Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

We've been DESTROYED[edit] Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 06:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

*cowers in fear* БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 06:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I love how the original poster complains that "pick up artist" tropes don't apply to MGTOW (do they not?) and then almost every other post that comes afterwards is a user calling us manginas and blabbing "I'm a real man standing on my two feet apart with my balls hanging down" and the whole "woman controlling you and bitching at you all the time". I certainly don't see any "pick up artist" stupidity in that. Humorous indeed. --ShabiDOO 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A better sign[edit]

This one or this? (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The (UK) No Through Road sign - even has a red pill. Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Most white nationalists and traditionalists are not very happy with them either. And national socialists think it is a ruse from the Jews to accelerate white genocide. There is serious tension between the groups. Perhaps interesting to note?

See and And — Unsigned, by: / talk 14:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Herbivore men" of Japan[edit]

It's not unrelatedWikipedia's W.svg. (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits were NOT counter-productive[edit] Throughout all the time I spent making edits on Conservapedia I have never met such opposition to improving articles. I was adding worthwhile information to help explain what kinds of MGTOWS exist and you two decide to revert my edits without good reason. Reminds me of the bureaucratic jerkoffs who banned me from Wookieepedia for asking a simple question.

It also makes no sense to me why anyone in the Libertarian Left would oppose MGTOW, since some of them are essentially feminists who don't identify with the term. I see no reason why any liberal would want to oppose people refraining from being in interpersonal relationships or choosing celibacy, seeing how nobody is entitled to these people.

