Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

barn

re: [Podcast] 4187 Wrong About... - 2nd caller

Recommended Posts

I'm having trouble putting this idea in the right place, maybe even highly disagreeing with Stefan Molyneux on it. I don't know why, could be down to not fully understanding the context or perhaps this was a ' glitch ' (?) .

The quote:

(begins around minute 45') - the podcast

"Do you have any nice guys who asked you out and you look back and you say: 'Well, that guy became a productive member of society. Boy, I sure wish I had gone out with him!'

[...] - her response

Yeah, cos I mean there are guys out there who can't find a girlfriend and you are getting knocked up by the fellon.

Just, can be a little bit frustrating for the nice guys out there. Just pointing it out, so that they're validated. "

 

My interpretation on what this could mean:

Stefan Molyneux expressing sympathy and empathy for 'nice guys' who (weren't) aren't given a chance by women like her (with how she was back then).

 

My issue with this is:

In my mind, 'nice guys' ought to NOT go anywhere near(professionally, ok) women like her, nevertheless be sad or upset about not getting a chance.

Because she was highly wreckless (combination of harsh 'up-fumbling' and personal choices, peer sabotage, ignorance from other parts of society, skewed cultural framework to some degree as well... a combination.) and the partner would have been constantly exposed to risks.

And so, 'nice guys' engaging with her would have been (would be - ie. similar women) playing Russian roulette when there are actually girls/women who are doing the self-work, aren't predisposed to making progressively poorer decisions until disaster is reached... why give preference to the 'dodgy' over other women?

Perhaps, 'nice guys' should, the fact that they couldn't get involved, should knock it down on wood. And even, if by exposure to a virtuous partner, women like her (in her past, respectfully) would take the pro-active approach to healing... Isn't it kinda too much risks involved, too high investment required compared with other women? (I can imagine specific, individual cases but the general idea is just too far of a reach for me.)

Isn't it a(n all round) good thing that women, like she used to be, don't get involved with 'nice guys'? Shouldn't be nice guys warned, prepared, protected from wreckless women until those women started out (on their own) on the road to manifesting aware, virtuous behaviour, none of the 'passivity thing' and spreading potential misery with each relationship?

If not, isn't it like sacrificing 'nice guys' and enabling toxic personalities spreading their genes, reducing the incentives that would force people to re-evaluate their thinking/value system?

/respectfully, I don't mean to be rambling :)/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RichardY said:

@barn Why do you care?

Because the way we think (the things we normalise) is reflected in what we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 3:05 AM, barn said:

If not, isn't it like sacrificing 'nice guys' and enabling toxic personalities spreading their genes, reducing the incentives that would force people to re-evaluate their thinking/value system?

Most generous possible interpretation is that Stef wants her to change her overall behavior, and one of those changes would be to date nice guys.

The least generous possible interpretation is that Stef is willing to throw an unlimited number of men under a bus in order to keep Western civilization going long enough that he doesn't have to see his daughter end up in the harem of an IQ-68 Somali Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MahtiSonni said:

If someone is nice, he is not a man.

A man should always strive to be good.

The difference is paramount.

Hi @MahtiSonni

Not sure if you listened to the segment + the context. Did you listen? (there's also a link in my op)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barn said:

Hi @MahtiSonni

Not sure if you listened to the segment + the context. Did you listen? (there's also a link in my op)

Yes, a week ago or so.  You made a good point and I agree with it.

My own point was tangential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

Yes, a week ago or so.  

Gotcha. Wasn't sure.

16 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

My own point was tangential. 

No worries.

...

3 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

If someone is nice, he is not a man.

A man should always strive to be good. 

Maybe it's the final conclusion of a veeery long chain of arguments I have no way of seeing.

I would be curious though to know, what do you hold as 'standard of disproof'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, barn said:

Maybe it's the final conclusion of a veeery long chain of arguments I have no way of seeing.

I can walk you through it if you wish.

I would be curious though to know, what do you hold as 'standard of disproof'?

So would I.  I'm not sure the concept can apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:
33 minutes ago, barn said:

Maybe it's the final conclusion of a veeery long chain of arguments I have no way of seeing.

 I can walk you through it if you wish. 

My thinking was&is: we can only really begin to understand ideas with the limitations they're encased in.

Public or Private message, post I'm fine with either.

16 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:
Quote

I would be curious though to know, what do you hold as 'standard of disproof'?

So would I.  I'm not sure the concept can apply here. 

'Fire away!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, barn said:

My thinking was&is: we can only really begin to understand ideas with the limitations they're encased in.

When a male is called nice, he acts like a puppy.  Eager to please everyone and does everything he can to provide happiness for the object of his bumbling and often comic affection.

Such a male gets his guidance and aims from outside sources - he lives to please others.  He is not driven.  He is not forceful.  He is not strong enough to stand on his legs.  He is an endearing doormat.  He inspires no respect.  He has no moral courage, because for him it is more important to be liked than to be good.  That also tends to make him a habitual liar.

