default header

Theory

lol @ girls

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby JoshF » 15 Apr 2010 20:36

User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby OneOpossumGame » 15 Apr 2010 20:53

If it were up to me, in creating any list, I would take a number - say 50, and a field - say games, and then pick out the top 25 men and the top 25 women, highlighting whatever it is they're doing. Because that's called fairness.


Yeah! And we can each have our own water fountains, too! We'd be seperate but... well, still not really equal. Seperate's fine, though. I'm cool with just seperate.
I totally judge books by their cover. All the time. It's one of my values.
User avatar
OneOpossumGame
 
Joined: 01 Sep 2009 18:06

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Apr 2010 21:04

Here's some more fairness in the same vein. It is not fair that I can't swim fast enough to beat Michael Phelps.

Image

Therefore they should start a new separate league in the Olympics that includes only people whom I have a chance of beating. Or, better yet, only people whom I can clearly easily beat. Or, better yet, only me. This would be more fair, because I would then get as many gold medals as Phelps.

The above was a textbook application of female logic. (Which, again, has nothing whatever to do with male logic, which is a separate branch of logic altogether.)
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Apr 2010 21:23

And what about dwarfs in game design? I bet there weren't any dwarfs in that list either! Or black or red or brown people? Homos? Transvestites? Albinos? Clinically retarded? Limp-dicked? -- Wait, there were probably many of the last category -- large-dicked perhaps? And the women need separate categories depending on boob sizes. Large-breasted women have more opportunities for sex, and will therefore be disadvantaged when it comes to game design compared to flat-chested ones.

On second thought, that's way too many lists. One way to get ourselves out of this predicament is simply to acknowledge that each person is unique and special, really really special, and therefore INCOMPARABLE. Yes, that's what we should do. We should stop comparing people and their accomplishments -- we are all equal and everything we do is equal and we should love and cherish each other and our accomplishments equally, and oh my god this is so touching I feel like having a cry now boo hoo hoo hold me please.

Fucking hysterical bitches.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Masahiro9891 » 16 Apr 2010 01:03

It's not right and it needs to change. Monocultures are evolutionarily a dead end: game people, take note.


This shit right here is hilarious. Her whole argument is that women have not had the chances, education, abilities, etc. to become as "good" as men, and that we should seek to equalize this because monoculture is bad. Yet this retarded bitch cannot even come to the simple conclusion that what she fucking wants is monoculture. That she is, in fact, right it is an evolutionary dead end, and the dumb little cunt wants us to drive straight towards it lol.
User avatar
Masahiro9891
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 06:11
Location: Louisiana, United States

Unread postby icycalm » 16 Apr 2010 02:04

What she wants is not a "monoculture" but a free ride. She wants handouts -- AND protectionism. She is basically squealing "gimme gimme gimme!"

The word "monoculture" doesn't even make any sense. A culture is a collection of elements. To say that "collections of elements are evolutionary dead-ends" is simply a truism -- though one which would surely go over her head. Because at the end of the day in a finite universe EVERYTHING is an evolutionary dead-end, since nothing can evolve for ever, and the same of course applies to videogames as to anything else.

It is the same mistake that feminists, fagots and other minorities keep making: instead of seeing themselves as part of a continuum, a spectrum, they segregate themselves by means of ultimately fictitious categories such as "woman", "gay", "black", etc. etc. Because at the end of the day "women" and "men" do not exist -- these are merely fictitious dualities created for handy everyday use, as an abbreviated means of expression -- sexuality is quite obviously a spectrum. And the same goes for races and the rest.

The question then is always of the worth, of the capacity, of the capabilities, OF THE INDIVIDUAL. The question is always: How smart are YOU? How fast are YOU? How strong are YOU? etc. etc. -- not "How fast is on average the random member of this arbitrary category in which you have been placed by others for the purposes of abbreviated means of everyday expression?" So if you are an insanely smart women, who the fuck cares about statistics? An extremely smart woman would in fact feel insulted if she was being restricted to "women's-only" categories of intellectual achievement. He who is the best wants to compete with the best -- which is, by the way, the only way to become even better. What does the accolade "best woman philosopher ever" signify if the dumb cunt didn't manage to say anything that hadn't already been said by male philosophers before her?

But there's nothing to be done about it. All these people really do believe that they belong to these entirely fantastical categories, and have identified themselves so thoroughly with them that it is now impossible for them to view themselves as individuals. "I am a woman", "I am a black", "I am a gay" -- to try to remove these ludicrous categories from their minds would be next to impossible, EVEN WITHOUT the retarded "equal rights" movements making things worse by continually emphasisizing them. The only ones spared from all these ordeals are white straight males who, since they are the only ones not engaged in the "equal rights" farce -- the only ones, that is to say, who are not allowed to demand rights, i.e. power, as a group -- demand it as individuals -- and therefore get it. And of course, since so many of them get it as individuals, their category ends up getting it as well.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 Apr 2010 02:17

Another funny:

Women continually emphasize the fact that they "mature earlier" than men as proof of their intellectual superiority. This is simply laughable: baboons mature earlier than humans too: does that mean they are smarter? QUITE THE OPPOSITE IN FACT, LOL.

Schopenhauer wrote:The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations.


http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_women/

Humans mature LATER THAN ANY OTHER ANIMAL -- which is why they are so much smarter than them!

And males mature LATER THAN FEMALES -- which is one of the reasons they are so much smarter than them!

HOW MANY FUCKING WOMEN KNOW THIS IN THE YEAR 2010? SCHOPENHAUER NOTED IT IN THE 19TH CENTURY FOR FUCK'S SAKES AND THE DUMB BITCHES ARE STILL PROUD OF THEIR EARLY STUNTED MATURITY. Even that fucking Russian chess bitch linked earlier on in this thread blurts this point out as if it redounded to her honor:

There was even an amusing hypothesis that chess is for immature and weird people, so women (who tend to mature faster than men) don’t take up such a strange occupation.


