@NightwingTRP

You're not exactly wrong... but if we don't slice this carefully, we run the risk of veering off into a pointless semantic dispute.

So let me explain exactly what I mean by "gynocentricity" is that statement.

I don't mean the idea that women are more inherently valuable. That is instinctively built into all humans, even those of us here on this forum, and from a certain perspective, it's actually true.

Women are far more necessary than we are for the vital task of making replacement humans. That is a real source of inherent value, and we have far less of it than they do. Every successful human society has acknowledged this. Take care of your breeding-age women, and your little girls, or you are fucked.

But when I call a society "gynocentric" (to distinguish it from other societies that aren't) is that it is ideologically centered around femaleness. This distinction is subtle but important. A copper mine is a precious natural resource, but I don't ask its opinion on what is morally right, or what is an acceptable level of taxation, or who should run the DOE.

A gynocentric is not just a society that values women. Every successful society values women, and any society that doesn't value women is stupid and deserves to die. A gynocentric society is one that is held the desires of women to the exclusion of the opinions, beliefs, and needs of men. This is another sort of culture-wide suicide.

This whole business is the reason why women have been historical disempowered (in certain contexts)... because women are precious, and safety and freedom are opposing forces. You cannot "liberate" a woman without reducing the amount of protection she receives.

Now, our culture is having the old college try at this, by telling women to do whatever the fuck they want, and trying to shift all the blame and consequences for their bad decision making to men.

But it is failing.

No matter how much west tries to shield women from the consequences of their own poor judgement (using the bodies of men as shields), it is failing, because women who make poor choices almost always suffer. No one is our society has the power to prevent this, no matter hard they try.

Women are suffering because they have not only been given a lot of freedom (which women don't generally handle well), but have received it in the total absence of any warnings or preparatory instruction. Such warnings would be called misogynistic, as if they somehow created reality rather than described it.

We are essentially playing a culture wide game of make-believe, trying to pray hard enough to make reality into what some intellectuals think fairness looks like. Make-believe is fun until it runs up against physical reality, in that moment when your dumb seven year old ass jumps off the roof and learns that no matter how hard you believe in fairies, you cannot actually fly.

Personally, I am not in favour of "un-liberating" women for their own good. Helping people who don't ask is almost always a mistake, because they never appreciate it, and often find a way to blame you for rescuing them, or for the very problem you rescued them from.

The solution is far simpler... convince men to stop being Big Chief Savaho. Let women bear the consequences of their own bad choices with zero intervention. The ones who wanna do whatever the fuck they want without thinking about cause and effect will do just that, then sink without a trace to a socioeconomic level where middle-to-upper class males like ourselves will never have to interact with them except to order food. And the wiser ones will still be around for us to date.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

Nah, I've dealt with Brits many a time. You just got whoooooshed because you're too serious and need to lighten up a bit. Not everything is life or death, bud.

Nah, you're just tedious, arrogant and "not funny." That's all it is. You are BORING.

There's more you said I want to respond to, but once again, I'm drunk as hell on one of the few occasions I get to sleep it off the next day. If I remember after I sober up, I'll get back to you with whatever it was I've already forgotten if it comes back to me.

Hurr-durr-I'm-a-stupid-retard-and-am-blaming-my-dumb-on-the-drink. You weren't the only person at a party this evening. I'm like 12 whiskies in bro, plus 7-12hrs ahead, as will likely be shown in my previous post not being proper English. I've done plenty of dumb shit on the drink, including posting, but I've always been able to hit the basics in terms of arguments. You're struggling because you're in a weak position and need to rethink your position/put it forward in a different way to make yourself seem less weak.

What you don't realise is that this is actually a great reply for me. It completes a conclusion for me without needing to watch any further. You are just a stupid waste of space who adds no value in his replies. I do not respect you and am unlikely to ever respect you, based on your behaviour. Go sober up, come up with your oh-so-clever-comeback, so I can complete my evaluation of you as a worthless addition to the community, who has no brains, and nothing of value to contribute so I can block you and continue with my journey happily.

@Whisper hahaha, I'm sensing this is more likely a cultural difference. Between the UK and the USA humour only seems to transfer one way from what I've observed. I'm very familiar with Paine and Jefferson (great men), their arguments on speech were better put later by a full throated Englishman in my view - J.S. Mill. There's nothing you've stated that I'm not familiar with or don't agree with. Except you missed the heckler's veto.

