Two MGTOW contradict each other.

[OldBillParticipant]

Yet you asked us for our opinions. Anyway, you still need to consider the source. Do you believe that Sandman is a credible source in this specific situation?

[quote]As for saving ourselves, isn’t that what developing technology is all about, and what it’s always been about?

You don’t understand. Technology is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It’s what we do with the tools we create that matters.

I just don’t see any reason why I should fight anyone over a woman, if I can have all of the benefits and none of the liability provided to me by technology.

Ah, the Fallacy of Composition. Because you believe you will act in that way, surely all men everywhere will act the same way when given the same choices. Do you pay much attention to the real world?

To me it seems that it wouldn’t be long before all of the other men, especially the ones getting defeated in the competition, were to arrive at the same conclusion.

Again, because you will everyone else will too?

We simply don’t need women anymore.

As I tried to explain with my welfare example, there is a great difference between NEEDS and DESIRES. Just because someone’s needs are met, it doesn’t necessarily follow that their desires are fulfilled also.

That’s the entire thought process behind MGTOW. It makes no sense to me that a group of people who believe we don’t need women think that we can never have peace because we supposedly will always fight over women. It’s both irony and hypocrisy simultaneously.

Again, don’t assume your experience is in any way indicative of the experiences of everyone else.

I’m free and at peace right now. I already refuse to compete for women and I do so without VR sex dolls, uterine replicators, or any of the other technologies you’re waiting for to set you free. Hell, I was free even before the internet made porn a mouse click away.

You could free and at peace right now, there is no technology required. All you need to do is want to be free and at peace.

Salvation is within yourself and not within your tools and toys. Start looking for it.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Burgundy wrote:

@veniversum
If you think there will be a solution, that you speak of, in our life time, you will need to hold your breath for a couple eons more. Also why bother with that, just go your own way, and make the best of it, and aim for whatever you ever desired to achieve, or simply enjoy the life you got, how you see fit.

Yes, I don’t expect a solution during my lifetime. I believe that most people who are MGTOW want to “spread the gospel” as it were, to simply prevent men in the future from suffering by making the same mistakes that some of us made. This is compassion. As for your advice, I was taking it before you ever gave it to me.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

OldBill, I agree with you about technology being a tool. Thank you for making me aware of the fallacy of composition. I had never heard of it before. At some point, something that is a “belief” shifts to the realm of being understood as simply a fact. I do not “believe” that 2+2= 4. I know it to be true. Is it really so absurd to deduce that the vast majority of people will choose not to harm themselves, when they’ve understood the source of the harm and the amount of risk, as well as weighing out the lack of benefit? How many people will walk around a venomous snake if they are aware of it’s presence? As for your statement about “needs” and “desires”, which do you classify the sex drive under? Is sex a basic human need, or is it only a desire?

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Scandinavian wrote:

I think both are in some extent wrong, though TFM was closer on track (in another video I believe).
Let me elaborate; in todays environment we have the luxury of separating sex and reproduction in a way many previous generations did not, as such we can use a woman purely for sexual gratification or reproduction without the two necessarily coinciding. Also remember that a quite large group of men choose not to have children, or at least do not actively wish to reproduce, in a higher degree than their female counterparts. Therefor the holy “biological competition” may not be an issue for a rather large percentage of men.
What TFM has pointed out though is that sex toys (even rather life-like ones) does not sell very well as alot of men don’t only seek sexual gratification but more importantly companionship. That is a point I think many miss when they focus on orgasms (which is pretty much the same physical phenomenon no matter if it is intercourse or masturbation) or the almost religious need to use past evolution as a future predeterminate.

My personal take on it is that I think we will see an increase in people (mainly men) going solo through life despite what technology and legal framework and whatnot have to offer in the future. The reason for this is simply because we don’t NEED to group up anymore! Until rather recently (from a historical perspective) one couldn’t survive for very long alone, we have only had a few generations that has had this tremendous opportunity and I am quite certain that we as a species have kept (or at least tried to keep) the old family system out of tradition and bad habit. Once we get to see this generation (we are the first in which a majority live alone in some nations) die out, the next ones will have something to relate to, and can based on facts see how it impacted our happiness or misery depending on what our legacy will tell.