A good man is strong, reliable and stands up for God, his family and his people.  He inspires respect and gets taken seriously.  He isn't all that concerned about being liked and thus won't cave in when the going gets tough.

I believe the difference is explained adequately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

I believe the difference is explained adequately. 

I think too, you made your point unequivocally.

13 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

When a male is called nice, he acts like a puppy.  Eager to please everyone and does everything he can to provide happiness for the object of his bumbling and often comic affection. 

If a man (or women, in my mind too) doesn't act the way you had described even in the presence of the very same conditions, why do you think that was?

ie. - being called nice doesn't affect him (or w...) the way you put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, barn said:

I think too, you made your point unequivocally.

Apparently not:

Quote

If a man (or women, in my mind too) doesn't act the way you had described even in the presence of the very same conditions, why do you think that was?

ie. - being called nice doesn't affect him (or w...) the way you put it.

It is not about hearing magic words that cause the reaction, it is about acting in a way that gets the name.

 

Edited by MahtiSonni
Somehow the quote tag doesn't close. Editing didn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't really help me.

I'll have to ask again, bit differently.

Is your distinguishing criteria 'seeking approval' or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

Pretty much, based on who he fears to offend the most.

Ah, ok.

Would you like to know my take on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Sure.

1. seeking approval is neutral in its essence
a. role of virtue
b. role of awareness
c. role of choice
2. chosen, partial dependence is better than non elected, or total reliance.

I think that 'seeking approval' is a natural and very important trait of humans. Similar to being receptive to incentives, it too can be a 'double-edged sword', meaning the interaction with it can have completely different outcomes for the individual and those involved, according to what decisions people make, keep making.

I think a preferable use/experience of seeking approval is when the person does so towards things, concepts, other people that are virtuous, morally sound. Naturally, the more truthful those assertions, the better. I'm unable to see, how people that are described by those qualities (truthfully) would ever willfully misguide, withold praise in general. It's quite the opposite, they'd be the ones giving the most important and helpful feedback usually, as the virtue is shared.

As in an example...Let’s say that I absolutely loved being called a 'good builder' by others who I had truthfully established to be 'good builders' themselves. I seek the approval of those individuals, in the process assimilating, developing, mimicking those traits by effort and comparison. Because in my value system there's the clear incentive for my conscience to be proud of my real achievements, I would be acting against my self interest in not taking their recommendations seriously, the least if I didn't listen. I would be self-sabotaging. Seeking those individuals ' approval is therefore a positive.

And so those people, seeking approval WITHOUT having checked for the things I had mentioned are basically putting themselves into harms way, allowing for various degrees of risks. Worse still when seeking approval of the clearly non-virtuous-, lacking merit individuals. It's delusional, it's for a payout that only exists really in their imaginations. (unexamined, like : Stockholm syndrome, 'Simon the boxer'... etc) A variation of this could be seeking approval of people with merit, however not cutting slack for own achievements independently (as in: complete dependence,)

caveat : I don't think no dependence is good.

About dependence: For example if I claim to care for, love others that's a form of chosen dependence.

That's basically the short version of my rule of thumb here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, barn said:

1. seeking approval is neutral in its essence

Right.  It is the error of mistaking it for the greatest good that results in evil.  That is the hallmark of the "nice guy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

When a male is called nice, he acts like a puppy.  Eager to please everyone and does everything he can to provide happiness for the object of his bumbling and often comic affection.

Such a male gets his guidance and aims from outside sources - he lives to please others.  He is not driven.  He is not forceful.  He is not strong enough to stand on his legs.  He is an endearing doormat.  He inspires no respect.  He has no moral courage, because for him it is more important to be liked than to be good.  That also tends to make him a habitual liar.

A good man is strong, reliable and stands up for God, his family and his people.  He inspires respect and gets taken seriously.  He isn't all that concerned about being liked and thus won't cave in when the going gets tough.

I believe the difference is explained adequately.

This is only because many people use the word "nice" to describe obsequiousness. Mostly women. "Nice guys" are not nice. They are passive-aggressive and obsequious. They are anything but nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ticketyboo said:

This is only because many people use the word "nice" to describe obsequiousness. Mostly women. "Nice guys" are not nice. They are passive-aggressive and obsequious. They are anything but nice.

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Right.  It is the error of mistaking it for the greatest good that results in evil.  That is the hallmark of the "nice guy".

Is that everything you wanted to add?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 8:46 PM, barn said:

Because the way we think (the things we normalise) is reflected in what we do.

Not really interested in being normalised, given the sh*t that goes on. There was a shift from the individual YOU to the collective WE, yeah they both embody each other in different ways, Right containing the notion of left.

On 9/20/2018 at 8:37 PM, barn said:

@RichardY

Why don't you care?

