Quote# 123434

Attributes that will not help you get laid even one iota

Instead of just summarizing with, "everything but looks and money," I figured I'd list some things and explain how worthless they are when it comes to attracting women.

SENSE OF HUMOR: Women are not attracted to funny. In fact, a sense of humor can actually work against you, as women think of relationships as serious business. Sure, she'll tease Chad and laugh at random shit while she's with him, but it won't be because he's funny. It'll be an instinctive reaction because she finds him attractive. I can make just about any woman laugh with my dry humor. They go, "that little boy is so funnyyyyy. So anyway, Ashley, Chad is picking me up tonight."

Bill Burr: "I was never making enough money. There's something weird about being a stand-up comedian where for the most part you don't have groupies. You still have to work for it. I also think different emotions that, say, singers can bring out in women makes them kind of swoon. Nobody swoons over a comedian."

BEING A MUSICIAN: While Burr was correct about women not being attracted to comedians, he is wrong about women being into musicians solely for the sake of them being musicians. You see, women are into musicians either because they are physically attractive, or because they are rich and famous. A musician who is not rich and famous will not attract a single chick with his music.

My brother is an aspiring musician. He has played tons of shit, including overseas in front of crowds of around 1,000 people. You know how many women have hit on him after shows over the years? You can count it on...NO hands.

He has had a few girlfriends, but not one of them had any idea what it was he did. He met his current girlfriend at a bar, just getting a beer.

You see, when you're 5'5" like my brother, women don't care what kind of guitar player you are.

Women love mediocre talents who are in boy bands a helluva lot more than they love far more talented artists who aren't as popular. The guys in the boy bands are sooooo yummy and so rich and famous.

INTELLIGENCE: Yeah, she's really impressed by your brain. Albert Einstein's picture is on her ceiling and she fingers herself to it.

There are two ways women think of intelligence:

Academic achievements. My Dad has a PhD, so my mom loves to say that this was why she was so attracted to him. But really, what is there about his PhD - which is in the science field - that affects her in any way that isn't financial? My mom majored in linguistics and has no scientific inclination. She has discussed the technical parts of my dad's work with him about one time back in 1982, which was all it took for her to go, "uhhhh, OK, now I know not to bring that up again."

When the guy talks over her head, she thinks to herself, "I love it when he talks all smart and stuff. xD." She doesn't understand it, so this means it's intelligent, and she can brag to her friends about how her possibly pseudo-intellectual SO is sooooooo smart.

TALENT IN GENERAL: When I was a kid, I used to fantasize about "impressing" girls. What naive heterosexual boy doesn't?

The problem is, they're not impressed. They simply don't care. You're a great athlete? A great musician? A great painter? A great writer?

What interests her is in how much money you'll attain from this. She'll want to hitch her ride to a guy who is going places.

If she spots a young LeBron James in the gym, she might get excited about what the future could be like if she were with him and he became an NBA star. The talent itself being something she's attracted to? HA!

Even Roger Federer's wife, who was a fucking tennis player herself, frequently looks bored during his matches.

"Oh, he hit a winner from between his legs? Let's just finish this match, I want to go back to the hotel."

KINDNESS: They say it themselves. "Women are not objects you put kindness tokens into and get sex out of."

Nice guys are a dime a dozen. "You're sweet" is a patronizing remark and means she will never fuck you.

TimRattayGotScrewed, /r/incels 178 Comments [1/4/2017 7:29:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
Username:
Comment:



1 5 6 7 8 | bottom

Pharaoh Bastethotep

The point of my post on incels is that none of those things will help get you laid. If you're ugly, they're irrelevant, and if you're good-looking, the bar you have to clear with non-looks related stuff is so low it's not even worth mentioning.

In other words, you believe that it works like this:
1. "That one looks hot."
2. ???
3. SEX!

It doesn't matter if you're a genius or have the median intelligence of the people posting in this thread without me raising it considerably as the outlier.

