Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[TheDemonLord]

Everything comes back to Zionist plans.

[Graystone]

Sorry - I missed your last response - how rude of me:



Except there are multiple data points that you are not privy to, that I am - which I cannot expand upon here which invalidate those other narratives.

As I said, you are free to handwaive things to maintain what you wish to be true, but to assert that it is a responsible interpretation of data, based solely on your preconceived notions is what we call Bias.



Oh no you don't - I've been at my current company for not that long - all of the problems to which I speak of predate my arrival (some by several years), you're simply making shit up to fit the reality you wish to project onto me.

But to talk quickly about the preferable option - you are putting the cart before the horse my friend. The preferable option would be that I had time, resources and authority to complete all the outstanding tasks that I have the skills, experience and drive to fix.

There are issues at this company that have not been dealt with because of certain personalities in upper management. These issues (with the passage of time) have grown more and more pressing (as OSes go from LTS to Zero support). With a good number of them, I've looked at them, come up with solutions, presented those solutions and then proceeded with them. When you are moving a service from a server that is 18 years old and running a server version that is 7 major releases behind the current OS version - you are going to have issues.

Now, in the presentation to Management I'd accounted for this and set the expectation we are going to get some issues and some of those will generate complaints. It is an inevitability with the scale of the work that we are doing. However, after a couple of high-profile complaints and to give you an idea of scale - on one particular project - of the ~6000 sites and services that we needed to move, we had about 10-20 complaints that resulted in a credit, and of those 5 were escalated up to senior management.

Based on those 5 - certain managers wanted to stop the project "Too much risk", "Problem with the process" - when we had about ~600 sites and services left to migrate.

This is the key part that you need to understand: There is a causal link here - the reason that the problems had grown to the point where heavy-handed migration was required, was because of an unhealthy aversion to risk. Systems had been left in half-migrated states because of Risk aversion, this risk aversion in turn makes the problem worse and worse over time.

This is where, once all other options have been exhausted, the Insufferable Cunt comes in to play - I'm happy to have the shit-fight required to tell those certain management types in no uncertain terms to piss off and let us finish the work as intended.

Now, as I'm sure most of KB is aware of now - I happen to be rather good at tenaciously arguing a point, much more-so than any of my predecessors. And that is why I was the only one who actually completed the work and those that came before more weren't able to. Because I'm an insufferable Cunt (when required).

For the final piece of the puzzle (to try and give you a clear understanding) because of the greater principle I was working towards, I've made our T1 teams job much easier - they are no longer trying to support services across 5 different versions of OS, the services have been deployed using automated scripts so that each server within the platform is identically (and correctly) setup.

We've been able to deploy additional features for our customer base that we weren't able to do so before (due to problems with one or 2 of the older servers within the previous environment).

That is the outcome that is preferable. The goal is, and always will be, providing the most reliable, feature-rich, price competitive product to the Customer, in a manner that our support teams can provide the best possible support, with the shortest delay to resolution.

And sometimes, the only way to achieve THAT goal, is to be an insufferable cunt. Some of the time.



It's interesting to look at the number of companies that were reported to have a combative element in the work place - a good number of them were also very successful.



Bull.
Shit.
You got caught.
You got called.



There's a flaw in your logic, whilst I concede the internet makes it easier to clump together, there are multiple groups of 'crazy fuckers' who clumped together well before the advent of the internet. So I don't entirely buy that.



Are you saying that society is more Misogynistic than say 50 years ago? or 100 years ago? Cause that's what you need to claim in order for that statement to be true. Compared to every other society that has ever existed (so not a hypothetical utopia) we are the least Misogynistic society that has ever been. So I don't buy that.



I think (and I'll preface this with I'm far from certain) - that those grounds aren't enough for resentment. disheartening, sure. But not resentment.

I'm going to go on a tangent for a second - but assume you are a Prisoner in a camp and you have a guard who is determined to torment you. They force you to build a wall. Even though the conditions may be appalling, they may be abusive etc. you can still take a degree of pride in seeing the finished product, the fruits of your labour.

