Lurker > yoshifan823

You can't walk 3 blocks in NYC without hitting a good Italian place. Go to 9th Avenue, the Hell's Kitchen area is full of great restaurants. Where are you staying?

iPad.

Crossfiyah posted...

It's not The Avengers.

But it's the best Spider-Man movie yet. Mostly because he FEELS like Spider-Man, not generic do-gooder in a spider costume.

Avengers was a big dumb war movie that happened to have a few superheroes. Who cares?

Spider-Man was an awesome superhero movie.

I get the logic behind it, but it's still hella dumb.

And even if they had made this mythical list of every right we have, we're over 200 years later, and plenty of things have changed with regards to technology and invention, wouldn't we have to do essentially what we're doing now, extrapolating what they might have meant from what we know they said?

It's a natural right according to...

I mean, I agree with your theory so far as those are not the only unalienable rights, but this sounds an awful lot like you putting the words "the right to private property is an unalienable right" in the founding fathers' mouths.

Well let's see here. Minimum wage nationally is $7.25/hr, working 20 hours a week for let's say 50 weeks a year (give a couple weeks for full vacations), that gives us $7,250 a year. Let's say roughly 30% goes to taxes, and we're left with just over $5,000 a year. I'd like to imagine that I could live very decently with $100,000 per year, so 95k a year, multiplied by the 45 years I'd be in the workforce (I'll put some of that 100k into a retirement fund, of course), and we've got:

$4,275,000.

Sounds about right.

What this has to do with marriage:

masterplum posted...

*looks at topic*

Man that's a lot of posts in that topic. I don't see what's so big of a deal about

*clicks on topic*

...

Oh. The Republican cusaders strike

Run away, run far, far away. Someone literally used the "Well why isn't there a straight pride parade" argument.

TheRock1525 posted...

I see the trophy attack as her being brave, not stupid (though the two aren't that far apart). And she works in the lab, so she obviously knows what the device is capable of, for both good and bad, so trying to save it makes sense. And attacking with the bunsen burner was resourceful. It's better than just standing there scared.

With the amount of chemicals in that laboratory, pretty sure she should have concocted something better than "burn with weak flame" especially if she's so highly intelligent. Hell, didn't she have the cure on her (or it was just about done)? If he was brave enough to try and set the Lizard on fire with a very weak flame (and risk inducing his wrath) why wasn't she brave (or smart) enough to just stick his ass with a needle full of the magic "make everyone stop being lizards" formula?

Also, what the fudge ever happened to that rat? Think he ate it?

Well the antidote wasn't ready until after he left, so that was out. And the lab itself wasn't exactly filled with all sorts of explosive chemicals. It was a genetics lab, those don't really lend themselves to attacking things.

TheRock1525 posted...

Jeff Zero posted...

From: TheRock1525 | #032

Also, Jesus Christ guys, lightning strikes? Could you be anymore cliche in the final scene?

It's a comic book movie yo

They won't let Peter create his own webbing. It's unrealistic.

Magical gas that turns people into lizards? Dat's cool.

Second magical gas that cures all lizard people? Fine.

Lightning strikes ominous endings A-OK.

But nope, gotta order some more webbing off Amazon. Hopefully it qualifies for free two-day shipping.

Yes, Peter creating a hyper-tensile, ten-times-as-strong-as-steel, stickier than super-glue chemical in his bedroom in a matter of days is the exact same as decades of scientific research. They explain the "magical gas" in great detail, the chemical itself is a way to genetically modify people with animal genes, and the way it was spread was a way to potentially apply vaccines over large distances, and they're both in high-tech labs where they've been worked on for years. This makes sense. Peter creating his webs in a matter of days with random crap he can pull together from wherever does not.

I don't get why this is such a sticking point for you. It makes perfect sense as a way to bridge the gap between "Completely unrealistic invention by a high schooler" and the organic shooters.

TheRock1525 posted...