Again, proclaiming you are a Jeeeenius surrounded by idiots and don't you dare question it is convincing to gullible followers who rely on stereotypes. Anyone who can actually think for him- or herself however realises that you are nothing but an arrogant poser.

No, Tim, you are the pseudointellectual.

I'm not talking about what makes a "successful" relationship. I'm talking about what it takes to get in a relationship in the first place.

Liking the other person's personality is what makes for an appealing friend.

And many relationships START as friendships and grow from there.

R/Incels has nothing to do with a lack of friends.

Many incels would disagree.


It is no wonder that neither your dry humour nor your intellect have ever attracted any attention: You overestimate both to absurd degrees, where in reality, both seem to be all but non-existent.
Or, to put it in words even you should not be able to summarily dismiss as pseudointellectual drivel:
No woman loves your humour because you are not funny. No woman loves your smarts because you are dumb.

2/15/2017 3:34:49 AM

Anon-e-moose

@RattyTimWillNeverGetScrewed

When it comes to sexual attraction, it starts and ends with looks






'There is no such thing as an ugly rich man'

-Marc Riley (a.k.a. 'Lard')

When it comes to sexual attraction, it starts and ends with looks




Your move.

2/15/2017 4:58:20 AM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

@Anon-e-moose:
1. Tim already told us that he allows richness to override beauty and consisiders Elliot Rodger to be ugly..
2. NEVER! POST! THAT! DISGUSTING! PAIR! OF! PICTURES! AGAIN!

2/15/2017 5:41:23 AM



@ Anon-e-moose

Yeah, Ratface doesn't think Rodger is attractive. Apparently having full lips makes a man more hideous than having a mug like a burlap sack full of dog food that was used as a punching bag. And that being rich, the one supposed thing that will get an ugly man laid, would not have helped the supposedly ugly Rodger because of a completely made up lisping gay stereotype personality and not his real verbose, status-obsessed, narcissistic, God-complex one. Despite personality not counting for a thing. Yet it overrides looks and money now. Because reality must conform to Ratface's alternative facts and not the other way around.

2/15/2017 6:55:42 AM



"When it comes to sexual attraction, it starts and ends with looks.
"




It starts with them to be sure. That much I agree with. Where I work I became attracted to a girl physically. However as I worked where I do and got to know her, the attraction to her deepened. It starts with looks. It doesn't end there though.

2/15/2017 9:29:30 AM

Bimaac

Yeah, sorry Timmy.

I really can't take anything a crybaby professional victim says seriously.

2/15/2017 9:48:35 AM

KingOfRhye

@TRGS

You were aroused by sexual language in a chat? That's not the same as being sexually attracted to someone's personality. That would be like reading erotic fiction and claiming you were attracted to the author.


Maybe if the author wrote the book TO ME. And I don't know about you, but I consider someone's sexuality part of their personality.

2/15/2017 11:22:05 AM

TimRattayGotScrewed

"Because eyeballs a general aesthetic sense are such rarities, it takes only the most discerning misanthropic incel shut-in like yourself to adequately measure a person's attractiveness. I suppose none but this insanity will qualify as a study of attractiveness."

Because eyeballs a general aesthetic sense are such rarities...

Yippee, another sentence without discernible meaning.

Most people are horrible at evaluating the attractiveness of the sex they are not attracted to. I, however, am not. I am actually a good judge of appearance.


"Who else but celebrities get links on the internet, jackass?"

Who cares? That doesn't make the link any less irrelevant.

"Besides which all of those women are also wealthy independently of their husbands. Brooke Shields for example has almost double her husband Chris Benchy's net worth. You'll probably just mutter something about him not being that ugly compared to you.


You just made my point. You think this guy is ugly?

http://www.fashionwindows.net/images/2009/11/montblanc_24hours_27.jpg

"Considering just how often you idiots reduce women to the status of animals and launch into pseudoscientific horseshit about "mating" to justify things like going after 12 year olds that ought to be about the only thing that confers legitimacy of an observation of human nature."