And so, truly malevolent guards who want to torture prisoners in every aspect would force the prisoners to work, but it wouldn't be work in aid of a goal (such as carrying heavy bags from one end of the courtyard, then back again etc. till they collapsed) - denying them the satisfaction of job well done.

Back to the Incels - I believe the above phenomana may explain the resentment. Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion.

Assume for the moment that you devote a good proportion of your time and effort to play by the rules of this game, only to be continually rebuffed and rebuked - this is where I think the true resentment comes, because you've upheld your end of the implied social contract but society hasn't upheld their end.

I also think that a shift in what is being touted a desirable in Men has a lot to answer for. There's been a move away from traditionally 'Manly Men' (think the 80's action movie classics), to something more 'tame' and dare I say it more 'effeminate' - there's been some serious scientific research on this http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...03122412472340 and from the abstract:





I think in those 2 statements is the resentment - young men are being told to play by a set of rules that don't work.

But to re-clarify, I'm not certain on this - it does seem to me that this cultural shift in the last 10-15 years does somewhat line up with the formative years of the people who are now calling themselves incels and it is a change that we haven't seen before and so may explain a phenomena that we haven't seen before.



Hmm, a quasi-political show, with a focus on entertainment as opposed to hard facts and data - what an excellent source for information.

However - the comments section is some rather interesting reading - a large number of people are echoing my original statement - treating them with derision won't solve the issue.

There's some other comments that talk about if we discuss this as a purely mental health issue, there's a blatant double standard - we wouldn't be laughing and deriding this group if it was made of Women. We'd be taking the issue seriously. I happen to think that this phenomena is part of the problem.

Ah, how convenient. Pretty sure there is an 'argument from' for that bullshit. It's a notion based on the data presented... you cry that only you are privy to the 'real data', bit of a cop out there.

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

The whole premise that if you 'play the game' you will get a 'companion' sounds like misogynistic bullshit to me. Women are not prizes or rewards, they're our equals, don't treat them like a commodity.

We deride feminist extremists, is this not much the same thing?

[TheDemonLord]

Ah, how convenient. Pretty sure there is an 'argument from' for that bullshit. It's a notion based on the data presented... you cry that only you are privy to the 'real data', bit of a cop out there.

I'm pretty sure it's not - it's impossible for me to relay the thousands of interactions I have with the staff members at my company, then to give the context, history etc. Only I can know that.

Those details invalidate one of your premises. Since I am an authority on my life, it's not an Argument from Authority - that's the n^th time you've tried to use that fallacy and failed. You really should learn how it works.

You can try and argue something for which you do not have the data for if you wish, just that it's a piss-weak argument, and you know it.

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

The problem predates my arrival at the company - therefore that entire statement is false. I tried to explain it to you, but clearly you don't want to read something which invalidates you premises.

The whole premise that if you 'play the game' you will get a 'companion' sounds like misogynistic bullshit to me. Women are not prizes or rewards, they're our equals, don't treat them like a commodity.

Nice Bait and Switch there - re-read what I said, I was rather careful on the wording:

"you will become a desirable companion"

That is not the same as "you will get a 'companion'". And the difference is very important.

Maybe you are hearing "misogynistic bullshit" because that's what you want to hear...

The point that was made is what is being touted as desirable, really isn't desirable - and so in effect, the game is corrupt - there's no way to win. What do people do when a system is Corrupt? They want to destroy it - Enter stage left, Incels.

We deride feminist extremists, is this not much the same thing?

Do we? To the same degree? Can you provide proof of that, from a major TV show - like the one you posted?

[Graystone]

I'm pretty sure it's not - it's impossible for me to relay the thousands of interactions I have with the staff members at my company, then to give the context, history etc. Only I can know that.

Those details invalidate one of your premises. Since I am an authority on my life, it's not an Argument from Authority - that's the n^th time you've tried to use that fallacy and failed. You really should learn how it works.

You can try and argue something for which you do not have the data for if you wish, just that it's a piss-weak argument, and you know it.