No, see, that's telling. Showing would be giving examples of Gwen's drive and intelligence. OK, she has a post as head intern at Oscorp. Why? Do we get any scenes that show off Gwen's intelligence? Hell, I think we get more scenes that involve showing Gwen's, well, stupidity. I mean, she attacks the Lizard with a trophy. She takes the system for delivering the Lizard formula, and rather than tossing it out the window, or hell, DESTROYING IT she hides in a closet and tries to stop the Lizard with... a bunsen burner. I guess if we're supposed to play this character off as intelligent as Parker, there should have been more scenes showing that off. Have them talking in class or something that reflects that. I guess I don't see Gwen as that intelligent in the film.

I see the trophy attack as her being brave, not stupid (though the two aren't that far apart). And she works in the lab, so she obviously knows what the device is capable of, for both good and bad, so trying to save it makes sense. And attacking with the bunsen burner was resourceful. It's better than just standing there scared.

Jukkie posted...

THE MUSIC WAS HORRIBLE.

Seriously, it completely ruined the movie, it was loud and just plain crap.

Also, not killing Uncle Ben's killer was the biggest no no ever. Killing him is what makes Spider-Man. He has to kill that guy, its the whole point of the responsibility angle.

What are you talking about? He never kills the guy, at least not in the comics. He takes him to the police in both Amazing Fantasy #15 and Ultimate Spider-Man.

TheRock1525 posted...

Jukkie posted...

THE MUSIC WAS HORRIBLE.

Seriously, it completely ruined the movie, it was loud and just plain crap.

Also, not killing Uncle Ben's killer was the biggest no no ever. Killing him is what makes Spider-Man. He has to kill that guy, its the whole point of the responsibility angle.

:(

Oh, God the music.

What the f*** was up with that music while he was fighting the Lizard in the school? I couldn't picture more ill-fitting music for those scenes.

I assume that they might address Uncle Ben's killer in sequels, but I can't really judge based on that because all we've got is this movie. It's a plot-thread that just dies, really. Obviously, the appearance of the Lizard changes Spidey's priorities, but I think that he could have easily addressed the killer BEFORE Lizard showed up.

He was addressing the killer before the Lizard showed up. He was going out every night, listening to police radios and finding every long blonde-haired thief, mugger, and robber, looking for the guy. He stops partially because of The Lizard, but also because of what Captain Stacy says at that dinner about revenge, which rang true with what Uncle Ben told him after his thing with Flash.

TheRock1525 posted...

He did in the first film, too. And in neither film did he actually witness the action.

I'm pretty sure the guy in the Raimi movies was a burgler who broke into their house, while Peter was gone. Peter came back to a dead Uncle Ben, while it happened right across the street in this one. He saw the action, but he didn't realize until he got over there that it was Uncle Ben.

Except it was rather in character. At the time, he was acting rather selfish: he was only looking at ways to purchase a car to impress Mary Jane, and he acted rather coldly towards Uncle Ben before said event. It was quite clear that Peter and Ben were growing a bit distant.

The moment in both movies happens out of spite, but in the Raimi ones, it's because Peter is acting very smug and over-confident, and in the new one it's because he was emotional after having a fight with his uncle. Peter is much less of a jerk in this one, which makes the scene that much more meaningful. Acting out of spite because you're emotional is a much more human experience.

Both work, really. I don't see any problem with going either route, as one establishes Peter's mindset whereas the other establishes Peter's abilities. Both are acceptable for what they seek to accomplish.

I'll give you this one.

Well, here's the inherent problem: you're taking two different approaches to a love story, and once again there's no real problem with either one fundamentally. The issue I always took with the Mary-Jane/Peter relationship was some atrocious dialogue and, well, Mary-Jane. But Mary-Jane kinda represented a goal for Peter much more than a person. Something that seemed unobtainable before but with his new-found powers (and confidence) he suddenly found the courage to go after her. In that sense, it worked for Peter because it represented a certain level of character growth. The problem with the Mary-Jane in the movies was that she was rather static as a character and it hurt the overall development. Also, Dunst wasn't nearly drop-dead gorgeous enough to make it work.

On the flip side, we're more TOLD that Gwen Stacey is driven than we see it, and she's reduced to "worrying girlfriend" when tending to Peter. To her credit, she defies the normal "girlfriend gets captured, put in peril" plot by making her own choice to stay in the end. I had no real problem with it, but it didn't really come off as great, especially since I didn't care for most of their interactions. Basically, both are concepts that are fine, but one was rather flawed in execution and the other was just mediocre.

