Talk:Manosphere glossary
The Isle of Man was the first 'state' to give women the vote. 'Nuff said. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Main?
Just wondering, why isn't this mainspace, rather than funspace?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 19:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, good lord. You mean all of these entries are used seriously, somewhere? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- ...I thought so-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Since it's purpose seems to be mockery, not enlightenment, I think that in its current form Funspace is exactly where it belongs. Also, it conflates the Greek alphabet soup with the concept of Nice Guys.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, I see your point. Maybe if I feel like it, I'll do something about it later.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 20:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be good for main if it stuck to jargon, phrases & concepts specific to the MRA movement, without the crap about cats, Sweden, etc. Not sure about the tone either: snark is fine, but writing the whole thing as if from a (somewhat exaggerated) MRA POV seems a bit heavy-handed. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's why I returned it from main- to Funspace. If it's in main, it should convey useful information, and the snark shouldn't detract from that. The Alpha/Betta stuff for example is horridly written.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Commercials + sitcoms
Okay, while I agree that it's stupid to use these to say "men have it as bad as women", saying that they are irrelevant because of the really bad stuff that happens to women, is simply not right. It's like saying "oh, you have dysentery? Well, you could have sepsis, which would be a lot worse, so we're not gonna treat you". The thing is, there are quite a few stereotypes that hurt both genders in commercials and sitcoms, and MRAs are just focusing on the ones that affect males. While they often come to false conclusions based on these ("it's the feminists' fault", "men are more oppressed"), addressing these stereotypes, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Therefore , I am going to remove this point. 60.228.194.91 (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] What is THIS word?
I noticed the term "normalfagging" being used in MRA circles. I have no clue what this insanely offensive word means but should we add it? ClothCoat (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure it means a person with traditional values/ethics/interests. Did it come from MRA websites? I've seen it elsewhere and I think it might be a 4chan thing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I know I've seen MRA types use it but I don't know where it originated. Oddly enough I can't find a definition for it anywhere. If it means what you say it means I honestly don't understand why being socially conservative is refered to by that word but you're probably right regardless. ClothCoat (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I found an example of 'normalfag' on Urban Dictionary and it seems to be largely what I presumed it was [1], at least in the first definition. Either way I think it's one of the more stupid terms they use --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Originally, I misread that as "normalflagging". *facepalm*
- Anyway, the "Xfag" and "Xtard" snowclones, where X can be pretty much anything, are common among certain Internet demographics. The inhabitants of 4chan are one, but I've seen "doomtard" and "Nibirutard" on GLP.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Blue pills
Does the 'another meaning' to the term have any significance in this context? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Uh? Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Viagra? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The former is what most people would think on encountering the term (and is one way of derailing the discussion). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Thirst?
Or, in other words, extreme sexual frustration. Mainly from going a long time without. My best guess, from what I gathered. Not sure why "thirst" is used, but there you are. Chair tater (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Used by whom? Don't think I've seen this. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Best way to find out, is by Googling: https://www.google.com/search?q=manosphere+thirst&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sbChair tater (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Social Justice Warrior
It seems to be spouted a lot by Thunderf00t and his ilk, unfortunately my depression has already kicked in so I'd rather not make it worse by watching a load of their videos to find a good definition. It would be nice if somebody on here could provide one. TheSocktor (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a manosphere term. It's used very frequently by people, often former or current Tumblr users, who are annoyed by some of the blogs on Tumblr. These people often have various characteristics of Very Serious People. Basically they're the "don't shove your cause into my face, please, I don't know if I want to care, but I'm getting annoyed". Nullahnung (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Lucy!