I don't reduce them to the status of animals, because that would be an insult to animals.


"Keep telling yourself that. Not even other incels like incels."

I have plenty of male friends.

2/15/2017 5:40:15 PM

TimRattayGotScrewed

"In other words, you believe that it works like this:
1. "That one looks hot."
2. ???
3. SEX!"

2 = you talk to the person and clear a VERY low bar for personality (i.e., you're not EXCESSIVELY anxious or neurotic if you're a male, and you don't tell the guy you enjoy cutting off men's penises if you're a female).

"Again, proclaiming you are a Jeeeenius surrounded by idiots and don't you dare question it is convincing to gullible followers who rely on stereotypes. Anyone who can actually think for him- or herself however realises that you are nothing but an arrogant poser.

No, Tim, you are the pseudointellectual."

This thread speaks for itself.

"And many relationships START as friendships and grow from there."

Sexual attraction doesn't "grow" from anything. Some day you'll realize your mommy lied to you about that one.

"Many incels would disagree."

It says in the description on the sub exactly what it is about.

"It is no wonder that neither your dry humour nor your intellect have ever attracted any attention: You overestimate both to absurd degrees, where in reality, both seem to be all but non-existent.
Or, to put it in words even you should not be able to summarily dismiss as pseudointellectual drivel:
No woman loves your humour because you are not funny. No woman loves your smarts because you are dumb."

That must be why they always laugh and talk about how funny I am.

And my intellectual abilities shit on yours. Just imagine how they are in comparison to those of WOMEN, whose are about on par with those of a tree stump.

2/15/2017 5:52:40 PM

TimRattayGotScrewed

"Yeah, Ratface doesn't think Rodger is attractive. Apparently having full lips makes a man more hideous than having a mug like a burlap sack full of dog food that was used as a punching bag. And that being rich, the one supposed thing that will get an ugly man laid, would not have helped the supposedly ugly Rodger because of a completely made up lisping gay stereotype personality and not his real verbose, status-obsessed, narcissistic, God-complex one. Despite personality not counting for a thing. Yet it overrides looks and money now. Because reality must conform to Ratface's alternative facts and not the other way around."

Uh:

1. They didn't know he was rich.
2. HE wasn't rich. His father was. That's a big difference.

Yeah, this guy is really masculine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-gQ3aAdhIo&t=1s

Take a look at the ugly prison guy again. Now, look at this:

http://www.facingacne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cystic.jpg

And this:

http://www.memecreator.org/static/images/templates/1006263.jpg

And this:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/569862/thumbs/o-ANOREXIC-MARC-CORNS-570.jpg?1

There's a huge difference between "presentable" ugly and "virgin" ugly.

2/15/2017 6:03:36 PM

Kadorhal

This thread speaks for itself.


I don't give enough of a shit to cut your arguments apart, because you're just a shitty substitute for the motherfucker and I'm tired of dealing with things like it. I will tell you this, though: "No you!" is not a valid argument.

2/15/2017 7:17:09 PM



Yippee, another sentence without discernible meaning.


Yippee, another completely missed point.

For someone who claimed to have dazzling dry wit and intelligence a very simple quip went right over your head. You tried rather childishly to mock the idea of a study of attractiveness by implying they'd be taking calipers to people's faces and got a response that boils down to: It's really not that complicated to look at people and rate their attractiveness. It's something you happen to do as a matter of course and somewhat more legit than the standards incels use.

Is English just not your first language? Because you've alluded to having difficulty understanding a lot of what is being said to you more than once. The first time you tried to imply that we're overcomplicating terms and when that got thrown back in your face you confusingly acted like that was some kind victory for you and now you're drawing a blank on sarcasm.

