word for it.



Absolutely.



My preference is that people pull their heads out of their a$$es, stop whining, and take on more responsibility as individuals while using that complex consciousness of ours to make wise, compassionate decisions.

Thank you for this discussion.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 09 Sep 2011, 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is a decline in the birth rate in developed nations and as other nations grow wealthier their birthrates decline as well. But the cause isnt just the actions of women alone if that's what he is insinuating. And iirc, much of US population growth is driven by immigration.

This is a good video on the subject.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-st ... on-growth/

According to my sources, no, there is not a "massive decline" in first world nations. There's a difference between a "massive decline," a "slow down," and a "complete stop." And the birthrate of most post-industrial nations tends to level-off at some point.

The world's population is not "declining," which was my original point.