Love leaning on the ‘women like people, men like things’ argument, as
though that subreddit isn’t entirely about categorizing people and then
viciously attacking the ones that belong to feared or hated categories.
Seems like a pretty people-oriented venture to me.
Oh man, elsewhere in the thread there’s a discussion about why true
crime forums have substantially more women as users then men, and the
user in the linked post quotes at length from someone who did her
masters’ thesis on why the userbase of /r/myfavoritemurder is 85% women,
then responds within his own comment with:
My take: I think this is amazingly bluepilled and indoctrinated. No
mentions of female rape fantasies at all? I guess, the core problem here
is that women are hardwired to lie
about their sexual intentions. They want to be conquered and notat the same time,
because that provokes competition among males which chooses the most
dependable male for them who can protect her against other contenders by
selection. And so they write entire dissertations about some feminist
nonsense, a beautiful example of cognitive dissonance.
Wow wowwee wow wow wow. “Her research may suggest that women use this
true crime forum to rob violence of some of its power with humor and
camaraderie, but it’s really just because women secretly fantasize about
being forced to have sex because something something evopsych, and they
just lie about it all the time because ladybrains are inherently
dishonest. I am very rational, and definitely not projecting any of my
own issues into this.”
Lol I saw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/afwikq/rserialkillers_rtruecrime_rmissingperson/ee28ssx/) in his post history
(it's a podcast hosted by two women, they have a cat they talk about, and "stay sexy don't get murdered" is their sign-off. Of course, dumbass incels and rationalists alike aren't capable of the most basic research)
Also more context: this guy is one of the most beloved posters on SSC, because they had a weekly column where he'd sum up dozens of random statistics pulled out of studies that would conclusively prove how awful women were (usually with a healthy dose of massive extrapolation to support whatever particular conclusions they wanted to make).
Lol holy shit. Why are men interested in things, according to SSC? Ah, ‘tis because their great and boundless minds wish to explore the very boundaries of knowledge, like the pioneers of old. Why are women interested in things? They like being raped, duh
Women are into true crime because they secretly want to be murdered. A man who can kill is undoubtedly a high-T alpha male. Every woman's ultimate fantasy is being a corpse in a ditch. This is true and I am a well-adjusted person.
Can confirm, also men watch violent movies (etc) because they rationally appreciate the rationality of violence against their rationally selected enemies
Ever since the stone age, men's survival has depended on reading SSC, so it's only natural that in the present day this evolutionary history would express itself, though of course the bluepilled media and colleges will suppress these facts.
> Everybody in this subthread, stop feeding (and being) trolls.
Wait, does he still think the misogyny in his fan base is abnormal/just trolling? Poor guy.
He still thinks he's challenging the conventional wisdom of his audience of fellow nerdy, overly sensitive center-lefties. He's remarkably blinkered about how much the fascists have colonized his fanbase.
> He still thinks he's challenging the conventional wisdom of his audience of fellow nerdy, overly sensitive center-lefties.
Your regular reminder that he[ posted this insane bullshit](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/9lj3g7/accused_of_being_prohbd_on_tumblr_scotts_defense/) as a defense of his pro-HBD posts:
>"If I am 30% of the way from socialist to libertarian, and all of my friends are 10% of the way from socialist to libertarian, I think it’s fair to tell my friends “No, look! Libertarians make some good points! We need to pay more attention to the way libertarians think instead of hating them and rejecting everything they say out of hand!” This doesn’t make me a libertarian - I’m still only 30% of the way from socialist to libertarian and so more on the socialist side"... "I thought I had an SSC post where I explained this further, but I can’t find it. The gist was that if everyone else is at 10% and you think the correct answer is 30%, you can either argue for 30 and have them compromise at 20%, or you can argue 50% and have them compromise at 30%. I’m not sure there’s a right answer to this question, but I sometimes end up arguing for 50% and I think this is at least a defensible choice."
TL;DR: Scott thinks his fanbase is made up of crazy left-wingers and he has to act really right-wing in order to drag them back to a rational level of left-wingery.
I suspect it's because of 40 years of messaging stating that religious, right-wing, and (I think this is the button) anti-novelty are all a single bundle of people. Since the STEMmies aren't religious, they must be either centrist or left-wing; since they're pro-novelty (in a limitedly STEMmy sense), they must be leftist.
That this is all completely divorced from reality is irrelevant when you've got "first principles" to argue from.