We definitely see it, though. She's the head intern at a major lab at age 17, which is incredibly impressive. And she's a worrying girlfriend because she sees Peter like she sees her dad, both going out to risk their lives for the betterment of the city and it's people. It's a feeling she has every day, it's just being extended to Peter as well. Gwen is a much better character because she's actually proactive. In the Raimi movies, Mary-Jane is a constant damsel in distress, whether it's from muggers, Green Goblin, or her own family, she exists to be saved. Gwen, on the other hand, is actually a very proactive character. She saves everyone in the Oscorp building, gets the antidote made, and when the Lizard is in the school, she bashes him on the head with a trophy.

I thought Garfield and Stone had excellent chemistry. That moment between them after Captain Stacy's funeral is just heartbreaking, and I was genuinely concerned that the movie was gonna end where pretty much every superhero movie ends, with the hero sacrificing love for heroism, but in this one, Gwen is the perfect girl, because she understands and accepts Peter, and his responsibility.

TheRock1525 posted...

yoshifan823 posted...

A lot of elements were rushed. Some strange plot points, like how he invents the webshooters (hint: he does the equivalent of ordering them from ebay). They rushed other plot points (Uncle Ben's death) or they aborted them halfway through (Spider-Man is hunting down Uncle Ben's killer, gives up after a while).

He orders the webs, not the shooters. The webs are widely available, he just creates a mechanism that allows him to harness them in the way he wants. It makes a lot more sense than him coming up with a magical wonder-chemical that would probably take years and years of research to make, and it's better than organic shooters because it's another instance of solidifying Peter as A Smart Kid.

The problem is that creating a mechanism to shoot out the material in a straight line really isn't that complicated. I mean, I don't mind the idea of webshooters, but he ebay's the web material. What if Oscorp just decides to shut down production of it? Does he have any idea how to build his own? At least with the organic shooters you have justification, but really he's either gotta go all the way with the webshooters (build the mechanism AND the material) or not have them at all, because the current way just comes off as pretty weak.

Like I said, even in this comic book movie, having him come up with the webs would be way too unrealistic. I could see him maybe reverse engineering it, but he ordered a s***-ton, and the practical uses of the stuff, I have to imagine, would keep them in production for a very long time. Oscorp doesn't know that he's using their stuff, and if they did, they'd have to weigh taking that away from him and trusting that he hasn't figured out how to make it or something similar with losing out on all of the money that they make from it in all of its other uses.

I also imagine that making the shooter would be fairly mechanically challenging, especially for a 17 year old high school student. I'm not an engineer or anything, but it's a lot more than just adapting a silly string shooter.

hideto posted...

I'll probably avoid it because I can't stand Dennis Leary and I don't like that they kinda rushed a Spider-Man flick just so the movie rights wouldn't revert back to Marvel.

Denis Leary was, no joke, one of my favorite parts. He's very good at the whole "no-nonsense" kind of thing, while still being able to be funny. I'm not a huge fan of the guy normally, but he does a great job.

A lot of elements were rushed. Some strange plot points, like how he invents the webshooters (hint: he does the equivalent of ordering them from ebay). They rushed other plot points (Uncle Ben's death) or they aborted them halfway through (Spider-Man is hunting down Uncle Ben's killer, gives up after a while).

He orders the webs, not the shooters. The webs are widely available, he just creates a mechanism that allows him to harness them in the way he wants. It makes a lot more sense than him coming up with a magical wonder-chemical that would probably take years and years of research to make, and it's better than organic shooters because it's another instance of solidifying Peter as A Smart Kid.

Movie was hella better than the Raimi trilogy, mostly because Tobey McGuire and Kirsten Dunst (especially Kirsten Dunst) are far, far away.

TheRock1525 posted...

First thing I need to get out of the way: Spider-Man needed to be rebooted. Their universe was pretty f***ed up and I think most of the actors/actresses needed to replaced.