Is it just me, or is it not possible to read this word without the Ricky Ricardo voice? "Lucy! I got some mansplainin' to do!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Hypergamy
I'm no expert, but from what I recall the definition given for hypergamy is how the word is used by sociologists. When used in the manoshpere, it means something like "men are willing to have sex with any woman who isn't ugly, but women are only willing to have sex with hot men, making it difficult or impossible for average looking men to get any sex". -- Matthew Cline (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it was about women having some innate tendency to go for men who are richer than them, and that before welfare, etc. were brought in, making it possible for women to survive without a husband, women were effectively forced to marry whoever they could find. Now with these things, they are able to only go after rich men, making it damn near impossible for a poor man to get married. TheSocktor (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I thought hypergamy was basically used as a more scientific-sounding, and therefore less biased, synonym for promiscuity. See [2] and [3] (female hypergamy) and [4] (male hypergamy). Landmartian (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Help, I've Been "Framed"! :P
Got another one for you: "Keep/Maintain Frame". Basically, in their own words, this: http://www.returnofkings.com/29943/the-essence-of-frame-control Or, TL;DR version: keep your shit together. Again, why this form (or "frame") of terminology, I have no idea. Chair tater (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up
I went ahead and cleaned up this article and a few related articles - I added additional content and links as well, and replaced snark with more neutral and factually written content. The ratio of "snark to substance" shouldn't be excessive - I also added additional content and links.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't clean up anything, just whitewashed over a lot of unpleasantness surrounding PUA & MRA culture which is the whole point of the article. We have no obligation to be neutral about this or any other subject and this "ratio" you keep talking about isn't even a thing. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nice to hear a real response from you. I didn't wash over anything - there's no obligation to be "neutral" but that doesn't mean that an article should read like a Reddit post, which this article did. Removing ad homs isn't "whitewashing". And pointing out positives isn't ignoring the claims about the pseudoscientific and controversial nature. For example an article I wrote about a creationist mentioned he's a member of MENSA - that's not apologizing for him or his pseudoscience, it's just adding additional information. By your standard putting that in the article would mean I'm "pro-creationist" since I put something "good" about him in the article.
- My edits mentioned that there is content overlap, and that many PUA sources also include mainstream dating and lifestyle advice unrelated to "NLP", misogeny, and the other "woo"-type content. Mentioning this is not "pro-PUA" or "pro-MRA", and there's no rule against his either. As for MRA, this site does include articles on actual radical feminist/supremacy groups - so I distinguished that the anti-feminist attitude the article is referring to is directed at all of feminism.
- You're basically claiming that the article is "pro-PUA/MRA" if it includes any content at all which is not 100% reflecting of "bad" - that's not the case at all. The main difference between PUA and mainstream dating advice is the reliance on pseudoscientific "tactics", and the emphasis on the "numbers game" aspect of sleeping with as many women as possible - I was comparing and contrasting the two, and point out that there is overlap in the community --206.255.11.166 (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with BON. His/her edits added some info and minisculely tilted article's POV. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks I appreciate that. Not to mention I've done research into a lot of the PUA sites and resources. Some for example promote skeptical science such as NLP, but do not promote the "numbers game" aspect or the misogynistic view of women, while others are just misogynist rant sites with no focus on actual science at all. So I want to distinguish the types of content that various sites contain - this article and others presented them as being all identical, but they're actually very diverse. Some are actually polar opposites in fact - such as ReturnOfKings, which is all about "getting laid with as many chicks as possible", and the MGTOW sites, which actually promote abstaining from women entirely. The messages are basically polar opposite extremes, but they all get lumped into the same "manosphere", etc 206.255.11.166 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're really not polar opposites at all: they both promote a view that most or all women are sluts; they just take a different approach to this. See this for example, posted by a red piller at Return of Kings. It's pretty much indistinguishable from something you might find on a MGTOW forum or blog. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the "women are sluts" jist being similar, though their MO is radically different. Another problem I have though, is that for example, there's a dating coaching service who's books I read who are the opposite of this article, they do not promote that "women are sluts" at all and that female sexuality is a natural thing - they also promote that men not use this advice to manipulate or take advantage of women and condemn the PUA sites which are just a "numbers game". However I've seen his website listed in various places online as a "PUA site", even though his content doesn't meet any of this misogynistic criteria (unless someone believes non-married/committed sex is misogynistic or immoral in itself). Since the PUA-term doesn't have an official meaning, it makes me concerned that legitimate dating advice sources are getting lumped into the same category as "ReturnOfKings" type nonsense.