(One of the biggest surprises of my long-ago poli sci degree was learning that the GOP has been on the bleeding edge of communications technology since 1980 at the latest. People get misled by the "jus' folks" amateurism of conservative media, but it's all part of a shiny machine that the Democrats are constantly struggling to catch up with. This was the case at the turn of the century, at least, and I see no reason to think it's changed. A lot of the stuff chalked up to Russian trolls by the left is, I think, probably from the American machine. Which isn't to discount the Russian influence, more to warn not to discount the Republicans.)
I would recommend [DFW's dated but still interesting analysis of right-wing talk radio](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/04/host/303812/) and [this piece on the creation of Ben Shapiro](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro).
PragerU is another good case study.
Sadly, I don't have the books from that class anymore--after 20 years and a half dozen moves, things just sort of fall away--and I don't remember the title of the book we used. It was more of a textbook than a standalone book, I remember that much.
A Google Scholar search for [GOP media strategy history](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C1&q=gop+media+strategy+history&btnG=) brings up some stuff that looks interesting, but I haven't vetted any of it. Wish I could be of more help!
I'll check it out. If it does come up, textbooks are interesting anyway. I'd rather hear about something like that from someone who's spent their life working on understanding that kind of phenomenon than on popular accounts. Search is probably worth a look though.
Good post. I think there's also something to do with the weird conflation of "classically liberal" (not meaning libertarian? i guess) and liberal meaning democrat.
There's universal appeal to thinking you're "leftist, except". Once everyone believes that, you get a race to the right, and a community of fascists jerking over how they're the only "moderates" who challenge the leftist hivemind.
TLDR: STEMmers all think STEMmers are leftists and hence they must be more rightwing to distinguish themselves
brigading is a cowardly tactic, where your enemies place downvotes on your posts without showing their faces. the only TRUE form of online debate is posting 5000 word articles about things i already agree with
Political and scientific internet forums tend to resemble the outside
world where different tribes collide, where things are being explored
and innovated, so it’s more the male domain.
What the hell kind of advice is "Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street"? Am I crazy, or does this highlight how sheltered from the actual world Peterson actually is? Like, I love cats, but I'm not risking my forearm to pat a feral one.
Yes, for the love of God, don't pet feral cats. Blink, don't touch!
It's dumb, and it's dumb in a very predictable way, set in the same worldview Lobsterson shits out. *Of course* feral cats are there for you to pet - what other function could they serve, do you think they have lives of their own? What's next, women in the office are actually around for other purposes than butt slapping? You must never forget that the entire world is there for personal enjoyment of straight white duders.
Getting tetanus from a nasty cat bite might be a good educational experience all things considered.
> You must never forget that the entire world is there for personal enjoyment of straight white duders.
Good grief. I hadn't drawn that line between "pet cats" and that, but it's absolutely there. Thanks for pointing it out!
> Getting tetanus from a nasty cat bite might be a good educational experience all things considered.
Shit, this is my new praxis: encourage lobsters to actually try out JBP’s advice. 50% hoping they realize it’s all obvious/disingenuous af, but also 50% hoping they get kitty-borne diseases.
It's a shame SSC has decided poetry is worthless because they could really do with reading [some Dickinson](https://kalliope.org/en/text/dickinson20010830271)
The user in the linked post is apparently a regular poster on
/r/BlackPillScience where they have several compilations [1]
[2].
This also the same poster who used to do the “Cherry-picked CW Science”
threads.
Some women actually show up in the comments there and things quickly
go south with exchanges like:
My apologies, but none of what I have written implies that all women
lack interest, incentives or abilitites for these kinds of things. So,
good for you, you are the minority that has them, so it should actually
be a complement for female subscribers.
Just so you know, since it seems like you were trying to help in this
last message: that makes me feel even worse, it calls back to the
misogynistic “not like other girls” feelings a lot of us battle
with.
I wonder if it’s this kind of thinly-veiled exhortations to shut up
that leads to Trump? (it does seem to correlate with r=0.36)
Doesn’t change the fact that some women find it disturbing and hence
stay away from the community. And well done on finding a victim
narrative again.
…
The subs are in fact very similar. They are fact-oriented, whether of
technical, scientific, political or historical nature. All of them value
reason over emotions, reality over hallucination. Males on these forums
unwittingly engage in male dominance games in terms of factual accuracy
and insight-pornography, executing adaptations for male courtship
display, hence foreign to the female mind.
Yeah. Thanks for making my point. Has r/BlackPillScience done a
survey?
Women are ~4-5 times more emotional (~10-20 times under stress) and
probably gossip 2-4 times more, meaning they engage by roughly those
factors more often in mere processing/signaling of social social
information instead of activities targeted at more realistic/practical
things (probably d ≈ 1, D of related things being perhaps higher). No
survey needed as these facts are already established in the
literature.