But despite dismissively saying you couldn't make heads or tails of the comment you responded by claiming that unlike the ignorant masses who are apparently too stupid to know what they find personally appealing or a panel of sociologists conducting a study you have a good sense of what's objectively and universally attractive. But like your claim to wit what we've of you so far casts extreme doubt on that. Speaking of your underwhelming sense of humor the fact that the nature of dry wit - if you're even using the description correctly - is based in covertly insulting people or telling jokes that deliberately go over the subjects heads and implies one of two things: That everywhere you went you would laugh at somebody else's expense which when done wrong isn't funny and done frequently makes you a dick or your jokes were directed at the women you were trying to impress meaning you were mocking them to their faces and expected it never to backfire on you. And if your overinflated opinion of yourself is any indication you were far less subtle than you think and refused to notice that your audience clued in on what you thought of them.

That comparing them to animals is an insult to animals, in your own words.

You just made my point. You think this guy is ugly?


I think you're trying to downplay how badly you missed the mark about models being gold diggers when their income is already on par with their husbands and in Benchy's case even greater. He's far from the ugliest guy on the list but the stark difference in their incomes makes an absolute mockery of your assumption. But if you want to split hairs I'd say he's an average looking guy. The kind of guy where if I didn't just show you a photo of him with his wife - who makes more than him - you'd assume women give him the cold shoulder. Of course when you see his picture you immediately make up other reasons for him to be in a relationship and you've probably got it in your head that he's a jerk because how your self-serving bias works. Also, not quite as handsome as Elliot Rodger.

On that subject:

1. They didn't know he was rich.


The BMW and tendency to draw attention to shallow displays of wealth were something of a hint.

2. HE wasn't rich. His father was. That's a big difference.


When your parents give you a BMW just because you ask them to the distinction is pretty moot, especially if you're of the opinion that women aren't smart enough to know the difference bestiality boy. (As that will undoubtedly go over your head I must condescend to explain the joke. You view women as less than plants and animals, bestiality is the act of sexual intercourse with an unintelligent animal. You're going to counter with semantics, someone else will note that if you want to stick your dick in something without cognitive thought that blow up dolls are cheap and never give you lip, you'll say something insipid and contradictory... well now that's just dragging this out so why don't we skip it?)

And now for the last bit. It would have been nice for you to use the {img} tags. (Replace {} with [] to use.) Oh well, I'll have to do it for you.





So putting aside that you're reducing two people with medical conditions, one of them horrific and potentially fatal, to a stock insult (anorexia is right in the image file name) Trust me, no matter how ugly a person is I've seen uglier people with girlfriends and the bottom two (I can't see the acne guy's face) definitely aren't any uglier than Phillip Jablonski. It would take a lot more than fat lips to tip that scale.

On a side note I found someone who wasn't a rich celebrity that got married despite lacking good looks.



Unfortunately their marriage didn't last due in part to Ty's PTSD. According to him the separation was both mutual and amicable. He even managed to date a little afterwards. Tyler Ziegel passed away in 2012. Loved and missed by those he left behind.

2/15/2017 10:50:42 PM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

You have become boring, Tim. Time to end your clown show.

2/16/2017 12:26:12 AM

Anon-e-moose

@Pharaoh Bastethotep

Tim already told us that he allows richness to override beauty and consisiders Elliot Rodger to be ugly


While I'm not one of them, there are men who would kill for cheekbones like Elliot Todger's. To quote comedian - and master of the Double Entendre - Julian Clary (a.k.a. 'The Joan Collins Fan Club*') 'My entire body hangs off these cheekbones!'.

...oh, and appollogies for posting those pics, but the point had to be hammered into a certain manbaby's skull, a la Dinsdale Piranha; and to annihilate his entire 'argument'. Also, the quote by 'Lard' (of BBC Radio 1's Mark & Lard fame) was very relevant.

