[slubu]

Admittedly I'm not very good with this topic. Anyone care to explain to me in easy terms what my chart really means?

[Tuthmosis]

(02-21-2013 09:12 PM)slubu Wrote:  

Admittedly I'm not very good with this topic. Anyone care to explain to me in easy terms what my chart really means?

It means you probably drove a Chevy Camaro at some point in your life.

[Tuthmosis]

(02-21-2013 09:17 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 09:12 PM)slubu Wrote:  

Admittedly I'm not very good with this topic. Anyone care to explain to me in easy terms what my chart really means?

It means you probably drove a Chevy Camaro at some point in your life.

CORRECTION: Toyota Celica.

[Emancipator]

[TheKantian]

Liberals are usually distinguished in there belief in the notion of the atomistic individual, i.e. the individual is an integral entity. This is why you see people ranging from Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke all classified as liberals. Whereas, something like conservatism usually focuses on notions like family, churches, communities before the individual.

[guerrilla]

[Anon-A-Moose]

Tuth...I could go on at ends about this subject. About your post. About the importance of it. But to sum it up...If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll buy you a beer. I mean it.
What you said is long overdue, very important, well articulated, and a necessity. The manosphere is not an impossible to reconcile concept with Liberalism, itself a very diverse subject with MANY schools of thoughts. It goes hand in hand in many ways, and to let politics be a black and white divider, rather than a grey bridge linking the manosphere's aspects, would be absurd and counterproductive.

You, good sir, have earned this.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(02-21-2013 02:55 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Why do game guys get associated with manosphere guys? I don't care about politics, I care about improving the quality of the sexual experience, from start to finish.

Perhaps because I'm very heavily internalized in my game, but I don't see them as different at all. My outlook on life, my "opening my eyes" to the red pill world, is what makes my game. Logistics and more "game tactics" is like my curveball, if the manosphere is my baseball team.

(02-21-2013 09:12 PM)slubu Wrote:  

Admittedly I'm not very good with this topic. Anyone care to explain to me in easy terms what my chart really means?

Your ideas on economics are a bit to the political right. You (according to the test) are more "markets over masses", but only within relative moderation--you're not a "if it works for companies everyone benefits exclusively they can do no wrong" type. So you lean somewhat right wing economically. However, your beliefs are generally a bit libertarian, so someone like Ron Paul might be in your future
Myself

I'm very very far left in economic policy--I'm of the belief that, while profit is good, in the grander scheme companies only should exist for the overall benefit of humanity, their influence should be limited, and that the economic system should be structured around that. More "people determine economics", thinking of the markets as a tool for bettering our standard of living. I feel its creativity and its productive potential should be tapped and guided towards this goal, and the concept of profit limited, not a be-all end-all but to be used as a carrot and string to get the more "go-getter" type to channel that energy into helping society. Basically, using the market as an intermediate to enact societal benefit--not too dissimilar in principles from the far right, but their execution is (according to my personal beliefs, you may agree or disagree as you wish) failing. My SOCIAL beliefs are fairly conservative too--two family households, not particularly in favor of gay adoption (not for moral but practical reasons, basically children need to understand the male-female dynamic for proper development), that people SHOULD all work but not necessarily for profit (like if your "job" is at a soup kitchen, you're contributing to society, therefore, deserve compensation--technically redistribution of wealth, but arguably for a general greater good and something which is worked for).
But I'm a bit more authoritarian than you--yeah, everyone should question authority, but also accept just and proper authority willingly and even enthusiastically. We should be okay with trading minor freedoms where it's beneficial, with an open eye, under no coercion. And that yes, governments will have to do difficult things for the greater good. But that this should itself be questioned, and under scrutiny--and, if that government fails to be accountable for its actions, should be replaced. It should be "checked" by labor unions and the populace, a large developmental engine with active input on an organic level from everyone in the society. For real democracy, the people have to somehow be involved much more effectively.
My personal views.