The problem predates my arrival at the company - therefore that entire statement is false. I tried to explain it to you, but clearly you don't want to read something which invalidates you premises.



Nice Bait and Switch there - re-read what I said, I was rather careful on the wording:

"you will become a desirable companion"

That is not the same as "you will get a 'companion'". And the difference is very important.

Maybe you are hearing "misogynistic bullshit" because that's what you want to hear...

The point that was made is what is being touted as desirable, really isn't desirable - and so in effect, the game is corrupt - there's no way to win. What do people do when a system is Corrupt? They want to destroy it - Enter stage left, Incels.



Do we? To the same degree? Can you provide proof of that, from a major TV show - like the one you posted?

Then your datapoint is inadmissible.

Simply repeating you assertions may comfort you that you are 'right', but as per the capital gains tax, unless you are willing to reopen the discussion, all it shows is how irrational your way of thinking is.

There was ambiguity, let me clarify that. TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

What game and what touting? What system is corrupt? It sounds awfully like you are inferring a bunch of shit again, I'd make a subtle jab about that, but apparently you don't understand those...

"you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc." that is the sentence to which I inferred said premise. The following one specifies by doing things you will be a desirable companion, but does not negate the premise as told.

The degree is clearly subjective, it doesn't seem like a point worth debating given your obvious bias. You always ask Katman, what is your burden of proof, and deride him for going off on the next point when this is provided, perhaps turn that around and elaborate on what your burden of proof for this would be, so it isn't so subjective...

[TheDemonLord]

Then your datapoint is inadmissible.

Not at all, think of it as Eye witness testimony. Perfectly Admissible.

Simply repeating you assertions may comfort you that you are 'right', but as per the capital gains tax, unless you are willing to reopen the discussion, all it shows is how irrational your way of thinking is.

And simply repeating your conjecture (despite being told it's incorrect) is clearly of equal Comfort to you.

In regards to to Capital Gains - depends, are you willing to accept we use a FRBS yet? Are you willing to accept the correct definition of income (from your own sources), not the made up one you used to bolster your argument?

There was ambiguity, let me clarify that. TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

Maybe if you read it, you'd understand why you are both wrong and why it's a justification.

Let me be blunt - since I've arrived, I've fixed a lot of of those pre-existing problems (and hopefully this monday will finally get to decommission another Server 2000 instance) - you can try some manager waffle about toxic culture, but without living my life - it's all baseless conjecture.

The bottom line is (back to your original point) is the only way that has been successful to achieve some of the projects that have been on the company's risk registers, project lists etc. etc. in some cases for 5+ years - was for me to be an insufferable Cunt.

Linking back to your above rejection of my experience of my own life (something I happen to be the world leading authority on), the only reason to do so is to avoid conceding that sometimes Insufferable Cunts are the only ones who can get certain shit done.

What game and what touting? What system is corrupt? It sounds awfully like you are inferring a bunch of shit again, I'd make a subtle jab about that, but apparently you don't understand those...

The Dating game. And the shift in what has been portrayed as the ideal of Masculinity. Compare say Dutch from the Predator film (an example of Hyper-Masculinity) to Fin in The force awakens, Or compare the likes of the trains from Thomas the Tank engine (the original books) to something like the case of Daniel Tiger. Hell - there's even a theory for it "Crisis of Masculinity".

If you really want to delve deep - the Archetypal Hero (the "Ideal" man) has remained relatively unchanged across cultures and across time (this is where we get the meta-narrative of the Hero's Journey from)

In recent times, we've seen a major push back against that - such as the Bechdal test, the rise in "Toxic Masculinity" claims, various groups of men declaring themselves "allies" to various activist causes - with grand gestures and proclamations that they are "safe" and "harmless" (which is doubly hilarious when it turns out that many of them are just trying to mask their predatory urges)

The ideal man has changed from "the Soldier who tends to his garden" to something weak, non-threatening and harmless. And it is that system that is corrupt, because the majority of Women don't find that attractive - case in point, the biggest selling Erotic novel EVER was about a powerful, dominant man who gets civilized/tamed by the female protagonist (eerily similar to the meta-tale of Beauty and the Beast - and that isn't a coincidence).