As Lard would say, 'Fancy a Brew?!' Also, 'Stop... Carry On!'. Unlike said manbaby, who - unless he stops fartarsing around and admit he's wrong - you do so with Mjolnir. It's gotten boring now. X3

@#2020267

Not exactly got a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle - whilst chewing a wasp - has Elliot Todger, eh? Is his face like a bag of spanners/chisels; hitting every branch of the Ugly Giant Sequoia, while falling from such? In just one image alone (considering the first two I'd posted previously) is Ratty Tim's entire 'argument' raped to death. Like I say: I refer you to Julian Clary.

*- Frankly, Julian's canine companion 'Fanny the Wonder Dog' has far more charisma than RattyTimWillNeverGetScrewed.

2/16/2017 8:18:32 AM

KingOfRhye

For people who, by their own admission, don't have much, if any, success with women, incels sure seem to think they know a lot about them.

2/16/2017 11:39:01 AM

Shepard Solus

I'm not sure which would be more pathetic--that TRGS is a troll or that he's real. Both prospects ultimately lead to the same sad little pit of wretched worthlessness so I suppose it doesn't much matter.

2/16/2017 11:49:16 AM

Thanos6

This thread could be used as one of the shining examples of pigeon chess.

2/16/2017 2:37:39 PM

YouLoseAgain

"Yippee, another completely missed point.

For someone who claimed to have dazzling dry wit and intelligence a very simple quip went right over your head. You tried rather childishly to mock the idea of a study of attractiveness by implying they'd be taking calipers to people's faces and got a response that boils down to: It's really not that complicated to look at people and rate their attractiveness. It's something you happen to do as a matter of course and somewhat more legit than the standards incels use."

It's not difficult for ME to evaluate other men's attractiveness. It is, however, for most men. Most men suck at it.

What part of that don't you understand?

This is why I do not respect the "study" you linked. I put absolutely no faith in the ability of others to rate other people's looks.

"Is English just not your first language? Because you've alluded to having difficulty understanding a lot of what is being said to you more than once. The first time you tried to imply that we're overcomplicating terms and when that got thrown back in your face you confusingly acted like that was some kind victory for you and now you're drawing a blank on sarcasm."

No, dipshit. "Because eyeballs a general aesthetic sense are such rarities" is not a valid construction. I can't even begin to decipher what it is you were trying to say (assuming it was you who wrote this). It literally looks like you did "Google Translate" on a sentence in another language and came up with a classic unintelligible translation.

"But despite dismissively saying you couldn't make heads or tails of the comment you responded by claiming that unlike the ignorant masses who are apparently too stupid to know what they find personally appealing or a panel of sociologists conducting a study you have a good sense of what's objectively and universally attractive. But like your claim to wit what we've of you so far casts extreme doubt on that. Speaking of your underwhelming sense of humor the fact that the nature of dry wit - if you're even using the description correctly - is based in covertly insulting people or telling jokes that deliberately go over the subjects heads and implies one of two things: That everywhere you went you would laugh at somebody else's expense which when done wrong isn't funny and done frequently makes you a dick or your jokes were directed at the women you were trying to impress meaning you were mocking them to their faces and expected it never to backfire on you. And if your overinflated opinion of yourself is any indication you were far less subtle than you think and refused to notice that your audience clued in on what you thought of them."

~sigh~ No, moron, that is not what "dry wit" means.

Don't tell me...did you...look it up in fucking URBAN DICTIONARY, thinking URBAN DICTIONARY is a real dictionary? Please tell me you didn't, because I might not survive the laughter if you did.

"I think you're trying to downplay how badly you missed the mark about models being gold diggers when their income is already on par with their husbands and in Benchy's case even greater. He's far from the ugliest guy on the list but the stark difference in their incomes makes an absolute mockery of your assumption. But if you want to split hairs I'd say he's an average looking guy. The kind of guy where if I didn't just show you a photo of him with his wife - who makes more than him - you'd assume women give him the cold shoulder. Of course when you see his picture you immediately make up other reasons for him to be in a relationship and you've probably got it in your head that he's a jerk because how your self-serving bias works. Also, not quite as handsome as Elliot Rodger."