[xsplat]

(02-21-2013 04:55 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Again, this is good for the alphas in society, but bad for folks who play by the rules. Civilization is highly dependent on channeling the sexual energy of men into productive endeavors. If you spend all your time chasing tail, you're not building a house, hacking a living out of the wilderness, and raising five little do-gooders. It's the difference between barbarians where life is ended on a whim, and a modern civilization where society works as a team.

I think a lot of the liberal hating has to do with those who can see that taken to its logical conclusion, it undermines civilization.

This is transparent bulshit, and the ONLY reason it is ever put forward is as a socialist agenda for the underdogs who don't want to compete.

Look, I'm working hard to build an empire. You know why I'm doing it? Take a guess.

Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called "productive betas".

There is more than one kind of alpha - they are not all street thugs. Most people compete financially and productively in order to get alpha status - especially as they age. And for players we compete harder and better knowing we'll get hotter and younger girls that way.

This whole concept of alphas being unproductive thugs is the most stupid, self aggrandizing beta fuel I've ever come across. It's a beta meme that deserves to be brutally killed.

[slubu]

(02-21-2013 09:23 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 09:17 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 09:12 PM)slubu Wrote:  

Admittedly I'm not very good with this topic. Anyone care to explain to me in easy terms what my chart really means?

It means you probably drove a Chevy Camaro at some point in your life.

CORRECTION: Toyota Celica.

Ha..well played sir.

[Anon-A-Moose]

It's not socialist, more misunderstanding. Stereotypes. The most visible and easily thought out alphas for many beta types is the one who competes for their girl, not the girl out of their league.

[Huck Finn]

@gmanifesto

"I didn't really mind because I always smacked the sh*t out of them and curb stomped them, but it is good to see varying view points."

I have never seen a line on the internet that is so deserving of an internet badass meme, congrats.

[ElJefe]

(02-21-2013 11:33 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

This is transparent bulshit, and the ONLY reason it is ever put forward is as a socialist agenda for the underdogs who don't want to compete.

Look, I'm working hard to build an empire. You know why I'm doing it? Take a guess.

Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called "productive betas".

There is more than one kind of alpha - they are not all street thugs. Most people compete financially and productively in order to get alpha status - especially as they age. And for players we compete harder and better knowing we'll get hotter and younger girls that way.

This whole concept of alphas being unproductive thugs is the most stupid, self aggrandizing beta fuel I've ever come across. It's a beta meme that deserves to be brutally killed.

When I said alpha, I meant someone who spends all their time fucking and seeking out the next opportunity to fuck, ie. the Heartiste definition.

The point is, the "less" monogamous you are, the less time you have for raising a family and a new generation of law-abiding citizens who will answer the call-to-arms when that day comes. If everyone is raised by women, I doubt men will be inclined to die for their country. Women simply don't instill that kind of value in their sons, because loyalty and team-work is not a feminine value - social harmony is.

[soup]

Maybe this sounds girlish to some of you big ballers out there, but as a man who fucked forty new/different girls last year I think I can say with confidence that political drama is anti-game.

Obese-Feminism is the enemy, not left or right politics.

[ElJefe]

Discussing anything serious is anti-game.

[bojangles]

im not arsed about politics, but I'm pretty much right whilst in my youth my father had raised me with socialist values, he's changed now too, it's due to the changes in the UK.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

(02-21-2013 05:43 PM)Sombro Wrote:  

As I said at ROK (before comments disappeared) "left" and "right" are pretty useless labels nowadays.

This spectrum is one I find more helpful. Where would red pill be? Somewhere on the left side I would guess, but I think the red pill addresses both the innate and constructed facets of human nature.

Do you use this to see where you or others fall politically? The chart is accurate for what its axes measure but it combines all government control in one axis. American politics is divided in such a way that those who want less government control of the economy typically vote for more government control over personal relationships and vice versa. In that graph, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats should essentially overlap, but they would hold pretty different views on what economic and social policies the government should have.


Of course the Political Compass test is just as bad or worse. Political Compass confuses personal views with political views so it's not correct to use it to determine political views. Political Compass is clearly written by Leftists/Socialists and they've done a poor job of separating their own personal beliefs from the quiz. That's pretty clear if you take a quick look at the FAQ on their site. Many of their questions have nothing to do with what you think government policies should be.