I think this is the best response yet. Personally, I just don’t see ever having a female as a platonic companion, because I have always enjoyed the company of males more. Romance just seems like fantasy to me. It’s like the lie they sell to beta males to trick them into supporting females who would prefer to have the alpha males. In fact, most women I’ve ever met were really boring.

[OldBillParticipant]

Veniversum wrote:

Thank you for making me aware of the fallacy of composition. I had never heard of it before.

You’re very welcome.

At some point, something that is a “belief” shifts to the realm of being understood as simply a fact. I do not “believe” that 2+2= 4. I know it to be true.

That is true, although there an entire schools of philosophy which argue the opposite.

Is it really so absurd to deduce that the vast majority of people will choose not to harm themselves, when they’ve understood the source of the harm and the amount of risk, as well as weighing out the lack of benefit?

Is it really so absurd? Take a look at the world around you. Do you remember how many people used to smoke? Or how about the current obesity epidemic? The vast majority of people definitely choose to harm themselves and that despite knowing the source of harm and the amount of risk. You’re assuming rational behavior is the norm. It isn’t.

Here’s another eye opener for you. Take you and I. We like to believe we’re rational most of the time when we’re not. Understanding that you’re basically irrational with a thin layer of rationality on top is the beginning of wisdom.

As for your statement about “needs” and “desires”, which do you classify the sex drive under? Is sex a basic human need, or is it only a desire?

It’s both. Most humans for most of their lives have a sex drive, that is a need for sex. However, most humans also desire sex only under certain conditions and with certain “trappings”. If your need for sex was strong enough, you could go out and get laid tonight. Find some hambeast, pay a hooker, whatever it takes and your need would be fulfilled. But was that sex the type of sex you desired?

Finally, regarding children. You can have those without women if you really want them. First, there’s adoption and fostering. Yes, single men have more hoops to jump through but single men have done it because they really wanted to. Next, there’s surrogacy. We had a recent link about Ronlado paying some US c~~~ to carry his child, but you don’t need to be a multimillionaire. The going rate in India is around $20K so you can do it if you really want to do it.

The options are there. It’s all about whether or not you to really do it.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

All excellent points, Bill. I yield to your logic, sir. I still believe in the possibility, and even probability that technology will free us. After all, “impossible” only means we have yet to have discovered a means by which we can make something possible. There are things that are possible today, that were impossible only a few decades ago. Likewise things that are completely unfathomable today, may be common place decades from now. Look at the difference between the 90’s and now. It’s pretty significant. If we’re going to dream, I’d like to dream big. I like to imagine a world where people can truly be independent.. a world where war is not only not necessary, but simply isn’t an option. As for material resources, surely we could come up with a way to harvest those from space. Every technological innovation that exists, existed in the imagination before it became a reality.. many of which were thought to be “impossible”. I suppose being an optimist in modern times could make one seem to be child like, given the existence of all of the negatives. I refuse to give up hope on humanity though

[BudtaoParticipant 293]

This is an interesting subject, because as far as I know this kind of situation hasn’t been possible in known human history. So, we ultimately have no real strong precedent for this situation. So anything that we can comeup with is largely wild speculation. We can make slightly educated guesses based on simlar situations.

Now as to my personal wild speculation on the subject of technology in gender relations, I suspect we are going to see all kinds of wierd stories and even wierder case law occuring because of it. There will probably be vast negative reaction to this tech from the conservative right as well as the progressive left.(In the US, Iam not experienced enough in foriegn politics to make it more generalized to the world.)

There will most likely be a sizable chunk of males and maybe a small selection of women who utilize this technology. Eventually the tech might even become advanced enough that it gains some semeblance of sentience. This is the point that is really going to confuse matters. At this point I have no idea what would happen, because human’s don’t really have the best track record when it comes to relations with other sort-of or semi sentient species.(I really don’t wish to get into a sentiece of animals debate right now, so I will just leave it at that.)

I think at the end of the day, this sort of What-If can be fun, but probably not the best foundation to set policy or life goals on.

P.S. I am speaking to the problem of robots, artificial wombs are even more a disruptive technology, so the forces that would derive from it are even harder to predict.