In short - if you present Men an ideal, telling them that if they manifest aspects of that Ideal, that they will become more desirable to their desired partner - and that this is true. Then those who fail to manifest that ideal can only blame themselves. The game is fair, the rules are fair.

If, however, you present Men an ideal, with the same premise, but manifesting these traits DOESN'T make them more desirable (in fact, it makes them less desirable) - then the game is corrupt, the rules of the game ensure that you loose the game.

"you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc." that is the sentence to which I inferred said premise. The following one specifies by doing things you will be a desirable companion, but does not negate the premise as told.

It absolutely does not follow, because (and here's the kicker) that door swings both ways - Are women Misandrist for putting on Makeup or provocative outfits (you know - things which will make them a desirable companion)?

Cause that's what you are essentially arguing, just in reverse.

I'll break it down real simple like: Men and Women do things to increase their chances of both getting laid and finding a partner.

The men as Misogynistic as the women are misandrist for wanting to do so. I'll let you decide how much you think that is.

The degree is clearly subjective, it doesn't seem like a point worth debating given your obvious bias. You always ask Katman, what is your burden of proof, and deride him for going off on the next point when this is provided, perhaps turn that around and elaborate on what your burden of proof for this would be, so it isn't so subjective...

Gender portrayals of Men over the last 20-30 years, Increase in Male suicide rates, Male abandonment of education (and the education system in general being more and more tilted towards Girls), The global phenomena of Jordan Peterson, Articles in major news publications that push demonstrably false data (see the articles about women finding men doing housework sexy, when the reverse is true), The gender reading gap (and some of the theories on it's cause), the continued pushing of the Gender Pay Gay (which pretty much vanishes when all the measurable metrics that account for a difference in earning are factored in), The promotion of the 1 in 4 campus Rape Myth (which got to the point where the author of the Study that this claim was sourced from had to tell people to stop abusing her study), Compulsory Sexual consent courses (only for men though), Any advertisement for Domestic Violence (where the perpetrator is almost 100% shown to be a Man beating a women, despite the fact that Women hit their partners more often in a relationship).

Is that enough for you? Or is that all just bias?

Now, I'll grant you - it's a massively complex social issue, and I don't have discrete data points for the overall claim. However, there have been studies done based on this emerging social phenomena (such as the Housework study) - coupled with other data points which suggest a degree of Causation.

In regards to Subjectivity - I'll concede some of it has a more broad interpretation than others and some of it is does have a degree of Conjecture. Compared to all the other explanations, it's the only one that fits the timeline and is the only one that has changed recently.

[Katman]

The global phenomena of Jordan Peterson,

Really? I'd never heard of him until you started raving on about him.

He probably features somewhere on the Autism spectrum as well.

[TheDemonLord]

Really? I'd never heard of him until you started raving on about him.

He probably features somewhere on the Autism spectrum as well.

Well, considering he's probably not featured high in Conspiracies Monthly, doesn't surprise me.

As for Autism, hah - if you'd watched any of his stuff, you'd understand why that's so laughable

- Also, the fact you have heard of him (even if it is through me) kinda proves the point...

[Katman]

Also, the fact you have heard of him (even if it is through me) kinda proves the point...

Really?

You think the fact that you've mentioned him on KB confirms your claim that he's a 'global phenomenon'?

Maybe it's just another manifestation of your neurological disorder.

[Graystone]

Not at all, think of it as Eye witness testimony. Perfectly Admissible.



And simply repeating your conjecture (despite being told it's incorrect) is clearly of equal Comfort to you.

In regards to to Capital Gains - depends, are you willing to accept we use a FRBS yet? Are you willing to accept the correct definition of income (from your own sources), not the made up one you used to bolster your argument?



Maybe if you read it, you'd understand why you are both wrong and why it's a justification.

Let me be blunt - since I've arrived, I've fixed a lot of of those pre-existing problems (and hopefully this monday will finally get to decommission another Server 2000 instance) - you can try some manager waffle about toxic culture, but without living my life - it's all baseless conjecture.