Interesting how some people claim that the only MGTOWS are all Incels who are single not determined by their life choices, yet in the same breath would say that nobody is an incel if they try to be likeable. Ambition of Truth (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Here in Spain, when someone says they are leaving, it takes a long time. It could easily stretch out over an hour. Standing up, chatting, putting on the jacket, chatting more while slowly walking to the door, packing up some of the leftovers into a tupperware, chatting, standing one foot out the door, chatting and then eventually they step out the door and leave. If you are really unlucky, you have a friend who never seems to leave, despite him saying "I gotta go" five times and you saying "didn't you say you had to go"? You have to keep gently hinting they should go and after running out of patience, insist they go. If you are really unlucky the guest spends most of the time obsessing over some non-problem and no matter what you say the narrative repeats on loop. Despite motivating them to look at their problem in a new direction, the narrow glasses stay on their head and restrict any side view. These are the most difficult guests to get out of your house. If things become too tedious to bear, it's time to tell them "You're a broken record...just fuck off already". Though to be honest, most Spaniards are too polite and delicate to outright say something like that.ShabiDOO 19:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, do we even need an article on this subject? Are we going to write articles about every group of loners who unite around something stupid online? (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Groups of losers who get together and put together insane ideologies driven off pseudoscience and wider crankery are kind of our entire focus. Not necessarily "online", but in general, yeah, it's necessary, if they manage to make claims that people are likely to be exposed to that are crazy, we cover it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
None of them are essentially feminists. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ambition of Truth Yeah... Speaking as someone who occasionally goes through Miggie and Incel garbage for a few grim laughs, not only are they are not Feminists, but they are outright anti-feminist in their views. These are people who on their good days hope that Feminists die, and on their bad days express a desire to torture and/or rape women in general and feminists in particular. You really need to take off the blinders on this subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. You seem to be conflating MGTOWs with Incels, don't. These are two subgroups of the Manosphere, not the same isolated movement. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, that just calls for an answer. First of all, I wasn't the one who conflated Incels with MGTOWS; Matt Forney and Paul Joseph Watson did. If you bothered to read my edit before you deleted it, you'd see that (unless you're lying).
Second, you cannot prove that absolutely none of them are feminists. If you want to prove that to me, go out and sift through all 7 billion people, find every MGTOW under the Sun, and record what their opinions are. Until you do that, what you're saying is wrong. Feminism is an ideology that supposedly supports equal rights, whereas MGTOWS are a movement about men who choose to do their own thing. Saying that because the dominant voices in the MGTOW movement make the movement as a whole bad, then radical feminists, TERFS, lesbian separatists, and the authors of college Sociology textbooks (which are blatantly misandrist) all represent the feminist movement, making feminism a sadistic evil cult fundamentally that shouldn't exist. I mentioned this in my edit
And speaking of my edit, you gave no justification for removing it. My edits explained the types of MGTOWS that exist, and which ones were the ones you may not mind and the ones that are actual male supremacists. But it's okay. You don't need to tell me why. I already know the truth.
I know that secretly, you guys don't believe that any man should be able to choose to be single. Rather propagate the big lie that Return of Kunt's Matt Forney spreads that if someone is fuckable, then they all fuck and be good little slaves to their masters. But I actually am more enlightened than the MGTOWS, because whereas they believe abusers use them in order to gain money or just fucking, I know they do it out of SADISM. Abusers have Satan fingering them whilst they torment those they trick into getting into relationships with in order to bring them into the second circle of Hell with them. And yes, some MGTOWS (such as Mayor of MGTOWN on YouTube) do this too, and should be called out. However, shaming anyone for choosing to be single or not having sex is exactly what Return of Kings has been doing for years. But why would RationalWiki users do that? Don't you guys believe that everyone should be free to choose whether they are single or not? Is that not a legitimate choice? Or have misandrist, female supremacist abusers taken over the entire website and joined the ROK asswipes in shaming their victims in hopes of getting them into abusive relationships when most judges and juries are full of white knights? I know that the sweet sounds of human suffering make them wet, and they don't want society accepting people living a schizoid lifestyle without treating them like pariahs for depriving them of their supply of victims to abuse. So the PUA's, abusers, and neocons (who never get enough wage slaves and cannon fodder) will conspire against us. Ambition of Truth (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Just fucking wow. I haven't seen this much Manosphere lingo and soundbites in one place in a very long time. What about you @Ikanreed? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm constantly immersed in a hell of my own making because I'm constantly exposing myself to "opposing beliefs". This stuff is not out of the ordinary for any given incel post, tbh. Especially the "Aha, I have it, I understand the sexual dynamics of the world truly, and guess what, it's that other people are evil to good and smart me".
Regardless, about your edit: there aren't types or tiers or rings of supremacy to ideologies. There aren't deeper and more fundamental insights on the path to the true truth of your ideology. You don't have levels, and you don't have any special insight that places you above your peers, no matter how strongly you believe it. The people who think you're full of shit aren't deluded morons, they've got pretty good reasons like, say... you blaming satan for the friend zone, which is, without reservation, crazy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Damn Ikanreed! Back at it again with the lack of evidence of me being friendzoned! At no point did I mention rejection, but that won't stop you from blatantly strawmanning me.
You don't know anything about my personal life to know whether or not I ever bothered to date at all, or if I know what I know from bad experiences my friends had with bad, abusive, people. Of course if you did, that'd probably be evidence of a crime. I'm guessing you ARE Matt Forney because you both make the exact same arguments to a rather creepy degree. But since you're so obsessed about my motives for sympathizing with aspects of MGTOW thought, I never dated (or bothered to ask anyone out) because I sought to minimize the risk of being stuck in an abusive relationship-something that right-wingers I know personally get annoyed about. It's rather odd that you seem to have the exact same thought processes as them as well as most Return of Kings editors. I just never expected ROK to take over RationalWiki. Oh how the mighty fall. Ambition of Truth (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed You hear that? we're both the same person, and that's why we both think this guy is wacko. (And totes not because he does things like say the devil is behind the woes suffered by the Manosphere, nuh uh.) @Ambition of Truth That'd be news to ROK, they think we're overrun with evil scary radical femnazis. So get off your high horse, I've seen idiots like you dozens of times over. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I remember the first time I threatened to go my own way, I was maybe seven years old, my parents did something outrageous like not let me drink a glass of rain water or something so naturally I was outraged and I put my stuffed cookie monster in my little backpack and left home. It got dark quickly (yes, in my time you could walk around the neighborhood at seven years) and eventually I went back home pretending it never happened. Throughout the rest of my life I threatened to leave several more times (usually during my "that's not fair" stage as a teenager) but I always came back. When I became an adult, I parted from my family on good terms and I finally went my own way. I still remember though how free I felt when I was seven years, running away, but when I wasn't even 200 meters (yards) away from home, I realised how stupid I was being and went home. My parents were happy to have me back. ShabiDOO 06:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I shouldn't be so miffed that someone who believes in Satanic conspiracy theories completely misunderstood me, but I didn't say you were in the friendzone, which, btw, is not a thing: people can not want to fuck and that's not manipulation. I said you blamed its existence(to reiterate it doesn't actually exist) on literally Satan. Which I deem to be completely nutso. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey @Ikanreed, shouldn’t AoT at least get points for creativity for introducing Satan into his manospheric outlook? I mean, it’s a novel take on the subject, or what? I’m not well versed in manospheric tracts, so I might be mistaken about this being an original idea. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That's actually a very interesting question. Is conspiratorial ideation a creative act, or is it more rote and mechanical? Not in some legalistic absolute sense in what it must be, but would 2 different conspiracists explaining the same pheonomena arrive at similar or different narratives in most cases?
You tend to see the same 5-6 elements reused in different shapes like a taco bell signature creation, Jews, commies, The Banks, Satan, aliens. I feel like our new friend hot-swapped jews/commies(cultural marxism) out of standard manosphere conspiracy and replaced it with the great deceiver. Is that creativity? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Blaming Jews and aliens would be a red herring. Communism I suppose has something to do with all this, given that the only countries that punished people for choosing to be single or not marrying and having children were Communist (as far as I'm aware of). Nicolae Ceauşescu is the most prominent example I can think of, and I've read that Poland between the 40's and 70's and the Soviet Unionhad taxes on childlessness in order to punish people for not making them more cannon fodder. I found it odd how I've seen so many white nationalists support this stuff, yet they're communist policies. I believe the most serious divide is not between left and right, but rather between libertarian and authoritarian. Ambition of Truth (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It's positively astounding to me the way you can see that the exact same logic you invoke is absurd and a red herring when another mysterious conspiracy is at work. You might want to read our horseshoe theory article you linked, it's not exactly a resounding endorsement of it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I got news for you. David Icke blathers on about aliens, not Alex Jones. In addition, citation bloody fucking needed because last I checked, White Supremacists wanted to breed like rabbits, not expand on birth control. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This time, you've misunderstood them, GrammarCommie. They were implying a horseshoe theory bullshit where both far left and far right want massive population growth. Which is spurious and wrong, but not incorrectly describing white supremacists. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed My bad. Though to be fair, reading through Green ink style posts does get a bit confusing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried reading the last paragraph Ambition of Truth's second post and I understood none of it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Section removed[edit]

The alt-right and white nationalists are sometimes dismissive of MGTOW, as the former wants increased birthrates to prevent a decline in the white population, while the latter would tank birthrates if they got their way.

Agree with the removal here since the above about MGTOW is wrong. MGTOW won't result in decline of birth/fertility rates because its strongly anti-women's rights and anti-feminism. Note that the number of years a woman has spent in education is inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime, so the more education a woman has - the less children she will have e.g. across Sub-Saharan Africa, women with a university education have a TFR of about 1, high school education have a TFR between 2 and 3, whereas those with no education have a TFR of 6.Tobias (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)