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Who are you talking about? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Who are you talking about? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- I agree that the "women are sluts" jist being similar, though their MO is radically different. Another problem I have though, is that for example, there's a dating coaching service who's books I read who are the opposite of this article, they do not promote that "women are sluts" at all and that female sexuality is a natural thing - they also promote that men not use this advice to manipulate or take advantage of women and condemn the PUA sites which are just a "numbers game". However I've seen his website listed in various places online as a "PUA site", even though his content doesn't meet any of this misogynistic criteria (unless someone believes non-married/committed sex is misogynistic or immoral in itself). Since the PUA-term doesn't have an official meaning, it makes me concerned that legitimate dating advice sources are getting lumped into the same category as "ReturnOfKings" type nonsense.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're really not polar opposites at all: they both promote a view that most or all women are sluts; they just take a different approach to this. See this for example, posted by a red piller at Return of Kings. It's pretty much indistinguishable from something you might find on a MGTOW forum or blog. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Thanks I appreciate that. Not to mention I've done research into a lot of the PUA sites and resources. Some for example promote skeptical science such as NLP, but do not promote the "numbers game" aspect or the misogynistic view of women, while others are just misogynist rant sites with no focus on actual science at all. So I want to distinguish the types of content that various sites contain - this article and others presented them as being all identical, but they're actually very diverse. Some are actually polar opposites in fact - such as ReturnOfKings, which is all about "getting laid with as many chicks as possible", and the MGTOW sites, which actually promote abstaining from women entirely. The messages are basically polar opposite extremes, but they all get lumped into the same "manosphere", etc 206.255.11.166 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with BON. His/her edits added some info and minisculely tilted article's POV. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're basically claiming that the article is "pro-PUA/MRA" if it includes any content at all which is not 100% reflecting of "bad" - that's not the case at all. The main difference between PUA and mainstream dating advice is the reliance on pseudoscientific "tactics", and the emphasis on the "numbers game" aspect of sleeping with as many women as possible - I was comparing and contrasting the two, and point out that there is overlap in the community --206.255.11.166 (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] "Sex" entry
I say keep because (1) it's snarky, (2) it explains the inflated value of sex in the manosphere, and (3) it makes ~15 inpage links work again. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- ~15 inpage links you put there. That's a non-argument. The inflated value of sex in the manosphere is kind of an obvious point but if you think it needs to be spelled out, put it in the manosphere article rather than this article - which is supposed to be a glossary of terms, not a compendium of general observations about the manosphere. Same goes for entries on feminism, misogyny, foreign women, western women, etc. These aren't manosphere-specific terms; they're standard English words & phrases. The article has been padded out with these kind of entries before & it was one of the main things that contributed to it being kicked to funspace & having to be overhauled. See the fossil record & the discussion at the top of this talk page. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's valid to say that words with similar meanings in standard English and in the manosphere should be removed. The manosphere puts a peculiar and unique spin on words that should mean the same thing. For example, a "bad boy" in standard English is the same as in the manosphere: a male who is an asshole, often to women. However, the manosphere takes this word and makes it the center of a complaint about women's sexuality. Hence, the word means the same, but is used differently.
- I also don't think it's valid to say that these words have similar meanings in standard English and in the manosphere. For example, to many, "Feminism" is the pursuit of equal rights for all genders; however, the manosphere sees "Feminism" as taking rights away from males.
- Finally, I don't think the analogy to the previous overhaul is valid. Before, many of the entries were entirely snark ("feminism = plot by the joos and illuminaati") , with little or no information. The entries on Feminism, Misandry, Misogyny, Foreign Women, and Western Women all convey information about how the manosphere views the world, in addition to snark. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- If Weaseloid does not respond within 1 day, I will re-add the sex entry. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think sex, defined as "like a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy" etc, is much different from expunged entries such as cats, "an animal which every unmarried woman over the age of 30 owns a minimum of 20 of". It's not terminology; at best it's a snarky presentation of an observation, but really closer to being a strawman.