The bottom line is (back to your original point) is the only way that has been successful to achieve some of the projects that have been on the company's risk registers, project lists etc. etc. in some cases for 5+ years - was for me to be an insufferable Cunt.

Linking back to your above rejection of my experience of my own life (something I happen to be the world leading authority on), the only reason to do so is to avoid conceding that sometimes Insufferable Cunts are the only ones who can get certain shit done.



The Dating game. And the shift in what has been portrayed as the ideal of Masculinity. Compare say Dutch from the Predator film (an example of Hyper-Masculinity) to Fin in The force awakens, Or compare the likes of the trains from Thomas the Tank engine (the original books) to something like the case of Daniel Tiger. Hell - there's even a theory for it "Crisis of Masculinity".

If you really want to delve deep - the Archetypal Hero (the "Ideal" man) has remained relatively unchanged across cultures and across time (this is where we get the meta-narrative of the Hero's Journey from)

In recent times, we've seen a major push back against that - such as the Bechdal test, the rise in "Toxic Masculinity" claims, various groups of men declaring themselves "allies" to various activist causes - with grand gestures and proclamations that they are "safe" and "harmless" (which is doubly hilarious when it turns out that many of them are just trying to mask their predatory urges)

The ideal man has changed from "the Soldier who tends to his garden" to something weak, non-threatening and harmless. And it is that system that is corrupt, because the majority of Women don't find that attractive - case in point, the biggest selling Erotic novel EVER was about a powerful, dominant man who gets civilized/tamed by the female protagonist (eerily similar to the meta-tale of Beauty and the Beast - and that isn't a coincidence).

In short - if you present Men an ideal, telling them that if they manifest aspects of that Ideal, that they will become more desirable to their desired partner - and that this is true. Then those who fail to manifest that ideal can only blame themselves. The game is fair, the rules are fair.

If, however, you present Men an ideal, with the same premise, but manifesting these traits DOESN'T make them more desirable (in fact, it makes them less desirable) - then the game is corrupt, the rules of the game ensure that you loose the game.



It absolutely does not follow, because (and here's the kicker) that door swings both ways - Are women Misandrist for putting on Makeup or provocative outfits (you know - things which will make them a desirable companion)?

Cause that's what you are essentially arguing, just in reverse.

I'll break it down real simple like: Men and Women do things to increase their chances of both getting laid and finding a partner.

The men as Misogynistic as the women are misandrist for wanting to do so. I'll let you decide how much you think that is.



Gender portrayals of Men over the last 20-30 years, Increase in Male suicide rates, Male abandonment of education (and the education system in general being more and more tilted towards Girls), The global phenomena of Jordan Peterson, Articles in major news publications that push demonstrably false data (see the articles about women finding men doing housework sexy, when the reverse is true), The gender reading gap (and some of the theories on it's cause), the continued pushing of the Gender Pay Gay (which pretty much vanishes when all the measurable metrics that account for a difference in earning are factored in), The promotion of the 1 in 4 campus Rape Myth (which got to the point where the author of the Study that this claim was sourced from had to tell people to stop abusing her study), Compulsory Sexual consent courses (only for men though), Any advertisement for Domestic Violence (where the perpetrator is almost 100% shown to be a Man beating a women, despite the fact that Women hit their partners more often in a relationship).

Is that enough for you? Or is that all just bias?

Now, I'll grant you - it's a massively complex social issue, and I don't have discrete data points for the overall claim. However, there have been studies done based on this emerging social phenomena (such as the Housework study) - coupled with other data points which suggest a degree of Causation.

In regards to Subjectivity - I'll concede some of it has a more broad interpretation than others and some of it is does have a degree of Conjecture. Compared to all the other explanations, it's the only one that fits the timeline and is the only one that has changed recently.

Eye witness testimony is often pretty shit and inadmissible when bias is shown, so yes, I will think of it as that

I'm willing to further discuss it to a conclusion, are you willing to do that same? Or just continue to make self delusional assertions and demand I agree to them...