Second thing I need to get out of the way: this reboot really didn't change much.

If you enjoyed the first two movies, and hell, even the third, you will like this movie. Why? It's largely more of the same. A lot of elements from the previous films really do carry over, much more than I expected. The citizens of New York helping Spidey out in the final moments of the film, the film ending (well, very close to the end) with a funeral, a little kid getting rescued by Spider-Man in a "growth" moment for Spider-Man. They might have new actors, but it felt a bit like going through the motion. To their credit, the main villain didn't die this time!

You're right in that the movie didn't change a lot in terms of the basic structure, but it's Spider-Man. The overview is the same, but it's the way it happened that changed, and it changed for the better. Peter directly seeing his uncle die, the selfish act not seeming so, so out of character, the bully confrontation being just taunting and embarrassing instead of out and out violence, making Aunt May less of an oblivious old woman, changing Peter's love interest from Mary Jane, Generic Girl Next Door, to Gwen Stacy, who is smart, driven, and much more similar to Peter, so it makes sense when they get together, these are little things, but they make the story much better as a whole. Even the result of the funeral is way different. In Spider-Man, the funeral is for the villain, while in Amazing, it's for a hero. In Spider-Man, it ends with Peter walking away from someone who cares about him to live a life of being sad, and in Amazing, while it initially ends with the same thing, the movie itself ends with Peter and Gwen (who are, again, much more suited for each other) ostensibly getting back together.

Speaking of which, the Lizard... bleh. He's pretty boring. And they repeat the whole "main villain has outward inner monologue where his 'evil' half insists they much continue their work." He wasn't bad, but he wasn't particularly interesting. His interactions with Spidey are weak, despite an odd insistence that he talk. Making him completely feral I think would have worked better, but then again Connors being aware of his transformation and "improvement" kinda justified his decision to turn everyone into lizard people. But still, when one of their final interactions is him mocking Parker's dead parents and uncle for no damn reason (since their interactions were relatively cordial). You could argue it was the "evil" Lizard side but really that was pretty weak.

As for the villain, I agree that he's the weak part, but the slowly turning crazy is foreshadowing for future movies. The serum he used is obviously a precursor to the Goblin serum, and we all know what that does to people (I mean, it's being made for Norman Osbourne, after all).

Er, only an actress now.

Weakupedia posted...

she was hot until her entire identity became "slutty gamer girl"

now it's just kind of tiresome

She hasn't really been that in years though, she's an actress now.

I believe that he went to law school, because with the job market for lawyers the way it is, I don't think people would lie about making a mistake like that.

topic

Avengers bored me, and I'm a much bigger Spider-Man fan than pretty much any other super hero.

I thought it was really funny.

Your Aspie score: 47 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 175 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

I love driving. It's a great way to be by myself, blast some music, roll down the windows and just exist.

I drive stick, which makes it funner, too.

I always list my top 5, because they're on another level from all other movies: (no particular order)

Ocean's Thirteen
Up
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I'm probably going to see both this weekend (and got tickets to see Spider-Man at midnight, and went and saw Men in Black 3 and Madagascar 3 over the past couple days, and at some point in the next week, will probably end up seeing Brave and Moonrise Kingdom). No shame in either. One's a (depending on your opinion, potentially surprisingly) well reviewed comedy, and the other is directed by the guy who directed a pair of my favorite movies of all time, Ocean's Eleven and Ocean's Thirteen.

She actually looks pretty good with it. (in that blurry off color picture, so I keep the right to say otherwise when a better picture shows up)

I mean, I wonder what it will look like as she ages, but for now, it looks good. Like pretty much every good tattoo ever.

Super Mario RPG.

(Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi are not the same things)

Fun fact: Hugh Laurie is actually performing at a theatre in my town in August. I wish I could go, but I'm moving at the beginning of the month, so I won't be around to see him.

I just took a couple from a bottle my dad just got today for slicing open his thumb, and boy do I feel nice. I'm not much of a pot guy, but I could live like this.

Anna Kendrick. Case closed.

TheConductorSix posted...

Well Yoshi, you've reached the point this subject always leads to.