(my q, as in: open ended, curious)

I think because with the relationship stuff, I would be more inclined to get to know someone for a year, not ask them for their spreadsheet as Stefan might (maybe he was joking). More aesthetically based, and exploratory, mostly subjective. Looking a bit at my own family tree at mostly my father's side, most women were around  or just before their mid 30's. My own mother was 36 when I was born. Grandmother had fertility treatment when there was only a few specialists in the country. So usually just 2 or 3 children for, obvious reasons. Even distant ancestors didn't seem to have many kids, when they could have easily afforded/produced them. Kind of fu*ked up genetics, not viewing women as baby making machines, when to some extent darwinianly or Satanically speaking it would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Not really interested in being normalised...

Absolutely, I understand. :ermm: Wouldn't wish 'that' even on my enemies.

Think along the lines of 'normalise' as not re-learning to tie your shoe-laces... (Only because Velcro wouldn't work as an example :laugh:)

btw - Am I accurately sensing that your tone is a bit on the grumpy side of things?

31 minutes ago, RichardY said:
On 09/20/2018 at 9:37 PM, barn said:

@RichardY

Why don't you care?

(my q, as in: open ended, curious) 

I think because with the relationship stuff, I would be more inclined to get to know someone for a year, not ask them for their spreadsheet as Stefan might (maybe he was joking). 

Hahaha... yeah, sounds weird when you put it like that. Still, I think the gist isn't too far off. Plus I agree on, 'why waste time and opportunity cost'. Mind you, some are better observers, communicators, clear on what their origin & direction is than others. It's always 'compared to what', I think. Sounds reasonable, right?

31 minutes ago, RichardY said:

More aesthetically based, and exploratory, mostly subjective. Looking a bit at my own family tree at mostly my father's side, most women were around  or just before their mid 30's. My own mother was 36 when I was born. Grandmother had fertility treatment when there was only a few specialists in the country. So usually just 2 or 3 children for, obvious reasons. Even distant ancestors didn't seem to have many kids, when they could have easily afforded/produced them. Kind of fu*ked up genetics, not viewing women as baby making machines, when to some extent darwinianly or Satanically speaking it would make sense. 

Appreciate the insight, thanks.

What would you say if I asked you whether, apart from existing limitations like genetics and personality (largely genetic, crazy stuff we learn... )

How much imprint have you assimilated from your family history in regards to perception of women, 'a woman'?

(same again, open ended, curious...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, barn said:

btw - Am I accurately sensing that your tone is a bit on the grumpy side of things?

No. My mind is too fried for that. 4:30am and my sleep schedule is messed up, think a bit like the narrator off fight club as a cliche.

20 minutes ago, barn said:

Appreciate the insight, thanks.

What would you say if I asked you whether, apart from existing limitations like genetics and personality (largely genetic, crazy stuff we learn... )

How much imprint have you assimilated from your family history in regards to perception of women, 'a woman'?

Probably a lot(which isn't much), given I'm not inclined to be agreeable with the rest of society. Maybe more like codependency, my own mother is low in conscientiousness, my dad's mother highly conscientious. Low and High conscientiousness pairing off. Boobs good(but not joke size), share similar interests, that's about it.

29 minutes ago, barn said:

Hahaha... yeah, sounds weird when you put it like that. Still, I think the gist isn't too far off. Plus I agree on, 'why waste time and opportunity cost'. Mind you, some are better observers, communicators, clear on what their origin & direction is than others. It's always 'compared to what', I think. Sounds reasonable, right?

Well I suppose a person can go shopping. Add a few more models to their collection, display them on Instagram like an Arab Sheikh.

What's your sexual market value? "F*CK! YOU! That's my name! You know why, mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove an $80,000 BMW. That's my name!"

50 minutes ago, barn said:

Absolutely, I understand. :ermm: Wouldn't wish 'that' even on my enemies.

Think along the lines of 'normalise' as not re-learning to tie your shoe-laces... (Only because Velcro wouldn't work as an example :laugh:)

Actually I see what you mean. But you're wrong. I view society as Evil, where as Stefan views it as Good, and the State Evil. I see the state as an extension of society, not separate. Was listening to Michel de Montaigne on Audible a while a go during a fairly frustrating backpacking trip. Anyway, he said society was evil and very few men good, I found it funny because he was talking about a society called the Furyan's like off the Movie "The Chronicles of Riddick."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice guys are useless. Women prefer men who can be assertive and go after what they want. Unfortunately it's usually the unruly douchebags that have a lot less self consciousness to do that. It's a tricky balance, but you can definitely be nice with women without being a doormat. Be kind, but make your dominance known. Whether it's over other men in your vocational field or even that part of her that challenges you to look at yourself and your flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RichardY said:
6 hours ago, barn said:

btw - Am I accurately sensing that your tone is a bit on the grumpy side of things?

No. My mind is too fried for that. 4:30am and my sleep schedule is messed up, think a bit like the narrator off fight club as a cliche. 

I think that's a very good description for helping me understand that, thanks.

Perhaps, it was best then if I rather waited for you to make any changes that might come to you, should you decide to make them later.

I have occasionally those moments too, most times however I try not to post stuff including too 'brainy' things then, because from personal experience let's say 'they don't come out the way I can consistently agree with' the next day or so.

I'm ok with you first revising (if you choose), seeing if you wanted to add or edit something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.