- Sex isn't a word that has different meanings within & outside the manosphere. It means sexual intercourse. Nobody will come to page looking for sex (as it were) & wondering what it means. People have different opinions about or preoccupations with sex, but that's not a different definition. In fact, there's nothing in the text you wrote for sex that constitutes a definition; it's just general comment which as I've pointed out doesn't belong in a glossary of terms. & It's just opening the door for more lazy cliché entries such as fedora, mom's basement, etc.
- You can have the "two kinds of feminism" thing if that's a common trope. It sounds vaguely familiar but I suggest citing an example. "Radical feminism" is probably worth mentioning too as a snarl word broadly applied by people who don't understand it (both within & outside the manosphere). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- So basically if we're going to have those kinds of entries in here, someone should create a page in the Fun: namespace or something. Landmartian (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- If Weaseloid does not respond within 1 day, I will re-add the sex entry. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I included "sex" not for the "black hole" snark, but for this part: "Sex is so important to residents of the manosphere that even opponents of the manosphere are assumed to be working towards the goal of sex. For example, [[#Knight|''White Knights'']] are often assumed to oppose the manosphere in order to get sex from those that they are defending." Said observation is already included in the white knight article, so it doesn't really need to go elsewhere or even necessarily here, but I added it here to try to give more context for how sex is viewed.
If we keep the other snark-ish entries, I definitely think that I could let "sex" go, though.
Yeah, radfems definitely deserve inclusion. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Oh my god
Love-shy.com wiki entry: Involuntary trouser defecation. Can we get an entry on that, please? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 04:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do we need to use donotlink.com? It seems redundant with a rel="nofollow". Landmartian (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't hurt. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 05:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what's the point? Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess people figure that we reward people for creating such linkbait if we take the bait by linking directly to them. However, the fact that someone linked to it even indirectly suggests that someone thought it would be useful to surf over there. Search engines like Google want to let people know what sites others have been interesting, entertaining, informative, etc. and it frustrates that goal to link indirectly.
- But what's the point? Wèàšèìòìď
- Doesn't hurt. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 05:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- The four stages of a truth's being accepted are that it's ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then accepted. It's evident that we've started ridiculing and opposing certain ideas (which doesn't mean that they're valid); but by linking indirectly, we try to give Google the impression that those ideas are still in that first phase, of being ignored. It could seem hypocritical and maybe even attract more hits to those pages, kinda like how trigger warnings or "viewer discretion advised" warnings make people think "Ooh, here's something exciting, dramatic, or juicy coming up." Landmartian (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Better logic
Be a beta.
Enjoy your 20s - go round the world, become a reasonable cook, and get 'a good enough job/career'.
When you are in your 30s - sit on The Wall and get hooked up.
Alphas will hit The Wall as well - what 'hot babe' will wish to link up with a 35+ would-be-schmoozer (who is not a sugar daddy or otherwise adds to her lifestyle/cachet?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- mmmhkay FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- ? Alternative word?
Basically - acquire 'a sufficiency of practical skills and indications of reasonable prospects' and enjoy yourself in your spare time (and, if possible, your work) - whichever gender you are.
'All mou' and no trews' comes to mind (and a gigolo probably has a more enjoyable life). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Beta
I thought a beta was the kind of guy who plays it safe in life, e.g. by going to college and entering a profession rather than dropping out and becoming an entrepreneur or doing something else that's relatively risky. Betas are the guys women marry because they provide a stable income, in contrast to the alphas, whom they'd be more likely to look to for a one-night stand or something. This glossary seems to conflate betas with AFCs. Betas get laid, but are more likely to have a monogamous reproductive strategy. Landmartian (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Generally I've seen "beta" used to describe men who aren't aggressive, physically or sexually. (See the lists at the end of the page)
- It's probably both, to some extent. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- My definition above is a variant of this.
There is an element of 'sour grapes'/'whistling in the wind'/sneaky feeling that the betas might be having a better time in the long run about the definitions.
If you cut enough notches in the bedposts the legs will fall off - and many snowflakes make a blizzard.