I have NO problem with Gay Marriage. At all. But I am weary with gay people having kids simply because I believe children need a mix of masculinity and femininity. Even though we joke about gay guys being feminine, they're not women. They can't nurture and care and love like women do. Same goes for two gay girls.


Also, as to your other post about "gay people faking it til they make it", there is a HUGE difference between being born a certain way and being raised a certain way. No one is born a Beta.

I know that, I just pointed that out because you worded it very poorly. You're right, being gay is very different from being charismatic and confident.

That said, I think you're way off-base with gay parents, though people on both sides certainly have evidence to support their theories.

TheConductorSix posted...

@seginus

every great stationary civilization has a history of men getting more feminine and women getting more masculine. these civilizations are populated with strong men who work hard and make their riches, then have kids who live the easy life.

wanna know a society with very few feminine men: African Tribes. No time to get girly when you're killing things for food. women have no time to get masculine because they're not the ones hunting. why aren't they hunting? because men are physically more powerful and it wouldn't make sense. it's slightly ironic that 3rd world country women are more ok with this truth. not just ok with it but accepting of it.

but this society we currently live in has butchered the strong male through a PC culture that smacks down truth and perpetuates lies for its personal gain. strong father figures are a dying breed which means strong sons are a dying breed. it's a nasty cycle.

It's fascinating that you point this out, because you've chosen a culture that is not nearly as far along, much less safe in terms of violence, sexual abuse, rape, and general wellbeing, and pretty wartorn. Africa as a whole is fairly unstable, so pointing it out as something we should strive toward feels very much like you're grasping at straws. I'd rather live in our culture than in Uganda, or Ethiopia, or pretty much any country in Africa, and I can't believe that you think making us more like them would be better.\

TheConductorSix posted...

And what better proof than today: TItle IX Day.

For those unaware, Title IX is the document that says if there is a sport at your school you have to have one for women if there are enough of them who want to participate.

Little known fact: 99% of women's sports LOSE money for their schools. That's right, they lose money but schools have to keep them for equality reasons. You would think that since women demanded this rule they would show up to the event, right? Wrong. Women are only 19% of the audience at WNBA games.

See that's the big problem: Women don't want to be equal to men, they want to cherry pick the best parts. They want equal pay and equal privilege but if the Titanic's sinking they want to be the first ones off the boat.

What you're leaving out is the fact that most college sports period, regardless of gender, lose money. Other than (for the biggest schools) football and occasionally basketball for a few select schools, college sports as a whole are a money loss venture. Hell, 22 schools' football programs made profit, out of over 120. Title IX might be a little overzealous, but it's heart is in the right place.

Agreed. I inquired about trade-in prices for 3DSes at Gamestop, but as predicted, it's a total ripoff, so I'll stick with my cool blue one.

Though that does raise yet another interesting question. If you're a guy, how do you change your strategies when going after other guys? Or girls going after girls?

UltimaterializerX posted...

Being gay at birth is not a personality trait one can just change, whereas being a beta male is a fixable learned behavior. Even asking that question at all means you need to go back to the shallow end with the rest of the children.

Haha, not even remotely what I mean. What has been built up in this topic is a world where families are a big strong dad and a mom who stays home and raises the kids, and that's the best way, because that's the way people are happiest and most natural. So, what happens when two guys or two girls want to have a kid? Do they pick and choose who is the mom and who is the dad?

Again, no problems with the confidence boosting, problem with the stale gender roles and thinly veiled misogyny.

foolm0ron posted...

From: yoshifan823 | #208

Hear that gay people? Pretend long enough, and you too can become straight! You weren't born a woman in a man's body, you just aren't pretending hard enough!

Do you really think a gay person is "a woman born in a man's body"?

wat the balls

No, those are two separate instances. I just worded it very poorly. Gay people are most certainly not women born in men's bodies.

Though I am very curious, where do gay people fit in with this whole thing? I can't possibly imagine an answer that isn't offensive.

TheConductorSix posted...

For men who aren't blessed with these situations, they have to learn somehow. Remember: You are who you pretend to be. So if you pretend to be Alpha long enough, eventually, it's going to become apart of you.