Politopia.com is pretty accurate if you want a quiz that determines where you fall on a political spectrum based solely on your political views. The farther north you go, the less you support the government enforcing restrictions on economic activity. The farther west you go, the less you support the government enforcing restrictions on personal freedom.

[Teedub]

I thought I was right wing...

Interestingly, I've taken this in the past and was even more libertarian then. I must have become more authoritarian with age!

[Acute Angle]

(02-21-2013 11:33 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called "productive betas".

There is more than one kind of alpha - they are not all street thugs. Most people compete financially and productively in order to get alpha status - especially as they age. And for players we compete harder and better knowing we'll get hotter and younger girls that way.

This whole concept of alphas being unproductive thugs is the most stupid, self aggrandizing beta fuel I've ever come across. It's a beta meme that deserves to be brutally killed.

You might be interested to read The Myth of the Middle-Class Alpha.

"Not being an asshole has nothing to do with being alpha. If an alpha male feels like being an asshole, he’ll be an asshole plain and simple. If he doesn’t feel like being an asshole, he won’t. The only constant in the alpha male’s behavior is dominating and feeling entitled and correct in doing whatever the fuck it is he wants to do at any given time. You think Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun were worried about leading without being assholes? Or Napoleon? Or John Gotti? Or Bumpy Johnson? Or Julius Caesar? Or Pablo Escobar?

The freedom of a man to engage in truly unrestrained alpha behavior is directly related to how free he is to not cooperate with alpha proxies, either because they don’t exist in his environment or he’s found a way to exploit them. The rest of us in modern society, especially in the middle-class, are forced to strike a balance between being as alpha as we can while being beta enough to fly under the radar of the various alpha proxies around us."

[j r]

(02-22-2013 04:40 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The point is, the "less" monogamous you are, the less time you have for raising a family and a new generation of law-abiding citizens who will answer the call-to-arms when that day comes. If everyone is raised by women, I doubt men will be inclined to die for their country. Women simply don't instill that kind of value in their sons, because loyalty and team-work is not a feminine value - social harmony is.

See, this is exactly the kind of bullshit masquerading as objective truth that I'm talking about. I was raised by a single mom and, unlike a lot of the chickenhawks advocating endless war (this is not directed at anyone in particular, by the way), I actually put on a uniform and went downrange. And I was far from the only one.

Anyone who thinks that conservatives are red pill just because they oppose some of the excesses of feminism, watch this clip:

Ann Coulter is very conservative, but she embodies everything that's wrong with the type of bullshit situational feminism that I hate and that everyone in the manosphere complains about. She's gung-ho about sending other people to war - and probably opposes women in combat roles - but has no problem supporting "regime changes" that involve sending men to kill and die for bullshit. She tries to shame anyone who wants to end this absurd war on drugs by calling them pussies and accusing them of sucking up to liberals. Most importantly, she's got this completely artificial, unearned sense of superiority, when in fact she's nothing more than a blonde in a short skirt with a talent for saying controversial things.

As many on here have already said, the left and right divide is mostly bullshit. There are many legitimate disagreements to have over things like the appropriate tax level or the right amount of regulation or how much help we ought to give the poor, but the whole culture war aspect is just nonsense.

Progressives talk a lot of shit about justice and equality and conservatives talk a lot of shit about freedom and the singular greatness of 'merica, but it's all just that, shit. At the end of the day, the battle between progressives and conservatives isn't really about ideals. It's a fight for control, a fight to see who gets to tell everyone else what to do. To that end, I'm not interested in either side. I have my own family, my own friends, my own community to give my life meaning. I don't need meaning imposed from above, whether by people talking to me about morality or people talking to me about social justice. Fuck 'em both!

[ElJefe]

(02-22-2013 07:37 AM)j r Wrote:  

I don't need meaning imposed from above, whether by people talking to me about morality or people talking to me about social justice. Fuck 'em both!

Now that comment itself is bullshit.