It is simply hopeless.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 Apr 2010 02:21

And rodents mature in the space of a few weeks -- look out mankind! With a little affirmative action the polyculture of rodents will take over the universe!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 Apr 2010 02:46

From The Quantum Nietzsche:

William Plank wrote:The budding feminist movement Nietzsche saw as just another way in which women were going to redefine themselves in terms of the male, in effect to redefine themselves as males, hence his disparagement of Madame de Stael. Such a redefinition is a restriction and impoverishment of the potential of the Will to Power in the same way as nationalism or Christianity. Nietzsche, alive today, would have the same attitude toward any definition of the human in such restricted terms, including gay rights groups which define themselves in terms of a sexual orientation.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 02 May 2010 14:33

I've been seeing a lot of "Alex Kierkegaard misogyny" hits off Google recently, and I figured I might make an attempt to explain how ludicrous this charge against me is. Not that the mass of the sub-humans will be able to grasp this explanation, naturally, but perhaps a few of the less stunted ones among them might.

Misogyny, from Greek misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman), means "hatred of women". The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only sub-humans would make: i.e. one that DOES NOT MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of life-forms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example. Does the fact that I realize he is much less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a "miscaninist" because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself -- even if all signs point to the fact that they aren't?

The charge of misogyny against me in particular, and philosophers in general, quite simply does not stand. Anyone who uses it simply betrays the crudity of his understanding -- Kaufmann, for example, does so, and many other Nietzsche commentators. Or else they simply do not understand what the fucking word means -- which for people who pretend to be scholars is something even worse.

Real misogynynists, for exampe, were some of the Christian Church Fathers, who regarded women as "the instrument of the devil", etc. etc. But people like me, healthy human beings that is to say, not only do not hate women, but find in them one of the most attractive aspects of existence. The charge of hatred of women against me is simply ludicrous, it's just another one of those cheap, idiotic argument tactics that retarded sub-humans use in order to avoid dealing with the facts that philosophy places before them.
Last edited by icycalm on 02 May 2010 14:46, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 02 May 2010 14:44

The sub-humans also overlook another fact that makes the entire charge ludicrous: that hatred moves from lower to higher, not the other way around. From higher to lower there might be contempt, or pity, or revulsion -- but not hatred. The hatred in this whole business exists only in those who accuse me of misogyny, whilst from my perspective women are wonderful and my accusers are merely pitiable -- I have absolutely no reason to hate either of them. In point of fact, since I am currently the supreme life-form on this planet, I do not hate anything or anyone at all (though, again, there are lots of people I pity, or find contemptible, or revolting, but pretty women are not among them -- even the ones who are extremely stupid, for stupidity in a pretty woman is merely something cute).
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby OuterLimit » 26 Mar 2015 04:03

As a minority I appreciate this thread. Kierkegaard does more justice and aid to lower groups than the liberals.

The liberals try to beat it into your head that you are inferior, "See here, here, and here where you are oppressed", they even invent imaginary oppressions: "Just by being within the general vicinity of the majority you are being harmed!" They ask you to be prejudiced in doublespeak: "If you accept their culture you are a traitor! Be unaccepting!" The coping mechanisms they offer actually make you more sick by teaching you anti-values: "Well you lost many wars against them. It's bad to win at war. You are actually the winner, because you are the loser."

It's very hard to hate something when you see it as natural process, which includes one's own faults. Nietzsche explains a great deal of reality as part of a natural process including inequality. Nature-hatred is the domain of Christianity and any other morality that says "I have invented this wonderful imaginary world! Let's work hard to live there, this reality sucks!"

Equality is a terrible lie to tell people. Just terrible. They would be happier without it. If you believe yourself to be "equal" or "close to equal" to everyone else you will always feel cheated when you fail and feel shame when you succeed.

Ultimately social progress (that is, real social progress, the type with gene splicing and the Overman) is a group effort; some people have bigger contributions. This is a good thing. From my perspective Kierkegaard works for my team, because I am part of his future.

At times I get lost in Kierkegaard's writing and I've actually forgotten what minority group I was a part of. I eventually remember when I come back down to the lower planes. I don't think any amount of his writing is bigoted or hateful. I am not even sure he is capable of hating people at all.
User avatar
OuterLimit
 
Joined: 21 Nov 2014 23:01

Unread postby icycalm » 29 Jan 2019 05:11

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-7215 ... pid1929123

Batman_ wrote:My notch count is nowhere near 100, not even 50, and i'm fairly young, but even I already feel the same as you OP.

I am skeptical I can even fall in love again. I can ghost any girl I'm with total apathy. I don't care if they fuck other dudes, and I hardly care if they lose interest in me. I remember when I first discovered game - having so much as 2 girls texting me at a time was enough to make me ecstatic. Now it all feels like a chore, and sex feels more like a biological imperative for my sanity than anything else.

I rarely enjoy being around women - maybe only 1/25 date actually ends with a tinge of excitement or happiness (regardless of whether I got laid or not). Sure, some woman are really cool, loyal, and fun to be around, but they're extraordinarily rare - the rest are so boring and annoying that I am starting to lose patience.

I don't think this is entirely due to notch counts. I'm sure there are some blue-pilled guys out there with higher notches than me who still get onetis and attached and obsessed. Once you recognize what the average women does for you (sex, and at best maybe some good company), it's hard not to feel jaded. I have more fun playing video games than being around most women.


Batman knows what's up.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Previous

Return to Theory

cron