Hear that gay people? Pretend long enough, and you too can become straight! You weren't born a woman in a man's body, you just aren't pretending hard enough!

marriage was more tied to business than religion. the reason marriage isn't as necessary as it used to be is because women are allowed to partake in monetary freedom and no longer are forced to marry to move up in society.

I don't see what's wrong with this, though. If women weren't allowed this, we'd literally be admitting that they are less than men. Not necessarily in a "they are less strong" manner, but a "they are less people, they need us men to tell them how to live their lives".

and yes, men ARE getting paid less to work jobs they used to BECAUSE women are working jobs. It's simple economics: more people working a job the less it pays. the reason NBA players make 10 million is because no one else can do what they do. there's a reason the gap started to widen right around the time women started becoming an economical force. the reason tangible careers went down the tube is because they stopped paying good money. who wants to work a job that doesn't pay enough to feed your family without your wife having to work.

This honestly feels like the same logic racists use, though. Strong, white men aren't getting paid as much as they used to because those dirty blacks/hispanics/asians/insert race here are getting our jobs. And the gap started to widen because Ronald Reagan is a terrible president. Causation does not equal correlation.

And as for my family situation, I had two parents, both of whom worked essentially the same job, though my dad worked nights so he was able to be at home during the day when me and my sister were around. I honestly don't know who made more money, though I feel like I had a goddamn fantastic childhood. That said, I know plenty of people who grew up with single parents who had great childhoods as well. There is a natural advantage growing up in a two parent household, because you will most likely have two money-earners, and thus, more money, but that's never a certainty. Also, my parents have had a pretty happy marriage, as far as I can tell. Never worried about divorce or any major arguments between them.

Also, I would be incredibly interested to hear how the social acceptance of homosexuality fits into this whole "destroys the nuclear family" thing. Because you'd then have families with two father figures, or two mother figures. How does that change happiness?

I get what you all are saying, because again, as I've said plenty in this topic, there's something to be said for gaining confidence in yourself because ultimate, more confident people are more attractive. But this is being linked with a "men are the strong, earner, and women are the caretaker", which is something that in general society is getting away from, which you have noted, but the thing is, the general unhappiness of the population of this country and the world is not related to that.

The reason divorce is becoming more popular isn't because of feminism, it's because it's becoming more socially acceptable, mostly because people aren't as bound to the religion that frowned upon it. People aren't making less money because women are starting to work jobs that only men worked before, people are making less money because there is a growing gap between the higher and lower class people, and because more emphasis is being put upon finance and the stock market than actual, tangible careers.

And while it's true that generally, in divorce, the man gets the short end of the stick, it's a complete 180 from the way it was 70 years ago, where if a divorce happened, it was immediately assumed to be the woman's fault, and a divorce completely destroyed a woman's stock in life, and she ended up having to raise however many children she had with essentially no support, unless her parents took her side. It's over-corrected too far, but it hasn't always been this way. Sure, people may have been generally happier 60 years ago, but "the feminization of men" is not the cause for the unhappiness. People are getting smarter, technology is getting better at a much quicker rate, and again, the gap between rich and poor grows leaps and bounds every year.

Ultimately, what this is is finding a too-simple (and ultimately misguided) solution for something that is far, far too complicated to only have one answer. I'd argue that the happiness of the nation would be even worse if we hadn't brought women onto an equal ground, but that's not something I could ever prove.

ExThaNemesis posted...

The goals of FEMEN are far greater that disrupting Euro 2012 as they want a global “female revolution” to happen.

And, according to Shevchenko, it’s going to be bloody, as men wouldn’t want to give up their power without a fight.

this is the kind of feminism that's becoming more frequent now a days.

It's not more frequent, it's getting more publicity. The internet is allowing fringe groups like that a voice, and while that's ultimately a good thing, you can't take the actions of a tiny minority like that seriously. It would be like representing all white people with your local Neo-Nazi group, or equating all Muslims with Al-Queda.

Swifticuffs posted...

feminism sticks out more for radical nonsense than it does this wonderful progression for females to be equal to men. So I'm not so sure there's a lot of positives to come out of the name/term. Started for a good reason, now pretty much synonymous with insane females who can't get enough.

