Matt Forney cannot keep his mouth shut about MGTOW, nor can he prevent himself from conflating feminism and MGTOW, likely because he has confused supposition, innuendo, and guilt by association with substantial arguments.

He argues that shaming is a “necessary component of a stable society”. He does not explain why explicitly, though he uses innuendi in later paragraphs concerning fat people and “girls who sleep around” to bolster this argument.

He justifies this behaviour by arguing that the only one who can make one’s self feel shame is one’s self. This is similar to justifying the behaviour of a virus on a computer on account that the computer executed the command of the virus.

What Mr. Forney fails to grasp or has conveniently omitted is that shaming is not done for the benefit of the target, but is done for the benefit of the shamer. Where MGTOW is concerned, “shaming language” ranges from thinly veiled insults to non-falsifiable ad-hominem attacks designed to put the recipient on the defensive. It is designed to denigrate the target in the eyes of third parties.

Oxford has two definitions for “shame” in this context:

1 – A painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behaviour
1.1 – A loss of respect or esteem; dishonour

MGTOW is the triumph of the neocortex over the lizard brain and the limbic system. The latter two tell us MGTOW is wrong on a basic instinctual level, while the former says that MGTOW is right on an intellectual level. Therefore, it is possible to craft arguments to appeal to one’s baser instincts and to induce “humiliation or distress.”

Shaming language may be better understood in the context of the second definition of “shaming”.

From this we conclude that “shaming language” is intended as a weapon that is best countered using the methods discussed on this webpage courtesy of Keymaster:

http://www.mgtow.com/shaming-tactics/

And as someone who’s trying to derrive self esteem by putting down others.

Addendum – I should have noted that this was written for Return of Krap (RoK)

Phoenix, you are correct; he a four, meaning that a crack whore would charge $400 to suffer his presence.

The fact that he needs/wants to stoop to that level says everything – lets not join him there.

So what if we were all virgins? There is no dishonour in that whatsoever. Many religious traditions hold that status up as ideal. By using those terms, he is attempting to lower our value by implying that we are inadequate on some level and unable to attract a mate. He is either unable or unwilling to process and acknowledge the fact that a man might willingly choose to avoid women for any one of the plethora of reasons we discuss ad nauseum here. [Don’t get me wrong – no disparagement intended as I love to discuss the reasons for GYOW ad nauseum, and this is definitely  THE PLACE for it –  I’m for one quite grateful it exists.]

Honestly, I think this is a case of “no such thing as bad publicity” because the kind of people we want here will see right through his BS and the rest – f~~~ em who needs em.

Funny, but we don’t need to engage in the same ad hominem that he is doing when he refers to us a “gang of virgins.” The fact that he needs/wants to stoop to that level says everything – lets not join him there. So what if we were all virgins? There is no dishonour in that whatsoever. Many religious traditions hold that status up as ideal. By using those terms, he is attempting to lower our value by implying that we are inadequate on some level and unable to attract a mate. He is either unable or unwilling to process and acknowledge the fact that a man might willingly choose to avoid women for any one of the plethora of reasons we discuss ad nauseum here. Don’t get me wrong – no disparagement intended as I love to discuss the minutia of men stuff, and this is definitely THE PLACE where we should discuss those things ad nauseum. I’m for one quite grateful it exists. Honestly, I think this is a case of “no such thing as bad publicity” because the kind of people we want here will see right through his BS and the rest – f~~~ em who needs em.

A man that defines his entire life in one way, and then fails at that thing, definitely is worthy of scorn and mocking. I don’t consider it ad hominem when it cuts to his very argument: he is the one that defines value on those terms and couches the terms on attractiveness, so holding him up to his own terms is perfectly logical and valid.

Ad homimen is only when you bring in unrelated terms.

Logically, look at Forney’s argument: men must constantly chase pussy and if they can’t get it, that means they are fat and ugly.

Now we look at Fatt Forney’s picture, and we know he does constantly chase pussy, but it’s also factual that he is fat and ugly, and we can see he can’t get pussy either, his very own terms. So it can’t be ad hominem.

Anyway I agree, MGTOW don’t define themselves chasing pussy, that is a PUA thing, pussy begging. But those are biting and cutting remarks, and we do need to address them and respond. It is no virtue to allow yourself to be bullied and disrespected, no virtue to yourself and to others that would otherwise follow a message for their betterment. It is incumbent on men to defend themselves and stand against their attackers. Let the Fatt Forneys scurry off in shame, and then the next one is less likely to try again. In that way, more men can be saved to MGTOW as well.

Have you seen a picture of Matt Forney? If you do, you will understand why he is so desperate about this. He’s projecting and is scared that people will identify him for what he is, so he has these exaggerated responses. There is no way Fatt Forney is able to get anything other than low self esteem damaged 5s and 6s most normal men won’t touch with a 10 foot pole.

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Funny, but we don’t need to engage in the same ad hominem that he is doing when he refers to us a “gang of virgins.” The fact that he needs/wants to stoop to that level says everything – lets not join him there. So what if we were all virgins? There is no dishonour in that whatsoever. Many religious traditions hold that status up as ideal. By using those terms, he is attempting to lower our value by implying that we are inadequate on some level and unable to attract a mate. He is either unable or unwilling to process and acknowledge the fact that a man might willingly choose to avoid women for any one of the plethora of reasons we discuss ad nauseum here. Don’t get me wrong – no disparagement intended as I love to discuss the minutia of men stuff, and this is definitely THE PLACE where we should discuss those things ad nauseum. I’m for one quite grateful it exists. Honestly, I think this is a case of “no such thing as bad publicity” because the kind of people we want here will see right through his BS and the rest – f~~~ em who needs em.

A man that defines his entire life in one way, and then fails at that thing, definitely is worthy of scorn and mocking. I don’t consider it ad hominem when it cuts to his very argument: he is the one that defines value on those terms and couches the terms on attractiveness, so holding him up to his own terms is perfectly logical and valid. Ad homimen is only when you bring in unrelated terms. Logically, look at Forney’s argument: men must constantly chase pussy and if they can’t get it, that means they are fat and ugly. Now we look at Fatt Forney’s picture, and we know he does constantly chase pussy, but it’s also factual that he is fat and ugly, and we can see he can’t get pussy either, his very own terms. So it can’t be ad hominem. Anyway I agree, MGTOW don’t define themselves chasing pussy, that is a PUA thing, pussy begging. But those are biting and cutting remarks, and we do need to address them and respond. It is no virtue to allow yourself to be bullied and disrespected, no virtue to yourself and to others that would otherwise follow a message for their betterment. It is incumbent on men to defend themselves and stand against their attackers. Let the Fatt Forneys scurry off in shame, and then the next one is less likely to try again. In that way, more men can be saved to MGTOW as well.

That’s a hard point to argue with, and it’s a dillemma for sure – if we respond are we “stooping to his level” or simply defending ourselves? I think it’s a matter of balance. I prefer to take the high road and hope that others will see through his brand of BS, but I might be overly optimistic there, so I really understand where your coming from too.

Again it is all bulls~~~.