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that. A pre existing problem means the thing only an insufferable cunt can do, should not need doing in the first place; band aid at best, not a solution.

You're reading to much into it, there is no 'dating game' presented to men as you describe, there's shit around which is suggestive of those things, and shit which is suggestive of other things as well. Incels have no rational justification for their hatred of women, I maintain these fuckwits should be exposed and met only with derision as other hate groups and terrorists.

Stop inferencing bullshit. Misogyny has nothing to do with the desire to get laid; it has everything to do with the treatment of the opposite sex in this endeavor.

That's all drivel, what is your actual burden of proof, something that can be established before finding it, to avoid confirmation bias (like that big list of drivel).

[TheDemonLord]

Really?

You think the fact that you've mentioned him on KB confirms your claim that he's a 'global phenomenon'?

Maybe it's just another manifestation of your neurological disorder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life#Release

Number 1 bestselling book in Amazon for the US and Canada, number 4 in the UK.

A Viral interview with Cathy Newman, doing a global tour selling out 1,000+ seat venues, ranked number 9 on the list of Patreon creators: https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators

He's appeared on various MSM programming - including Bill Maher's show, Channel 4 in the UK, BBC programs, Australian programs, even did an interview for RadioNZ, He's hitting nearly 6 million views a month on Youtube, he's been on the Joe Rogan experience 3 times (which is the most widely listened to Podcast)

So yeah, it's clearly another manifestion of YOUR "neurological disorder(s)"

[MarkH]

Maybe it's just another manifestation of your neurological disorder.

LOL - Katman talking about someone else's neurological disorder?
I can just taste the irony!

[TheDemonLord]

Eye witness testimony is often pretty shit and inadmissible when bias is shown, so yes, I will think of it as that

Actually - I had a look (cause I was interested) there is nothing I could find where a judge is allowed to rule eye witness testimony inadmissible due to Bias.

There's a lot of literature about Juries being instructed on how they should evaluate eye witness testimony, but nothing about it being inadmissible.

I'm willing to further discuss it to a conclusion, are you willing to do that same? Or just continue to make self delusional assertions and demand I agree to them...

You've demonstrated you don't understand either how the NZ economy works or how basic accounting works, What conclusion could you seek? It's the same as trying to have a conclusion when discussing Physics with my cat.

The problem is 2fold, not only do you think you're right (when your own sources clearly contradict your argument) but more importantly, you don't understand WHY they contradict your argument.

When you take the word of someone who has: Never held a finance job, Never obtained a degree in any finance related field, Never worked in a government department with a focus on Money over the word of someone who has: A PHD in Economics, a life-long career in Finance and was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (the highest financial office in the country) for nearly 15 years as to what type of banking system we have in NZ - That's cognitive dissonance on a level I've not seen since Yokel.

Ask yourself this - If we don't use a FRBS - why does the OCR effect interest rates?

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that. A pre existing problem means the thing only an insufferable cunt can do, should not need doing in the first place; band aid at best, not a solution.

Argumentum ad Nauseum. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true. Reality is, sometimes in life, only an insufferable Cunt can get certain things done. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with the necessity of it - but you do have to concede the reality of it. Which invalidates your original point. I've used myself as an example, there are many Hyper-successful people who are well known for being Insufferable Cunts - and a review of their life stories often reveal numerous times when they had the option to quit or take the easier road - but through sheer force of personality (aka being an Insufferable Cunt) they didn't, and continued to be successful.

You're reading to much into it, there is no 'dating game' presented to men as you describe, there's shit around which is suggestive of those things, and shit which is suggestive of other things as well.

How do you define a game? Something played between more than one individuals, with a set of rules and a known objective that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

What is dating? Something that is 'played' between more than one individuals, with a set of rules (Both Legal rules and Societal rules) and a known objective, that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

Like all games, you can play well, adhere the rules - and still loose. Interestingly enough - there's a group (known as Pickup Artists) who have attempted to extract the meta-game from dating (which is an aggregate of the most successful strategies) in order to boost their chances of winning said game.