Nirvanna is never having to worry about a woman ever again.

[hmskl’dParticipant 6443]

Casually glancing at the various women on the street and in the stores during my latest two day shopping and business related trip; I must say, as a whole, they were not all that attractive. Is there a trend these days that basically all younger to early middle age women are letting themselves go .. and reaching for that overweight and sloppy grunge look?

In regard to Turd Flinging Monkey’s statement .. let me say that during this weekend’s trip, I didn’t feel any biological attraction to the group that presented themselves in public. Usually, there is one standout lady that catches one’s eye. There is usually one lady that I remember after a weekend of criss-crossing the city. It may be someone you pass in the cereal aisle at the grocery store or somebody crossing the parking lot … this trip there were absolutely none. There were no mediocre stunners out there that even registered enough to remember.

Using the group I observed this weekend as a basis for comparison to what’s electronically available for companionship (or will be available) via technology; In regard to Sandman’s statement about ‘no longer needing to compete for human females’ .. simply arriving home and spending the evening viewing some ten year old random sci-fi with favorite female cast members .. I found the digital experience much more stimulating than anything I saw in the real world. This digital entertainment is not porn ..far from it; I’m simply stating that watching simple sic-fi fantasy on a 40 inch television screen while munching on pizza provided me with more overall comfort than I could imagine had I made contact with nearly any woman I saw out in public this weekend.

In conclusion: as far as this weekends observations are concerned; the biological drive was not there (maybe next time things will be different, it’s always possible I’ll see someone who stands out in a physically attractive way) .. and I’m certain my standards for beauty aren’t unusually high. This time, comfort and vicarious companionship through the simple use of technology (a DVD) easily surpassed the biological urge to approach any individual in the human sample group of women that I encountered in public over the span of two days.

[TheroniusParticipant 975]

Speaking only for myself, I have little beyond a minor novelty interest in f~~~ing a robot, and no interest at all in making a baby in my George Foreman Womb-Grill. If the species has come to that I think it’s about time we bow out and hand the world over to chimpanzees or something else with a little f~~~ing class.
I think we all have our own experience of going our own way. I did not find MGTOW and adopt it as a lifestyle. I lived 57 years of my life then very recently stumbled upon a place where there were men with similar experiences and honest opinions, and in general a very interesting and real group of gentlemen.
I know MGTOW.com as a place and the people who hang out there, not a movement or even a tightly-defined philosophy. It’s you guys, really, and the things you’ve been through. If I can help someone else avoid some mistakes, all the better, but I have no right or desire to judge, pontificate, or demand anything, and I trust that you guys will put my ass in its place if I do. I also don’t want to put up with anyone else doing it, no matter how many subscribers they have on Youtube or how polished the presentation. I will get what I can from the listening and reading. I don’t expect any answers for me, just food for thought that I can keep or discard as suits me. As to two guys who make videos and might have differing views or questionable motives, who gives a s~~~, really. I don’t do cults of personality. It’s the message and its usefulness that counts to me. I have learned more from reading KeyMaster’s posts in the Litter Box that in most of the Youtube stuff I have seen, and it’s f~~~ing hilarious as well!.

"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

I guess it’s really time to chop the list down of things that we care about. I suppose “Journey” really had it down when they sang “Be good to yourself” because no one else will. I do care, but I also don’t. I guess I’m a paradox. https://youtu.be/J1qMtPrHoVs

[OldBillParticipant]

Veniversum wrote:

I still believe in the possibility, and even probability that technology will free us.

Technology will free us from one set of problems, my brother, while creating another set of problems.

I remember when the computer was going to give us a “paper-less” office. I’ve got to go buy more resume-quality paper for the report I’ll be re-writing. I remember the microwave was going to cook my Thanksgiving dinner. I use mine to heat water and make popcorn. I remember when the internet was going to give me access to the sum total of human knowledge. Instead we got propaganda and pornography. I remember when cell phones were going to link us with important messages. Need I explain how that one turned out?

Look at the difference between the 90’s and now. It’s pretty significant.

