Quote:Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
Can you remind me what question are we currently exploring? I'm not making fun of you or anything - after 15 pages, I honestly have no idea what topic we're analyzing here.
Lots of people are analyzing many different topics, but this is what I'm analyzing.
The Manosphere is comprised of men who accept many pieces of information regarding the nature of men and women AND the nature of male and female sexual choices. All of this information is true and some of it is highly controversial to normies.
And yet, the Manosphere is broadly split into two categories: (1) noticeably happy men who seem peaceful, friendly, and full of non-hostile jokes versus (2) noticeably unhappy men who seem resentful, unfriendly, closed-minded, and full of hostile jokes.
Since both groups 100% agree on the facts of male nature, female nature, and the nature of male/female sexual choices, these facts themselves DO NOT cause the negative emotions of the second group.
Hypothesis: What if Jordan Peterson’s lectures on resentment within post-modernism can explain why these two groups exist? (In other words, what if both groups of men were using
very slightly different language to describe those facts, one language set preventing resentment, but the other language set creating resentment?)
Procedure: Take
just one agreed upon conclusion about female sexual choice and slightly change its wording from resentment-creating to resentment-preventing to see whether an "immune response" is triggered.
In this video, the speaker described the "immune response" of "the Blue Church" (Cathy Newman and he mainstream media) which protected them from hearing the truth of what Jordan Peterson was saying.
Resentment-creating conclusion, "Women sleep around with bad boys until their fertility is completely gone, and then they try to sucker a beta male into marrying her."
Resentment-preventing conclusion, "Women sleep around with men who won't be good fathers until their fertility is almost gone, at which point they'll seek to marry a man whom they think (or hope) will be a good father."
Observations: The re-wording of the conclusion
did indeed produce an" immune response" - including (but not limited to) accusing me of saying that men
SHOULD marry these women AND accusing me of claiming that women have infallible judgment.
I said none of those things. And when I asked for evidence that I said either, no evidence was provided.