Radical nonsense like...

I love how people keep trying to use "feminist" as an insult. It's like Republicans and their "socialism" obsession.

foolm0ron posted...

From: yoshifan823 | #115

You can read this while saying "this guy has some good ideas, but he is a total ass, misogynist, and should not be listened to under any circumstance"

Sure, if you're the kind of person that thinks kids playing GTA means they will start shooting up hospitals and running over hookers in cars

I'm not, because there is a difference between a work of fiction that fully acknowledges that it is a work of fiction by being a video game, and a blog that presents itself as a real person, giving real advice to other real people, for the theoretical benefit of the people reading it. The people who are the target audience of this blog are people who don't know a lot of women, or a lot about them, and here is a guy claiming to be a master of women, a completely non-fictional master of women, so why not take advice from him? (and the answer, of course, is because anyone who says things like "If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man." is a terrible person).

If people were taking advice from dating sims, you'd have a point here.

foolm0ron posted...

I really like roissey/chateau/whatever because he is really great at burying deep, methodical concepts below his aggressive and vulgar diction. The aggression helps give betas the confidence to actually try out his stuff, which gives them the opportunity to think about these things more deeply and improve themselves. But you have to admit that a lot of people just can't dig deep enough to understand these lessons, which leads to them either mindlessly worshipping the guy, or mindlessly bashing the guy.

Again, the problem is that while he's teaching the right lessons (confidence, etc.), he's also filling them with horrible, horrible lessons that are much closer to the surface. You can read this while saying "this guy has some good ideas, but he is a total ass, misogynist, and should not be listened to under any circumstance", but those people tend to be smart enough to be able to talk to women on their own. The people who are getting tangible, positive benefits, are also picking up things like "women are inferior", which are not true, and damaging. You might get short term benefits (more sex), but in the long run, you're gonna be less attractive to women, because you genuinely think less of them.

No one going to this site is going to only pick out the good lessons, because the people smart enough to do that already know them.

TheConductorSix posted...

But using it for good ideas and concepts you can apply to grow as a better, more appealing man is what most people use it for.

Are there not blogs that can help people do this without being written by a horrible dick?

Swifticuffs posted...

From: ExThaNemesis | Posted: 6/20/2012 3:20:09 PM | #102

http://9gag.com/gag/4460311

lolol

bahahaha thats great

yoshifan right now is currently dreaming up a response

Ah yes, a response to the social science journal "9gag.com". Taking a bunch of out of context Facebook posts and applying the same meaning to all of them. In fact, even if all of those are supposed to be read as "look at these dumb dudes, in the friend zone", it's the dudes' fault. I mean, the one thing we all can agree on in this topic is that acting like that, continually getting closer to a girl in the hopes that by some sort of weird osmosis she'll go out with you/sleep with you, that's dumb and pretty creepy. The problem is, the people who blame this on the girl, who is being "a b****" or "a whore" (not saying anyone here said it, but it's certainly been said elsewhere), they're just ignoring the fact that the dude is the one in the wrong, being duplicitous and hiding his true intentions and feelings. What DeepsPraw said is pretty on the button. So we don't disagree that these guys are dumb as hell.

Where we are apparently split is that you think things like "I find it sad when people sheepishly follow the modern, emasculated paradigm that has been created by feminism," and I think that feminism is just a matter of course, acknowledging that men and women are pretty f***ing similar, and that everyone should have equal rights. The "extra rights" that people who are so against feminism rail against are specifically there because, despite people being the same, regardless of gender, there is a natural social advantage for men, just like there's a natural social advantage for white people. Things are put in place to counteract that, which is perceived by the ignorant as "people having more rights than me". This isn't saying that there are areas where men are discriminated against, or that those are somehow lesser issues, they need to be fixed just as much. But we need all people working together in order to change these things, and painting women or feminists as the enemy is just as wrong as women or feminists that paint men as the enemy. It's the whole golden rule thing, treat others as you would want to be treated. If you don't want to be called out for being a man, don't say dumb things like "feminazi", or group all feminists into some stereotyped group.