Incels have no rational justification for their hatred of women, I maintain these fuckwits should be exposed and met only with derision as other hate groups and terrorists.

Even terrorists have (at least to themselves and their beliefs) a rational justification for their actions. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but to state it doesn't exist is to completely fail to understand them.

You can treat them with derision and try and expose them as much as you want - I think this will only make them more violent - and history shows quite clearly that angry young men who have rejected society are ever so creative in how they can manifest their absolute misanthropy.

I put forward that the way to deal with them is to give them a game where the societal rules will help them win the game, not help them loose the game. Give them an ideal to live up to that Women find attractive. I also think showing them a bit of compassion might actually help ease their feelings that society has utterly rejected them.

Stop inferencing bullshit. Misogyny has nothing to do with the desire to get laid; it has everything to do with the treatment of the opposite sex in this endeavor.

So women are Misandrist for wearing Makeup then? Or Pushup bras? Or high heels? What is your standard as to exactly where behaviour stops being acceptable and starts being unacceptable?

That's all drivel, what is your actual burden of proof, something that can be established before finding it, to avoid confirmation bias (like that big list of drivel).

Or is that all just bias?

Called it. You just went full creationist there...

"What is your burden of proof"
"Here it is"
"I don't like that, Where is your burden of proof"
"..."

Edit - okay, try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.bf12daa4b1a7

This is an opinion piece, In the Washington Post (a major global news outlet). Advocating for the Hate of a particular group. Now, I want to draw your attention to this line:

Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.

This is being advocated by a minority of people - but it's being published in something as widespread and prestigious as the Washington Post. This is the standard for masculinity that this minority is trying to push. You might point out it's a single article - but I'd point to 2 things:

1: Imagine if the headline of the article didn't mention Men, it said Jews or Blacks or Immigrants or any other group of people - Do you honestly think it would be published in a million years by something as mainstream as the Washington Post? Of course it wouldn't, which means that within a mainstream viewpoint - a message like this has Tacit approval.
2: This is inline (although this is the most overt, black and white utterance I've yet seen) with other messages that are being distributed by other Media sources of similar standing, distribution and prestige.

Back to the Incels - The reality is that the majority of women quite simple don't find that attractive - the majority of women happen to like Men who are powerful and confident (see 50 shades of Grey or Mills and Boon).

[Graystone]

Actually - I had a look (cause I was interested) there is nothing I could find where a judge is allowed to rule eye witness testimony inadmissible due to Bias.

There's a lot of literature about Juries being instructed on how they should evaluate eye witness testimony, but nothing about it being inadmissible.



You've demonstrated you don't understand either how the NZ economy works or how basic accounting works, What conclusion could you seek? It's the same as trying to have a conclusion when discussing Physics with my cat.

The problem is 2fold, not only do you think you're right (when your own sources clearly contradict your argument) but more importantly, you don't understand WHY they contradict your argument.

When you take the word of someone who has: Never held a finance job, Never obtained a degree in any finance related field, Never worked in a government department with a focus on Money over the word of someone who has: A PHD in Economics, a life-long career in Finance and was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (the highest financial office in the country) for nearly 15 years as to what type of banking system we have in NZ - That's cognitive dissonance on a level I've not seen since Yokel.

Ask yourself this - If we don't use a FRBS - why does the OCR effect interest rates?



Argumentum ad Nauseum. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true. Reality is, sometimes in life, only an insufferable Cunt can get certain things done. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with the necessity of it - but you do have to concede the reality of it. Which invalidates your original point. I've used myself as an example, there are many Hyper-successful people who are well known for being Insufferable Cunts - and a review of their life stories often reveal numerous times when they had the option to quit or take the easier road - but through sheer force of personality (aka being an Insufferable Cunt) they didn't, and continued to be successful.



How do you define a game? Something played between more than one individuals, with a set of rules and a known objective that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

What is dating? Something that is 'played' between more than one individuals, with a set of rules (Both Legal rules and Societal rules) and a known objective, that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

Like all games, you can play well, adhere the rules - and still loose. Interestingly enough - there's a group (known as Pickup Artists) who have attempted to extract the meta-game from dating (which is an aggregate of the most successful strategies) in order to boost their chances of winning said game.



