Thursday, December 24, 2015

Alpha Mail: why SJWs always lie

A philosopher's take on why SJWs have appeared at this particular moment in the West, as well as a credible explanation for why they always lie:
Here’s the famous dialogue between a man and his wife.

She:  Would you like to go out to a movie tonight.

He: Not really. There’s a game on.


She: But it’s Friday ...

He: Yeah. It’s been a hard week. I’m tired. Going out is too much fuss.

She:  But you NEVER take me out …

He:  What are you talking about? We went out twice two weeks ago!

[Fight ensues]


John Gray (of “Mars and Venus” fame) points out, and Deborah Tannen (PhD feminist) agree that women do not use language in the same way as men. A woman’s use of certain adverbs and adjectives is emotive, not factual, they say. Tannen says women focus on the “metamessage” level, on what it means to the relationship, whereas men focus on the “message” level, the literal information conveyed by the words and its real-world accuracy. If they’re right, then the cause of the fight in the above dialogue is that the woman was trying to convey her sense of frustration by the very hyperbolical use of the word “NEVER” and the man was miffed by the literal untruthfulness of its content and consequently defended himself. The woman then perceived this as unsympathetic, the man interpreted her language as dishonest and insulting, and so they got into it.

And the women I’ve talked to about this agree entirely. They say, “When we say, ‘You never…’ you’re not supposed to understand ‘never’: you’re supposed to understand we’re expressing how we feel at that precise moment and become sympathetic to our feeling about the situation. We don’t mean ‘never’ literally, we mean that emotionally it seems much too long since it happened. If you’re sensitive and listening, you’d get it right; and it really would be insensitive of you not to give us credit for being more truthful and honest.  We haven’t forgotten the past. We’re talking about feelings, not about your facts. Don’t insult our intelligence.”

Well, let’s take that logic and run with it (although feminists insist logic itself is sexist, of course). If a woman’s “never” is hyperbolical and emotive, and at root untrue, and is targeted at expressing feelings and producing sympathy rather than conveying information, then what happens when a society becomes feminized in its style of public discourse?

Obvious: we lose control of the facts, and start to make claims that are focused on producing sympathy with our feelings about things. When we don’t get our sympathy, we get more and more shrill. We care less and less about the facts and we find the resistance greater; and we become more and more acrimonious that we are not managing to elicit the kind of heartfelt response we think we deserve. Eventually, we are making factually outrageous statements — outright lies, really — in a more and more desperate attempt to get the sympathetic support we feel we so desperately need from everyone. Truth goes right down the hole, and we stop caring at all about the relationship between manifest fact and our claims.

And eventually, of course, we fly into a hissy fit and capitulate to the women’s greatest fault, which is spite. Simmering spite is a woman’s greatest vice, just as violence is a man’s. If anything, the spite is more heartfelt, determined and long-lasting, though the violence may be more overtly and instantly damaging.

SJW’s are spite freaks. And it’s because they can never elicit enough sympathy to satisfy them, because in order to do so they must overcome a larger and larger body of obvious, contrary facts. Nowadays, our whole public discourse style is based on the exercises of emotive lie-telling, and a feminine distain for factuality.

SJW’s NEVER tell the truth. That’s man language. A woman’s is emotive hyperbole.

24 comments:

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Basically, women argue like children and so do SJWs.

So treat them as such.

Bluntobj Winz said...

Agreed. Simply treat everything they say as an emotional response, locate the cause of the emotion, and evaluate whether to punish or reward, being careful not to reward overmuch. Maintain your frame and agree and amplify or flip the script. It also helps to plan ahead and have an alternate plan for Saturday if you need a Friday night to recover from your workweek. You are the rational one, so exercise that planning ability.

bob k. mando said...

InsaneWomenShit
If you’re sensitive and listening, you’d get it right; and it really would be insensitive of you not to give us credit for being more truthful and honest. We haven’t forgotten the past. We’re talking about feelings, not about your facts. Don’t insult our intelligence.



this is the problem though, when women make a statement that is blatantly *false* they are insulting the intelligence of the MEN.

you'll note that the woman's 'solution' to this is that the male participants are required ( on pain of 'insulting' the females ) to participate with the woman in the creation of an artificial, shared delusion who's purpose is to supplant reality ...


this essay compares nicely to Dalrock's most recent post:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/unhinged/


notice that Kathy Keller's entire "teaching" revolves around her deranged emotional state AND the participation of all the men in her life in enabling it.