No, he's a handsome 52-year-old man. Easily above average. I would say that regardless of what I knew about him.

"The BMW and tendency to draw attention to shallow displays of wealth were something of a hint."

And when did they see him in his BMW? When did he tell them about his BMW?

"When your parents give you a BMW just because you ask them to the distinction is pretty moot, especially if you're of the opinion that women aren't smart enough to know the difference bestiality boy. (As that will undoubtedly go over your head I must condescend to explain the joke. You view women as less than plants and animals, bestiality is the act of sexual intercourse with an unintelligent animal. You're going to counter with semantics, someone else will note that if you want to stick your dick in something without cognitive thought that blow up dolls are cheap and never give you lip, you'll say something insipid and contradictory... well now that's just dragging this out so why don't we skip it?)"

No, they know the difference. That doesn't make them smart.

Your "joke" is an utter failure, by the way. I said women are BELOW animals, not that they literally ARE animals (bestiality is sex with animals). I said I would never insult animals by comparing them to women.


"And now for the last bit. It would have been nice for you to use the {img} tags. (Replace {} with [] to use.) Oh well, I'll have to do it for you."

I have no interest in that. It's not my fault this forum is a piece of shit. It fits you guys perfectly, though.

"So putting aside that you're reducing two people with medical conditions, one of them horrific and potentially fatal, to a stock insult (anorexia is right in the image file name) Trust me, no matter how ugly a person is I've seen uglier people with girlfriends and the bottom two (I can't see the acne guy's face) definitely aren't any uglier than Phillip Jablonski. It would take a lot more than fat lips to tip that scale."

Women want men who look like men. That's the minimum requirement. You can't look like a boy, you can't have acne, and you can't have certain types of builds.

Jablonski was ugly, but he looked like a man.

"Unfortunately their marriage didn't last due in part to Ty's PTSD. According to him the separation was both mutual and amicable. He even managed to date a little afterwards. Tyler Ziegel passed away in 2012. Loved and missed by those he left behind."

The bride sure looks happy in that picture. That's sarcasm, by the way.

It's almost as if they got together when he was physically attractive, and then after what happened to him, she knew she'd appear to others to be a horrible person if she left him...only to later come up with a way to get out of it anyway.

2/16/2017 4:21:15 PM

dxdydz

Attributes that can help you get laid:

•red coloration
•the shape of a rectangular prism
•getting baked in a kiln
•a composition of clay
•knowing someone with a trowel and mortar


2/16/2017 4:48:16 PM



In no particular order, as even I'm getting kind of sick of this idiot's shit:

If you're not going to read the article don't bother talking trash about it Ratface. In the article following up on the relationship of Ty and his wife (bet you don't even know her name) she was the most reluctant to break it off and they agreed that odds were they'd have the same problems even without the injury. Hell, you couldn't even read that Ty was back on the dating scene continuing to put your lies in their place, and you fucking quoted the sentence it was in. Your track record for that kind of thing is terrible. Everything you had to say on the subject of your subreddit's patron saint is a blatant product of your own imagination and questioning how anyone would know about the car he drove to school, bragged about at every opportunity, begged his parents to buy specifically to show off to women, and posted dozens of pictures of himself behind the wheel on Facebook only seals how completely out of touch you are with not only the subject matter but basic reasoning skills. That's like asking how a man's co-worker's could possibly know he drives a Ferrari when he arrives in every day at the same time as them and takes selfies that he pins on a board in the break room. Immediately after a post linking a news story about a woman who divorced her husband because his gigantic shlong made sex agony you insisted women chase giant dicks regardless of pain and completely unenjoyable sex for no real reason. While you actually seemed to read the article that concluded that women preferred plain men you completely mentally reworked what that meant to continue justifying your own toxic and unsupportable assertions.