Honestly, I see very little difference. There’s a different “skin”, a different “surface” or “paint job”, but the inside, the part that truly matters, hasn’t changed at all. And the more history I read, the more I’m convinced that there truly is “nothing new under the sun”.

If we’re going to dream, I’d like to dream big.

I’m with you there.

I like to imagine a world where people can truly be independent.

That’s possible now. Most people choose not to pay the price however.

As for material resources, surely we could come up with a way to harvest those from space.

So we can manufacture more Chia Pets, dildos, and other necessities? (Just kidding, I want to mine the Asteroid Belt too.)

I suppose being an optimist in modern times could make one seem to be child like, given the existence of all of the negatives. I refuse to give up hope on humanity though.

It’s not child-like, it’s wise. And I refuse to give up hope too.

Great conversation, brother, and thank you for it. Makes me wish we had it over a couple of pints of stout. Be well and enjoy your evening.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[CaliParticipant 753]

Frankly, until someone deploys something which reshapes the way humans think and behave on a mass scale, a utopia is completely impossible. It might work even for a few generations, but then someone evil or insane enough will come along and take power, a war or revolution will break out again, and then things will spiral downhill again. Sooner or later, someone’s ambitions will infringe on the rights of others, and there will be conflict. This renders a long-term utopia impossible.

A sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

You can always count on people to be honest when they have something cruel to say:

—- removed link —-

[RoyDalParticipant]

I believe human nature, or human instinct, does exist, and I believe it is the dominant force in human nature. I agree with TFM on this one.
But wait, there’s more!

MGTOW: Does Human Nature Exist?

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Elric GreenstoneParticipant 1637]

Sandman helped lead me to MGTOW. I don’t have a problem with him, because I don’t think I have to agree with him on every topic. He puts out a video every day or so, which I think is impressive. I don’t think their quality is particularly high, and I think it’s mainly him just riffing and thinking out loud. As far as I can tell, he repeats himself a lot.

He’s also defined himself as introductory mgtow on a number of occasions, which I think is fairly accurate. I don’t know about his feuds. I think he’s a legitimate enough voice that he’s a valid source to consider.

I think, as this thread has mentioned, the real issue is whether there’s going to be much of a demand for women in the future, not because of sex robots (I already refer to Japan as Sex Robot Japan) or artificial wombs, but because men are opting out of the costs of continuing a society they don’t like and have no voice in. Herbivore men in Japan, depending upon your source, make up between 0% and 200,000% of the population, although I myself think it’s about 15-20%. Which, combined with one-child families, is enough to f~~~ things up. They’ve also reached the point where the female counterpart, “Old Fish Women” (can’t make this up, but it refers to fishmongering, not vaginal secretions) is also significant.

Socialism sucks, living in a socialist country sucks, and serfs citizens of socialist countries tend not to reproduce. See the former Soviet Union, and current Spain, Italy, Japan, Canada, the US . . .

If I don’t want kids, and I find that women provide negative value to my life, why would I give one f~~~ about whether other men are banging them or not? Enjoy your cancer-causing HPV! Happy AIDS! Enjoy your court-ordered servitude! I want none of that. It is no means an economic good. It is an economic bad.

I see decreasing competition for women in the future. Already enough of us have withdrawn that the constant cry is “I can’t find a good man”. Yeah. Wait ten years, sweetheart, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

"You can either love women, or understand women. You can't do both. Because once you understand women, you realize that there is really nothing to love."

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

RoyDal wrote:

I believe human nature, or human instinct, does exist, and I believe it is the dominant force in human nature. I agree with TFM on this one.
But wait, there’s more!

MGTOW: Does Human Nature Exist?
<iframe width=”500″ height=”281″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/jqp8t37VftA?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