What is the difference #apart from gender# (and possibly 'irregular verb' - I am firm, you are stubborn, he is as obstinate as a mule') between 'alpha' and 'carousel'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty much nothing. Hence why incels & MGTOW hate on both. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What's so weird is how much disdain and active hate they have for those they imagine to be inferior submissives. "Those darn female and beta SJWs stopping us from living our tough-guy lives." Ikanreed (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- "(cur | prev) 19:19, 9 January 2015 TheSocktor (Talk | contribs | block) m . . (-114) . . (Reverted edits by Weaseloid (talk) to last revision by 82.44.143.26) (undo)" - Just FTR, I have no idea how I did this. Sorry. TheSocktor (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What's so weird is how much disdain and active hate they have for those they imagine to be inferior submissives. "Those darn female and beta SJWs stopping us from living our tough-guy lives." Ikanreed (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like both alphas and betas feel victimized by the other, and/or by women. Alphas view themselves as victims of a joint feminist/beta effort to badmouth alphas, whilst betas bitterly say stuff like "All the good ones go for jerks, you know that." (h/t Pitts from Dead Poets Society)
- It's sort of like how both jocks and nerds feel like the other has the upper hand. Theoretically, nerds are in control of society because they have multi-billion-dollar software companies; they've set up a government to protect the physically weak from aggressors; etc. But Bryan Caplan claims that "Through the lens of the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, the welfare state doesn't look like a serious effort to 'equalize outcomes.' It looks more like a serious effort to block the 'revenge of the nerds'—to keep them from using their financial success to unseat the jocks on every dimension of social status." So in other words, according to some nerds, the government is controlled by jocks seeking to oppress nerds. Landmartian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The "Jock/Nerd Theory of History"? What the fuck? Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with Weaseloid. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- And I bet they haven't discovered slashfic (basic premise - female author can't decide which male character she would prefer to Mary-Sue-fanfic so has them both). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with Weaseloid. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The "Jock/Nerd Theory of History"? What the fuck? Wėąṣėḷőįď
[edit] At what point
Do 'Alphas' become 'Omegas'? Apart from age the numbers game (and supposed outcomes thereof) will become a turnoff. (It takes a certain amount of forward planning to become a roué/gigolo) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Whenever happens to be convenient for the argument the manosphere denizen is currently making. It's not like there's an actual meaningful biological or sociological distinction here. Ikanreed (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Us not in the manosphere are likely to place the transition somewhat earlier than 'alphas' discussing others (and may well prefer the [5]) - as likely to be more fun). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So how does a 50-year old Alpha 'operate' - and where do cougars and dominatrices fit in to the argument? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Additions
Would 'I dumped her because she was (frigid/snarl word of similar nature)' = 'She ditched me for having no manners'/'She found someone with a longer attention span than a goldfish' fit here? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a word or phrase. That's more like an excuse, and almost everyone does it sometimes, not just manospheroids. Ikanreed (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Piece of meat
"They often use it as a noun, showing not only their willingness to think of a woman as a piece of meat, but also a terrible lack of creativity." That reminds me of how people say that if you call someone "a schizophrenic" you're reducing them down to that one characteristic. Instead you should say "a person with schizophrenia". But there's no difference, because either way you're only revealing one characteristic of the person in question. Whether you use it as a noun or an adjective is irrelevant.
It's also usually only when it's an attribute people don't like to be associated with, that they want the circumlocution. For example, people don't mind being called "RationalWikians" rather than "people who use RationalWiki" or "Christians" rather than "people who believe in Christianity" or "teacher" rather than "person who is employed as a teacher". Basically the point of the circumlocution is to make it so cumbersome to say what they want to say that they won't say it. Landmartian (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you're bringing this up here rather than at our person-first language article? Are you suggesting a specific change to the text on this page? Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- The reason was that I was unaware of that article. Um...carry on. Landmartian (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Matrix = left-wing ideas
Where'd that came from? Matrix is rather apolitical.--Arisboch (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
[edit] The "other" pills
I saw a reference on FSTDT to something called the "black pill", and I came here looking for a definition. No luck. Without having (ugh) dig into their sites, what does that phrase refer to? Something shitty, sure. But I'd just like to know how these idiots think they're special. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- The idea that feminism is a systemic problem that will endure and that red-pill BS is selling itself out? I dunno the coherence level of what all I've read hasn't been great. PacWalker 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)