1) Any morality you have - and you do have at least some - is a morality you were given or adopted yourself from somewhere else. You don't invent your own moral code. So you're not as independent as you think.

2) Do you think your representative for the population at large? If yes, I'd be wrong in my assertion. I'd admit it if so... I'm more interested in truth than ego.

It boils down to wtherh I think society will regress if children aren't raised by their fathers. I happen to think so. It's already happening.

Coulter is no intelletual heavy-weight so I'm with you there.

[j r]

(02-22-2013 07:49 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 07:37 AM)j r Wrote:  

I don't need meaning imposed from above, whether by people talking to me about morality or people talking to me about social justice. Fuck 'em both!

Now that comment itself is bullshit.

1) Any morality you have - and you do have at least some - is a morality you were given or adopted yourself from somewhere else. You don't invent your own moral code. So you're not as independent as you think.

2) Do you think your representative for the population at large? If yes, I'd be wrong in my assertion. I'd admit it if so... I'm more interested in truth than ego.

It boils down to wtherh I think society will regress if children aren't raised by their fathers. I happen to think so. It's already happening.

Coulter is no intelletual heavy-weight so I'm with you there.

You just took one sentence out of multiple comments and are completely distorting what I'm saying. I've said multiple times that I believe in objective truth. I'm far from a moral relativist. What I object to is other people trying to impose their subjective beliefs on me and justifying it by calling it objective truth. I see it from the left and I see it from the right. I call bullshit.

Let me put it another way. There's truth as it is told to you and there's truth you earn through life experience. Sometimes those two are the same, but often they are not. There's the religion that is indoctrinated into you as a child and there's the religion that comes from rigorous study of theology and philosophy and from gaining real awareness of yourself. There's the understanding of women and families that is drilled into you growing up and there's the understanding of women that comes from a lifetime of interacting with them. There's the concept of war and of duty that comes from thoughtless patriotism and watching Hollywood movies and there's what you find out when you actually set foot on a battlefield.

Sometimes a person does all the work of coming to their own understanding of things and finds that it matches very closely to the traditions that they grew up in. Great. Unlike progressives, I'm not out to destroy tradition just because I think that I can come up with something better out of whole cloth. I actually find tradition to be quite useful. I'm just not willing to defer to it, just because. I want to know for myself "why?"

Family for instance, I absolutely believe in the superiority of the two-parent household and the importance of a father in a child's life. If I had a father who was more active in my own upbringing, I think my development to where I am right now would have come much faster. Nonetheless, I got here and I'm still getting.

More importantly, the process of getting to where I am has taught me the futility of trying to force other people along the same path. Sure, there are laws and there are rules that keep people from actively harming other people. Trying to enforce morality beyond that though, is really just a fool's errand. I'm willing to let the cards fall where they may.

[ElJefe]

(02-22-2013 08:22 AM)j r Wrote:  

What j r said

I find it impossible to disagree with what you wrote. In fact I agree with all of it.

[j r]

(02-22-2013 08:28 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 08:22 AM)j r Wrote:  

What j r said

I find it impossible to disagree with what you wrote. In fact I agree with all of it.

Yeah, I tried to express it a little more clearly that time. It's the process of finding out for yourself who you are and what the world is and comparing it to what you've been told, that's what I think unites people on this forum. And it goes beyond conservative or liberal.

There's no reason why men shouldn't be able to sit down and have a discussion over nationalized health care and the appropriate tax level and disagree over those things. The problem is that politics has come to be a form of tribal affiliation and people wrap their whole identity up in whether they vote for the Democrat douchebag or the Republican douchebag.

[raliv]

The personal motivations of each individual dictates their political beliefs. While at the risk of touching the old "race question," I'm sure lots of non-white game guys love multiculturalism and equality as it gives them sexual access to white women. So it would make sense for them to support more "Liberal" politicians who represent the glories of multiculturalism and equality. White guys already have traditional sexual access to white women so they have no need for "Liberalism/multiculturalism" and in fact dislike the increase in competition/bad sex ratios.

No racist here, just saying what I think some people are thinking.