doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[canpakes]

However, to end misogyny it's necessary to end loneliness first.

No. It is absolutely not necessary. This is an utterly nonsensical argument.

That’s right.

Using the example of Andrew Tate, who (at least in publicity photos) never seems to lack handfuls of women willing to be seen tolerating being very near him, how does one account for his misogynistic comments and attitude?

DT, how would you answer this? Is Andrew Tate actually lonely? Is Tate misogynistic?

[canpakes]

To end men thinking women should do what men want, women need to do what men want…

You … you, and your damn logic.

[Doctor Steuss]

Is there something preventing men from joining clubs, playing sports/games, having hobbies that involve others, volunteering, joining social groups, attending events?

Yes, no friends. You'll look like a creep if you go to a bar alone.

Joining a club doesn't require pre-existing friends. It's how one makes friends. Playing sports/games doesn't require pre-existing friends. It's how one makes friends. Having hobbies that involve others doesn't require pre-existing friends. It's how one makes friends. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum.

Your fixation isn't about loneliness. It's about your desire to normalize grooming and predation and demanding that women do what men want (i.e. lower their standards and expectations).

And to go back to one of your previous comments regarding personality and the issues. Personality can be a significant stumbling block with addressing/discussing issues when the personality is narcistic, sexist, creepy, prone to emotional outbursts, and incapable of reading comprehension and information synthesis.

[Marcus]

Or perhaps the problem is that the majority of young women are mostly attracted to the top 10% of men and the Laundries.

you are again stereotyping women.

Another problem is that men in their early 20s are not allowed to talk to younger women. I am not in my early 20s, so I am not sure why people get upset at me for saying that.

here's why. you are talking about women as though they are things when you say a man should be "allowed" to do something with a woman, simply because he wants to, and with no acknowledgement that this is another human being you are talking about. Let me try an example.

"Another problem is that [visitors] are not allowed to [pick flowers from gardens that do not belong to them]."

Your argument is that because you think it would make visitors less lonely, they should be allowed to pick flowers from gardens that are not theirs, on property they do not own. You would have no rights here, and it would be laughable to think that you do.

Worse, however, is that you are are going well past this-- you are treating human beings, specifically women, like this. You talk about women as though they are things, and as though you think you should be granted rights to use these things as you see fit.

Stop talking about women as though they are things.

[Marcus]

Your fixation isn't about loneliness. It's about your desire to normalize grooming and predation and demanding that women do what men want (i.e. lower their standards and expectations)....

You hit the nail on the head here, Dr. Steuss.

[honorentheos]

Pathological.

I'll give this board one more chance thanks to Shades. "doubtingthomas, you’ll notice that the thread wherein the accusation was made was also moved out of sight, so that person isn’t receiving special treatment."

Anyways, aren't the issues more important than my personality?

You mean behaviour?

Apples and oranges.

[honorentheos]

Your fixation isn't about loneliness. It's about your desire to normalize grooming and predation and demanding that women do what men want (i.e. lower their standards and expectations)....

You hit the nail on the head here, Dr. Steuss.

Absolutely. Well said.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What are the “Laundries?”

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Your fixation isn't about loneliness. It's about your desire to normalize grooming and predation and demanding that women do what men want (i.e. lower their standards and expectations)....

You hit the nail on the head here, Dr. Steuss.

Concur.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

I watched it. CNN did not "admit that women are too 'picky'" The guest cited women's preferences as a factor, almost as a throwaway line. What neither CNN nor the marketing professor it interviewed did is what DT does: blamed women or insisted that women must change their behavior.

What the expert said is that these demographic trends are the result of the government economically hollowing out the middle class. He said that, with the G.I. Bill and other government measures, the U.S. government changed what had been the natural order of things and created a middle class. As a consequence, young men were given earning power and the ability to accumulate some wealth that they had not had before. The government has stopped investing the middle class in the economy that created it. As a result, the economic opportunity that young men and women had during the recent decades is evaporating.

The expert described it as an economic problem that demands an economic solution. Nowhere was blame or responsibility assigned to "picky women" or "radical feminism."