Due to the differing cultural standards in things like etiquette and humour, Americans tend to laugh at British comedy, but it is not particularly common in reverse. A cultural oddity. Something I will no doubt have to come to terms with if I move the US. (something I've been considering, I'll likely fall under the 2nd tier of your immigration policy but we'll see if Britain can be rescued first.) I'm assuming in good faith that typomagashiv thinks he's funny. Unfortunately I didn't find him funny in this case. I'm genuinely irritated by Tate. My post was not some stupid position supporting something which was not red pill, it was merely voicing my irritation over something specific that was tangentially related to TRP. I suspect you've weighed in because you felt it was "busting my balls" or whatever, but were I to show any of my mates this sort of thing it'd be labelled "wankerbanter" - a term I'm sure you're not familiar with. It's a term we use to describe men who attempt banter and it doesn't land properly/has the opposite social effect.

Though I'd suggest you're probably not even right to wade in on that. We are all on the same page with regards reddit being a cesspit. The issue I have is not being mocked, it is being told I should not mention something, in this case that knobend Tate. You want to mock me for talking about Tate? Have at it. You want you tell me you're issuing me with a "punishment" of sorts for daring to mention a topic or a person? You're into heckler's veto territory. Something I'm sure you're opposed to - otherwise you'd need to concede that cancel culture is fine.

We're all on the same side here. It was wrong to remove you from reddit. My reminder to typo was that reddit is such a cesspit because it's "democratic" upvote/downvote system is the tyranny of the majority in action. What happens when organised protest becomes the heckler's veto on steroids. The same problem was why twitter had become a cesspit. No benefit in this place going the same way, just with a different set of noisy people.

Though one question remains: why do you guys misspell Paine's surname? (If I was being picky, if memory serves it is literally Thomas Pain though I don't recall why it changed.) It's something I've noted a few times. I've known a couple of folks with the surname Payne in my life, is just that?

@NightwingTRP

Being mocked for what you say is not censorship. Censorship is having what you say removed and silenced so that others cannot see or hear it.

People get confused a lot because of a mistake the early republican thinkers (Payne, Jefferson, etc) made... they called it "freedom of speech".

The mistake there was that they construed the fundamental right as the right of the speaker to speak. They missed out on the far more important component, which is the right of the audience to listen.

When I was booted off reddit for saying that violence is an understandable response to someone raping your child, it wasn't just, or even mainly, a violation of my right to say stuff. The far more important violation was the violation of the right of thousands upon thousands of people to voluntarily hear what I have to say.

If I mock someone for saying something I think is stupid, I am not in any way preventing others from choosing to hear it.

@NightwingTRP

He is, in a way, "with" us... but not in the way they imagine.

What the Andrew Tates of this world are is the product of several iterations of "retard reads what Whisper and Archwinger and HSP wrote, then tells his retarded version to another retard, who tells another retard".

Dumbed-down from dumbed-down is just dumb.

Frankly, he deserves to be metaphorically flogged for that interaction, because it's the direct result of his total lack of understanding of how to control the frame of an interaction, and of how to have interactions where you control the frame.

There are better ways he could have "won" a twitter argument with Greta Thunberg, but that's not the major point here. The big idea is don't get into pointless twitter arguments with the Geta Thunbergs of this world.

Think about it.... why would people like ourselves interact with Greta Thunberg at all? What possible benefit could we derive from that interaction? We don't want anything from her personally, because her personality, or lack thereof, makes her unpleasant to interact with. We don't want access to her audience, because they are the kind of people who are equally useless to us. We might want attention from people who hate her, but there are far better ways of getting that, such as saying things on our own that they might find interesting.

Postmodern discourse is a waste of time and energy, because even if you win, there is no prize. Greta Thunberg does not have anything that I want. Even if she for someone reason decided that I was the most wonderful person in the world and she wanted to help me in any way she could, there would still be absolutely nothing she could do to help me reach any goal I actually have.

Andrew Tate lost the moment he agreed to play his enemy's game, on his enemies' terms.

I'm half tempted to assume the man is some sort of agent provocateur, but there is no point ascribing to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

However, we should still be treating Andrew Tate as an enemy, because any sufficiently egregious incompetence is indistinguishable in effect from malice.