His entire argument here is theoretical conjecture. Also, his video is full of spelling mistakes. The fact is that women cheat, regardless of a man’s resources. Women who are married to some of the richest men in the world can and will sometimes cheat with someone who has absolutely no money, simply because of the male’s physique, or sense of humor, or simply because she feels she didn’t receive enough attention from the husband. Hell, she might even want variety. Most men do. While women will trade up for a man with resources in most cases, it’s clearly not the determining factor. I have personally seen women who stuck with absolute losers who had no resources and problems like drug addiction, abuse, etc out of sheer sexual attraction. I have seen SO many women refuse to leave abusive relationships.. especially my mother. I fail to see how this video in any way proves the existence of human nature, based on theoretical conjecture, where the entire video ignores the sexual attraction elements of a relationship, or the factors that cause a woman to become emotionally attached to a male. I really don’t find his video compelling at all. We are products of our environment. If you were born to headhunters, you would be a headhunter. If you were raised by Nazi’s, you’d most likely be a Nazi. If you were raised by racists, you’re more likely to be racist. People really are products of their environment. There’s a reason why people who live in the abundance of today’s wealthy civilizations are significantly friendlier than ones you meet where civilization has collapsed.. and it has nothing to do with “human nature”

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Elric Greenstone wrote:

I see decreasing competition for women in the future. Already enough of us have withdrawn that the constant cry is “I can’t find a good man”. Yeah. Wait ten years, sweetheart, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

I agree 100%, and that’s precisely why I can’t agree with TFM about this

[Anonymous 5]

Elric Greenstone wrote:

Sandman helped lead me to MGTOW. I don’t have a problem with him, because I don’t think I have to agree with him on every topic. He puts out a video every day or so, which I think is impressive. I don’t think their quality is particularly high, and I think it’s mainly him just riffing and thinking out loud. As far as I can tell, he repeats himself a lot.

He’s also defined himself as introductory mgtow on a number of occasions, which I think is fairly accurate. I don’t know about his feuds. I think he’s a legitimate enough voice that he’s a valid source to consider.

I’ve got roughly the same opinion.

If Sandman still hasn’t swallowed the ultimate Red Pill,,,,that NAWALT is just a courting phase,,,,,that’s his misfortune,,,not mine.
No amount of Red Pills or experience will save you if you still think there’s a chance you’ll find a unicorn.
Make no mistake, you’ll find one,,,,,,,,,,,that will morph later.

His other transgression, “the MGTOW Monk” accusation, turned out to be one of the best labels I’ve ever adopted. I think MGTOW Monk is the perfect description of my lifestyle on many levels. I’m stoked with it.

Rene Rivkin was an extremely successful player on the stockmarket here in Australia.
Despite massive advances in technology, he said there are only two forces driving the stockmarket,,,,Greed and Fear
Men have mostly two forces driving them,,,,,,,Pride and Shame.
Women manipulate us mercilessly using both, Other men and their opinions also influence us in this regard, mostly without us even acknowledging it as a factor.

The more it becomes acceptable among men to use porn or any other substitute for women, the less we’ll need or desire them on any level.
As long as there’s stigma using porn, having sex dolls, artificial wombs or just being single,,there’ll be a proportionate amount of resistance using them as desirable substitutes to women.
Women are far more aware of the “Pride/Shame” engine of men’s logic and as said, they exploit men mercilessly with it.
When women’s shaming starts to fail, as it has been, they’ll resort to state power to enforce their hypergamy rather than the traditional Pride/Shame tactics.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Turd Flinging Monkey: “How will masses of unemployable people be a problem? That’s what war is for.”

Jay Robitaille: “Broken window fallacy.”

Turd Flinging Monkey: “No, you misunderstand me. I’m not talking about using war to give them productive work, I’m talking about war being used to eliminate the excess population down to a sustainable level.”

Absolutely disgusting. This is as anti-freedom, and anti-individualist as it gets. Government is what does this task, and it’s a leftist belief akin to Thomas Malthus. I cannot and will not follow anyone who openly advocates the mass slaughter of people for economic purposes. Humanity is not a disposable gravy train. People have lives, and it is not the place of the collective to decide the value of that based on how good of a tool they are. A person who believes in freedom knows that your life belongs to you, and that it is no one else’s place to decide for you whether you are worthy to live. Even if a person isn’t economically viable at all, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to own their own land, and mind their own business. If a man wants to grow his own food on his own land without being of use to anyone else, he should be able to. This philosophy that society should be prioritized over the individual is called “collectivism”. The collective doesn’t actually decide anyway..the ruling class does so in the name of the collective.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

View post on imgur.com

[Author]

Posts