Snark is inherently critical, sarcasm is inherently insulting, and deadpan delivery is the approach of those who think they're the only person in the room who isn't being ridiculous. Done poorly it is indistinguishable from being a condescending jerk. What do you think dry wit is? Random bored commentary that's funny by accident?

You're judging male attractiveness by "manosphere" standards I see. The same standards that preclude the disturbing prevalence of "Bieber Fever" amongst cougars. Or the success of any romance novelist who has ever lived. Or frankly most of the human race just getting on with their lives. Their concept of the male ideal is fragile and unable to sustain itself and their ideas on what women desire are outright hostile to observable reality. I tell you I've never laid eyes on a less manly breed of men than those who fret constantly that everything around them threatens their masculinity. If they have to do so much as stitch a hole in their jeans they break out in hives, thinking such a womanly skill as sewing will turn them gay. They're trying to impress other men more than anything, which isn't all that impressive to women.

And good job countering with semantics on your "women are dumber than stumps and lower than animals and have no personalities" tripe. Cue the mention of alternatives to women and a counter-argument that's a completely convoluted mass of contradiction based in expectations, entitlements, and an externalized sense of validation rather than healthy emotional development and attachment that less insane people can identify with.

It's very much like you're trying to keep this going forever. Every time you try to shit everywhere you only weaken the already rotting skeleton of your views, justify the most recent point someone made against you, and create even more completely obvious openings to plant our boots. It's either the perfect indicator of why incels are such self-defeating vortices of misery that they reject any reality where it's possible for them to be happy and replace it with a nonsensical hellscape they will continue to build and warp until no end is in sight but at their own hands or it's a sobering reminder that trolls are just sad enough to be incels as they work just as hard to be hated and wind up about as happy when all is said and done because every "victory" means that people will just ignore them again, like in their real lives.

2/16/2017 7:12:47 PM

ImArguingWithAnIdiot

"If you're not going to read the article don't bother talking trash about it Ratface. In the article following up on the relationship of Ty and his wife (bet you don't even know her name) she was the most reluctant to break it off and they agreed that odds were they'd have the same problems even without the injury. Hell, you couldn't even read that Ty was back on the dating scene continuing to put your lies in their place, and you fucking quoted the sentence it was in. Your track record for that kind of thing is terrible"

I don't care about her name, I don't care about him being "back on the dating scene," I don't care about how he tried to spare her the public criticism like the gentleman he was by saying them breaking up was his idea.

She stayed with him out of fear of how she would be perceived if she didn't, she eventually couldn't deal with it, and their relationship didn't last.

These facts are inconvenient for you, but they're not going away.

"Everything you had to say on the subject of your subreddit's patron saint is a blatant product of your own imagination and questioning how anyone would know about the car he drove to school, bragged about at every opportunity, begged his parents to buy specifically to show off to women, and posted dozens of pictures of himself behind the wheel on Facebook only seals how completely out of touch you are with not only the subject matter but basic reasoning skills. That's like asking how a man's co-worker's could possibly know he drives a Ferrari when he arrives in every day at the same time as them and takes selfies that he pins on a board in the break room."

Yeah, I'm just imagining things. That's why there are thousands upon thousands of comments speculating that Rodger was actually gay.

Oh, he posted pictures on facebook? What, for his 2.5 friends, all of them male, to see? Wow. This proves that women aren't gold diggers...or something like that.

"Immediately after a post linking a news story about a woman who divorced her husband because his gigantic shlong made sex agony you insisted women chase giant dicks regardless of pain and completely unenjoyable sex for no real reason. While you actually seemed to read the article that concluded that women preferred plain men you completely mentally reworked what that meant to continue justifying your own toxic and unsupportable assertions.

I come to that conclusion based on having read things like this:

http://www.nerve.com/news/love-sex/college-student-disguises-her-list-of-sexual-exploits-as-her-senior-thesis

Size matters, and bigger = better. Women say that themselves when they're being honest.