Student in Blue said...

This poster managed to encapsulate quite nicely the theory I've been running with re: SJWs and lying. Very well done.

Hosswire said...

The feelings=facts problem is why a man never really wins a logical argument or debate with a woman. Or SJW, but I repeat myself. As long as her emotions remain unchanged, nothing he says persuades her. That puts unaware men at a real disadvantage, as they expend their energy & lose their tempers trying to convince the unconvincible.

Another disadvantage is that most men absolutely loathe stirring up their negative emotions so will capitulate just to keep the peace. Whereas women & SJWs actually enjoy sparking the feelings of outrage & anger inside themselves.

A third weakness for men is assuming that women & SJWs share their reluctance to make trivial complaints. For a man to confront another man, his grievance must be real & worth the potential harms of that conflict escalating to violence. So we automatically treat grievances as legitimate & seek to negotiate a fair compromise. But for the woman & SJW the grievance is just a manifestation of their emotional state & the compromise solution does not fix that. It merely becomes the starting point for the next grievance.

It goes against the current equalist & feminist dogma to simply ignore or reject or mock grievances brought by women & SJWs without engagement, but that is often the best choice. There is no upside for us to legitimize the illegitimate.

Dexter said...

It goes against the current equalist & feminist dogma to simply ignore or reject or mock grievances brought by women & SJWs without engagement, but that is often the best choice. There is no upside for us to legitimize the illegitimate.

They're counting on us to think the upside is "we will get sexytime if we give them the sypmathy to their feelings that they crave".

Eric said...

Most guys I know who have been married for awhile won't go too far out of their way for sexytime. They just want a little peace after work.

Matamoros said...

Perhaps a good answer would be - "Why isn't supper ready?" or, "How can I be emotionally supportive if the foods not on the table?"

evilwhitemalempire said...

I have a better theory about SJWs.

In any population their are variants (in personality just as in appearance).

Todays left SELECTS for those variants that are shrill, lying, crybabies and idiots over those with better sense.

And as the left becomes more unreasonable, more and more level headed folks simply leave it behind (believe it or not there was once upon a time when you could sit down and have an intelligent conversation with a leftist. These other folks are still around btw. But they are now mostly known as libertarians).

As this happens the left gets even more fucked up as there are fewer and fewer level heads to keep things cool.

This accelerates the exodus of brains from the left causing the rate at which the left gets fucked up to increase exponentially.

So as each year goes by the left becomes shriller and more infantile....

....until it loses the respect of the 'silent' majority.




evilwhitemalempire said...

Understand that in this theory the left does not really produce egregious liars and censors, histrionic crybabies, etc.

Rather it SELECTS them from the environment and concentrates them in universities and other places.

Sean said...

You will notice that the SJWs have arisen alongside Islamic extremists. This is no coincidence. My Theory is that the SJW phenomenon is part of the American phenomenon known as a Great Awakening. In previous generations these Great Awakenings were Christian. But this Great Awakening has seen those same energies diverted into pushing leftwing social justice causes. What we think of as a political phenomenon is really a quasi religious one. This is why the SJWs are so utterly intolerant..in their own way they believed they are saved and they are righteous and this salvation redeems any behavior they engage in.

Michael Maier said...

sort of OT:

"You NEVER suck my cock" is going to be my go-to line from now on.

natschuster said...

Why are so many SJW's men, if acting like an SJW is a woman thing. The male SJW's are just as bad, just as good at lying. I think that SJW's are, for the most part, just bad people. Some SJW's are unwilling or unable to grow up. Lots of the stuff that SJW's do and say you will find young children doing and saying. All that victimology, cliquishness, etc. The demand that everyone be treated the same for the sake of fairness is something pre-schoolers do. And children can lie fluently.

Ben Cohen said...

"Whereas women & SJWs actually enjoy sparking the feelings of outrage & anger inside themselves." Why the hell would you want to be around someone who enjoys being outraged and angry, besides for having kids?

It's challenging enough to banish negative emotions from your life, but now a woman will encourage the worst side of you. I think God was drunk or having a great laugh when he created woman to frustrate the hell out of man.
What was the conversation between Adam and Eve when Eve gave Adam the fruit to eat?

1sexistpig2another said...

The woman needs to submit, not argue or complain. Just comply. Vet very carefully before you your invest your life into a woman. If she can't submit, do not get mixed up with her. It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. Just my 2 cents (well not only mine).

tz said...