Man, no idea at all why women wouldn’t want to spend time on
/r/SSC
ETA:
More from Scott:
Everyone on this thread: please, please, please stop talking about
this. Everyone here knows the same research on gender differences and
the arguments for and against it. Everyone here is aware that incels are
low status and that you can make people panic and feel threatened with
social exclusion by calling them “incels”, or by insinuating that the
places they like could get a reputation for harboring incels. Everyone
here is aware of two hundred other points tangentially related to this.
When people keep talking about this, all it does is trigger everybody
and make them want to defend themselves by arguing more, in ways that
prolong the amount of time everyone has to feel upset and anxious. I
don’t know how to tell people this more forcefully than I’ve already
done.
Won’t someone think of the incels! And obviously the problem is women
who get incel vibes from the forum, rather than the guys giving off the
incel vibes.
> Women are ~4-5 times more emotional (~10-20 times under stress) and probably gossip 2-4 times more,
"Damn! His science is too tight!" \*rips off gold chain and throws it at ground\*
> I don't know how to tell people this more forcefully than I've already done.
You're a moderator for the sub. You ban them if you want them to stop.
Edit: omg, scott made that plea in your edit in reply to one of the few female commentators talking about their personal issues with ssc rather than, say, one of the other users posting sexist bullshit. Way to be extra welcoming to women. Holy shit.
Scott, I know you're reading this. This may be the last time I'm surprised at what a piece of shit coward you always prove yourself to be. Even your fanboys deserve better than you.
> I don't know how to tell people this more forcefully than I've already done.
I keep telling them they're correct and they keep coming back to talk about it!
I'm glad this got posted here, I was exasperated by the whole exchange.
I'm not 100% sure if you're sneering at me or sneering with me, but regardless, thank you for this thread.
Definitely sneering with you. I was a little concerned that the way I formatted the quotes would make it look like I was mocking you. I am definitely not mocking you, I am definitely mocking them.
I love this place and I'm glad I discovered it.
I didn't feel mocked but you can never be sure, I feel like I'm a weird transitional form who agrees with 95% of the sneered and 95% of the sneering, but that's probably because I never post in the celebrated culture war thread and mostly stick to the blog proper.
Was half worried I wouldn't be allowed to post here but there's no rules in the sidebar.
Shocked by the women posting they don't find the "blackpill" type stuff unwelcoming, but at the same time, 10 or 15 years ago I would have posted the same thing.
I want you to be aware of this gem of a reply I just got to my "you know, you're not like other girls is kind of a bad thing to say" comment.
> On second thought, you are actually unwittingly proving my point! Instead of engaging in object level discussion how plausible it is that men have evolved to be more interested in inter-tribal & factual things rather than feelings and interpersonal things, and whether this might be a property of the subs in question, the only thing you talk about in this thread is how it makes you feel. It seems men do that much less frequently.
> This is just an observation, not a judgement.
I don't understand how that user is not banned.
Also I feel like this exemplifies SSC's failure to realize that individuals are not instantiations of statistical trends. Like, if the question is why fewer women participate in SSC than men, the experiences of women in the community are *directly* relevant, certainly more relevant than statistical trends about women in general. This is like when they speculate about why so few leftists participate in their subreddit, and almost none of them have read the long diatribes written by leftists who left.
Yeah. But they have some women saying they don't feel excluded, so *I'm* the outlier!!! \sigh
I was thinking more about my feelings about the "you're not like other girls" remark the guy made, and I think I put my finger on it: he thinks he's complimenting me by saying I'm not a typical member of the "negative" "women" group. But what he's actually done is told me that when he sees evidence that women like places like SSC, he just tags that woman as an outlier rather than using that to update his opinion of women as a whole in a "positive" direction.
I'd say this to him if a) I hadn't blocked him after that last stunt and b) Scott hadn't basically specifically told *me* to knock it off
I posted [this](https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/why-im-not-a-reasonable-feminist/) link from Ozy in my post here and I think it does a pretty good job laying out what's wrong with the whole "You're one of the good ones!" rhetorical move. The fact that Scott's responding to you specifically, rather than the person making the crazy generalizations is just insane.
> they have several compilations
I love how they circle-jerk around these compilations, as if any of them had actually read all that material.
What's crazy is that they probably think these link-fests are *totally owning the libs*, next thing you know they'll ask why people don't "debate them." As if anyone had the time to look over each thread and point out where and how they misinterpreted each one of those hundreds of studies.
I say, fuck all that bullshit. If it makes them happy... There's no way anyone's gonna change their minds anyway.
Edit:
> I don't know how to tell people this more forcefully than I've already done.