Even terrorists have (at least to themselves and their beliefs) a rational justification for their actions. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but to state it doesn't exist is to completely fail to understand them.

You can treat them with derision and try and expose them as much as you want - I think this will only make them more violent - and history shows quite clearly that angry young men who have rejected society are ever so creative in how they can manifest their absolute misanthropy.

I put forward that the way to deal with them is to give them a game where the societal rules will help them win the game, not help them loose the game. Give them an ideal to live up to that Women find attractive. I also think showing them a bit of compassion might actually help ease their feelings that society has utterly rejected them.



So women are Misandrist for wearing Makeup then? Or Pushup bras? Or high heels? What is your standard as to exactly where behaviour stops being acceptable and starts being unacceptable?





Called it. You just went full creationist there...

"What is your burden of proof"
"Here it is"
"I don't like that, Where is your burden of proof"
"..."

Edit - okay, try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.bf12daa4b1a7

This is an opinion piece, In the Washington Post (a major global news outlet). Advocating for the Hate of a particular group. Now, I want to draw your attention to this line:



This is being advocated by a minority of people - but it's being published in something as widespread and prestigious as the Washington Post. This is the standard for masculinity that this minority is trying to push. You might point out it's a single article - but I'd point to 2 things:

1: Imagine if the headline of the article didn't mention Men, it said Jews or Blacks or Immigrants or any other group of people - Do you honestly think it would be published in a million years by something as mainstream as the Washington Post? Of course it wouldn't, which means that within a mainstream viewpoint - a message like this has Tacit approval.
2: This is inline (although this is the most overt, black and white utterance I've yet seen) with other messages that are being distributed by other Media sources of similar standing, distribution and prestige.

Back to the Incels - The reality is that the majority of women quite simple don't find that attractive - the majority of women happen to like Men who are powerful and confident (see 50 shades of Grey or Mills and Boon).

Lucky there is no judges here then...

I've demonstrated nothing of the sort, that claim is a cop out to avoid continued discussion, it is one a lot of conspiracy theorists, religious types, and other irrational people use though. The RBE is more of a grey area because while we don't use one, we used to, and what we do use can appear similar to one in form, but it is not in function. The 'simple economics' however, still bears much discussion, from memory you defined capital income as something which is not income based on capital growth; but utterly failed to provide any source to back up that assertion, even after I provided sources to back up the assertion that capital income, is income generated from appreciation of a capital asset. My sources did not contradict my own argument at all, you keep asserting they do but refuse to show how; again these are traits of an irrational mind.

The reality is that because of some cunts, insufferable cunts can get shit done, the original question was

what have you done for society that was only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt?

and the answer to that is some IT drudgery which any company with decent management would have already done, or been able to do in a far less combative manner, so what has that done for society then? fuck all. Which still supports the idea that being an insufferable cunt is not a character attribute worth having...

All in the perception, people who 'play' said 'game' choose the 'rules' they 'play' by, then get frustrated cos they lost? Get a life, make better choices, and grow up I say.

To the irrational everything seems rational, that does not make it so. Terrorists and Incels do not have rational justification for their actions of hatred.

As explained, it's the treatment of the opposite sex, you just listed a bunch of things women do.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, what is your standard for your burden of proof "something that can be established before finding it". Then you instead listed a bunch more shit that you found. Unless we agree on what the standard for that burden of proof is, there is little point in examining it. You should not struggle with this concept as you have demanded similar of conspiracy theorists on this site many times, is it your 'rationality' ends when you are asked to construct a coherent point rather than tearing others' down?

[Katman]

Terrorists and Incels do not have rational justification for their actions of hatred.

Many 'terrorists' have a perfectly rational justification for their actions.

Remember the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'?

[Graystone]

Many 'terrorists' have a perfectly rational justification for their actions.

Remember the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'?

That's just media bias, terrorists are the ones doing terrorism, attacking civilians en mass etc; that shit is just not rational.