Hyperbolical = Diabolical. It requires not a logician but an exorcist.

Sokrates said...

http://freedompowerandwealth.com
They are the breed of the devil and that guy is the father of all lies. No wonder that we can’t but tell lies permanently.

Rex Little said...

There's another way that he/she conversation can go if he doesn't like to argue. When she drops the "You never. . ." bomb, he shuts up and says, silently to himself, "If she doesn't remember the times I did, I'm not going to bother doing (whatever it is) anymore."

Tom K. said...

More and more I am finding the concept of "Special Olympians" to be a useful concept for all of the people out there demanding that that "others" treat them in manner you do not treat a normal person. The reason this concept is useful is because it plainly identified thise demanding "special" treatment as what they are: weak. Abnormal. Sub-optimal. Barely functioning and only with "special" assistance.

This world is full of Special Olympians.

Tom K. said...

More and more I am finding the concept of "Special Olympians" to be a useful concept for all of the people out there demanding that that "others" treat them in manner you do not treat a normal person. The reason this concept is useful is because it plainly identified thise demanding "special" treatment as what they are: weak. Abnormal. Sub-optimal. Barely functioning and only with "special" assistance.

This world is full of Special Olympians.

Nemo Maximus said...

There is a very simple method to overcome "You Never [do something she wants]" or "You Always [do something she doesn't want]". The only downside to this method is that it requires that you pay a little attention to your life.

The important point is to not get flustered and do not assume she is correct.

Her: You Never [do x]
Him: (Thinking)
Him: That's a lie. We did x [yesterday, last week, last month]. (The frame here can range from amused mastery to righteous fatherly anger, but it must be delivered with some emotion. You need to combine firm manly truth with the emotional nuclear accusation of the lie.)

Now the script is flipped. You are now not discussing you and whether did or did not do [x], but you are discussing whether she is a lying liar who lies.

Possible responses:
Her: Are you calling me a liar?
Him: I'm pointing out that you lied.
After a bit of back and forth, you may graciously concede that she is merely mistaken. However, the discussion is over. Lie or mistake, there is no reason to continue to discuss whether or not you do [x]. In addition, you have reinforced that you will require the truth.

or

Her: (Ignores accusation) You still don't do [x] enough.
Him: We are not going to continue this discussion until you retract your slander against me and apologize.
Once she has retracted, however, the discussion is baseless.


The Overgrown Hobbit said...

Screwtape could not be happier.

Advice to men: "If she says, 'You NEVER do [this thing I want or need you to do]' it actually means, "this thing happens so rarely, it might never happen." Don't waste time in dialectic. Use rhetoric."

Advice to women: "If you use hyperbole to express how important something is to you, and you find yourself getting bogged down in niggardly detail, stop. Apologize. Move into computer mode: When you do X I feel Y because (real world conzequence) Z."

But that assumes neither party hates the other. It assumes the advice is given to two people whose profound differences (men and women are very different) are interfering with their ability to create a hotbed of charity.

As a long time gamer, I can appreciate tactical advice for getting the best of an opponent. As a wife and mom it makes me so sad. I'll pray for you guys.

The Overgrown Hobbit said...

Screwtape could not be happier.

Advice to men: "If she says, 'You NEVER do [this thing I want or need you to do]' it actually means, "this thing happens so rarely, it might never happen." Don't waste time in dialectic. Use rhetoric."

Advice to women: "If you use hyperbole to express how important something is to you, and you find yourself getting bogged down in niggardly detail, stop. Apologize. Move into computer mode: When you do X I feel Y because (real world conzequence) Z."

But that assumes neither party hates the other. It assumes the advice is given to two people whose profound differences (men and women are very different) are interfering with their ability to create a hotbed of charity.

As a long time gamer, I can appreciate tactical advice for getting the best of an opponent. As a wife and mom it makes me so sad. I'll pray for you guys.

Nemo Maximus said...

Overgrown Hobbit Said:

Advice to men: "If she says, 'You NEVER do [this thing I want or need you to do]' it actually means, "this thing happens so rarely, it might never happen." Don't waste time in dialectic. Use rhetoric."

Here's the problem with that. Recently I got the "You never do [thing]." We were on a day-long trip to another town. In fact, I had done [thing] that very morning. Sometimes women get a bad case of confirmation bias when they believe you have fallen into a pattern. They will only recognize things that match the pattern, and ignore those that don't. This technique, although unpleasant at the time, breaks the pattern and allows the rest of life to be more pleasant.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.