It's incredibly easy, Scott: stop giving a platform to the people who make these dumb takes. Stop making them yourself. Stop being an enabler for pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
> Women are ~4-5 times more emotional (~10-20 times under stress) and probably gossip 2-4 times more
"Women don't come here because they aren't interested in facts or accuracy. Now here's a statistic I totally make up about how often they gossip. No feels over reals here."
Jesus, they are still paroting the “sex difference in interest in
things vs people” stuff? Then again that guy posts on r/BlackPillScience
(which should have been name r/GishGallopCentral, but hey…)
But I think the worst misconception is this:
Political and scientific internet forums tend to resemble the outside
world where different tribes collide, where things are being explored
and innovated, so it’s more the male domain.
That’s really pulled out of nowhere. And also quite
self-aggrandizing. Like, do you really think you’re doing a lot of
innovation, right here, you galaxy-brain genius? You’re repeating stuff
that’s been said to keep women out of men-coded spaces for
centuries. Much exploration, very innovative.
With this logic, I could equally say that internet as a whole is “the
female domain” because it’s something you do in the confort of your
home.
And Scott. Scott. Scott please!
Everybody in this subthread, stop feeding (and being) trolls.
Stop acting as if this was a one-time event! This kind of thread
is the result of the mindset you yourself contributed to
create!
This is not trolling. It’s what you’re normalizing. It’s not an
accident. This is what happens when you let an actual
r/BlackPillScience poster do whatever he wants in your
community.
> Stop acting as if this was a one-time event! This kind of thread is the result of the mindset you yourself contributed to create!
[extremely relevant](https://i.imgur.com/rTwN6SM.jpg) (and shamelessly stolen from discord)
lmao I hope it's not fucking real. I think Scott is a buffoon, but if he'd straight up said that unironically, I'd have to revise my opinion to be even worse.
Love leaning on the ‘women like people, men like things’ argument, as though that subreddit isn’t entirely about categorizing people and then viciously attacking the ones that belong to feared or hated categories. Seems like a pretty people-oriented venture to me.
Oh man, elsewhere in the thread there’s a discussion about why true crime forums have substantially more women as users then men, and the user in the linked post quotes at length from someone who did her masters’ thesis on why the userbase of /r/myfavoritemurder is 85% women, then responds within his own comment with:
Wow wowwee wow wow wow. “Her research may suggest that women use this true crime forum to rob violence of some of its power with humor and camaraderie, but it’s really just because women secretly fantasize about being forced to have sex because something something evopsych, and they just lie about it all the time because ladybrains are inherently dishonest. I am very rational, and definitely not projecting any of my own issues into this.”
gee, I cannot think of even a single reason why women might be discouraged from participating in SSC discussions
Most logical explanation is genetic cowardice, can think of no other explanation
Haha, Scott even shows up to express embarrassment.
[deleted]
Such modesty.
chaosdragon.jpg^1
1: Maps of Meaning, Jordan B. Peterson, 1999. Fig. 31, “The Constituent Elements of the World, in Dynamic Relationship”
[deleted]
The user in the linked post is apparently a regular poster on /r/BlackPillScience where they have several compilations [1] [2]. This also the same poster who used to do the “Cherry-picked CW Science” threads.
Some women actually show up in the comments there and things quickly go south with exchanges like:
“You’re one of the good ones!”
…
Man, no idea at all why women wouldn’t want to spend time on /r/SSC
ETA:
More from Scott:
Won’t someone think of the incels! And obviously the problem is women who get incel vibes from the forum, rather than the guys giving off the incel vibes.
Jesus, they are still paroting the “sex difference in interest in things vs people” stuff? Then again that guy posts on r/BlackPillScience (which should have been name r/GishGallopCentral, but hey…)
But I think the worst misconception is this:
That’s really pulled out of nowhere. And also quite self-aggrandizing. Like, do you really think you’re doing a lot of innovation, right here, you galaxy-brain genius? You’re repeating stuff that’s been said to keep women out of men-coded spaces for centuries. Much exploration, very innovative.
With this logic, I could equally say that internet as a whole is “the female domain” because it’s something you do in the confort of your home.
And Scott. Scott. Scott please!
Stop acting as if this was a one-time event! This kind of thread is the result of the mindset you yourself contributed to create!
This is not trolling. It’s what you’re normalizing. It’s not an accident. This is what happens when you let an actual r/BlackPillScience poster do whatever he wants in your community.
How does no community ever consider the “maybe it’s misogyny” argument when this comes up?
Fuck these guys for thinking that sitting around arguing about skull shapes and pickup artistry is “exploring the chaos.”
Fear was right.
*stares into the camera like I’m on the Office*
A whole lot yikes in that thread ya’ll.