And no, it was because I actually READ the linked article that I know the content of the article itself never concluded the headline or said anything about it whatsoever. I guess you believe everything you see in TMZ headlines, too.

"Snark is inherently critical, sarcasm is inherently insulting, and deadpan delivery is the approach of those who think they're the only person in the room who isn't being ridiculous. Done poorly it is indistinguishable from being a condescending jerk. What do you think dry wit is? Random bored commentary that's funny by accident?"

No, it's not. Dry humor is just a style of delivery...and it's safe, because you don't risk looking like a dork when you do it. If they don't laugh/miss the joke, it's no big deal. It doesn't come across as "try hard."

It's not "funny by accident." It's a joke without a change in expression.

As I said before, chicks think my sense of humor is awesome. That doesn't make them want to fuck me. My college speeches were legendary. I received tons of compliments on them. Zero dates, though. Zero women expressing any real interest beyond appreciation.

"You're judging male attractiveness by "manosphere" standards I see. The same standards that preclude the disturbing prevalence of "Bieber Fever" amongst cougars. Or the success of any romance novelist who has ever lived. Or frankly most of the human race just getting on with their lives. Their concept of the male ideal is fragile and unable to sustain itself and their ideas on what women desire are outright hostile to observable reality. I tell you I've never laid eyes on a less manly breed of men than those who fret constantly that everything around them threatens their masculinity. If they have to do so much as stitch a hole in their jeans they break out in hives, thinking such a womanly skill as sewing will turn them gay. They're trying to impress other men more than anything, which isn't all that impressive to women."

Bieber = / = Rodger.

Women don't want faggoty romance novel men (which don't exist, anyway). They want 50 Shades of Gray men.

Women want the man to look and sound masculine. They sure as hell don't want the opposite extreme, which was Fabulous Elliot.

"And good job countering with semantics on your "women are dumber than stumps and lower than animals and have no personalities" tripe. Cue the mention of alternatives to women and a counter-argument that's a completely convoluted mass of contradiction based in expectations, entitlements, and an externalized sense of validation rather than healthy emotional development and attachment that less insane people can identify with."

Uh, yeah.

So anyway, you tried to say that me wanting to fuck women when I considered them below animals meant I'm "bestiality boy," yet bestiality would only apply if I thought of women as animals, or perhaps equal to animals, since bestiality means having sex with animals.

"It's very much like you're trying to keep this going forever. Every time you try to shit everywhere you only weaken the already rotting skeleton of your views, justify the most recent point someone made against you, and create even more completely obvious openings to plant our boots. It's either the perfect indicator of why incels are such self-defeating vortices of misery that they reject any reality where it's possible for them to be happy and replace it with a nonsensical hellscape they will continue to build and warp until no end is in sight but at their own hands or it's a sobering reminder that trolls are just sad enough to be incels as they work just as hard to be hated and wind up about as happy when all is said and done because every "victory" means that people will just ignore them again, like in their real lives."

You do realize all your try-hard verbiage is just like Charlie Sheen's, right?

Only Charlie Sheen actually knows how to make sense when he does it. You can't even match the linguistic abilities of a crackhead.

2/16/2017 7:51:10 PM

Shepard Solus

You do realize all your try-hard verbiage is just like Charlie Sheen's, right?

Only Charlie Sheen actually knows how to make sense when he does it.


And with that, you've officially jumped the shark and lost the showcase showdown. Be sure to pick up your consolation prize on your way out. It's a mug. A little one.

2/16/2017 8:28:13 PM

TRGS

Hurts how badly I nailed it, doesn't it?

2/16/2017 11:25:50 PM



Only if you've got the required negative amount of self-awareness to legitimately believed you nailed any fucking thing in any sense.

2/17/2017 2:19:36 AM



RIP to the marine and thank you to him for his service to us.

2/17/2017 2:24:08 AM

1 5 6 7 8 | top: comments page