Politics Discussion Thread December 2012

OrphanWilde

I skipped October and November owing to election season, but opening back up:

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

I skipped October and November owing to election season, but opening back up:

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

As PUA advocates like pjeby or HughRistik would probably remark, by itself this (neutral, relatievly inoffensive, moderately useful) statement might tell us a little about what "Game" is - but in context, it instead says volumes about what a miserable heartless shit the author is :)

I mean, anyone who's read him has no doubt that he would treat actually physically unattractive women as... subhuman, although the statement by itself only has that connotation for those unfortunate enough to be familiar with his views.

has that connotation for those unfortunate enough to be familiar with his views.

On the contrary I think many more people should be reading Roissy. People here especially. Try out his advice, experiment with it and other variants extensively. If it doesn't work no biggie try something else, but do try it in good faith. I give this advice because this is how I massively improved my own romantic life. Authors like Roissy, Mystery and Athol Kay gave me a good map to understand social and sexual dynamics that mystified me before.

Currently I say the subtitle... (read more)

0[anonymous]13y

I read him and I strongly disagree with this statement. You confuse his online style of writing for the actual man. He does not advocate treating fat ugly women badly, he merely advocates not giving them the illusion that they are just as desirable on the sexual marketplace as other women, thus robbing them of the incentive to improve and the ideologies such delusions empower.

5[anonymous]13y

I don't see him advocating you treat ugly women badly. My model of Roissy has him ignoring ugly women or interacting with them like he would other people he doesn't want to have sex with.

8

Politics Discussion Thread December 2012

8

8

8

Politics Discussion Thread December 2012

8

8