Hey "nice guys", not being an asshole != being a great person. If you think so, you're probably an asshole

Hey "nice guys", not being an asshole != being a great person. If you think so, you're probably an asshole.

Attached: rejection.png (296x367, 18K)

are women supposed to be above criticism or discussion?

Imagine how easy it would be to make a strawman picture like this about you. You're confused on why socially unsuccessful men can be kind of bitter, and you also tell them that they're shitty, mean people who deserve to suffer.

Basically. Niceness is the bare minimum. I'm at my "nicest" when I'm at the lowest on the totem pole. Kindness is quite a different thing. In fact, extreme niceness is insulting. Reminds me of that scene from the Collector where this bongland incel kidnaps an art hoe and when she attempts to be nice to him he points out that she won't have a real conversation with him because she is terrified he'll snap. "We could never be friends outside."

Individual women are not beyond criticism. However, when one uses a personal experience with a single (or maybe even several) women - like rejection - which likely has left them profoundly emotionally compromised to make generalizations about an entirety of people, it's a bit absurd.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. This person is already complaining - they were bitter before the other person criticized them.

>Individual women are not beyond criticism
but if groups of men ie "nice guys" can be generalized about why can't groups of women?

The key is that nice guys are a subset of men and there are viable alternatives - specifically, in the comic, not accusing all women of being delusional or liars because one said no to a date. Saying "women" isn't speaking about groups of women, but the entirety of women. There's also no autonomy or other option. There is, according to the speaker, what women "really" want and that's it.

but if i changed my dialogue to, say, mean girls, it's okay to continue incel posting as i have been?

Groups of women or all women? "Nice guys" are a category within men, specified by the very qualities critics are pointing out, and make up a small but troublesome portion of all men.

Ascribed qualities like "whore" to women and then loudly proclaiming that it's wired into their genetics isn't really "criticism" of any kind, as it offers no novel insight into women nor does it suggest a way that women can be improved. All it is is a call to arms for other men who feel the same way.

Sure, but it makes more people feel alienated and resentful against "the other side" when people they identify with are bashed so severely. OP is talking about a broad group of people, the types who just aren't socially successful despite feeling that they should be, and saying that it's likely that they're bad people. People who weren't already in an "us vs them" mindset may be, after seeing that. People like this aren't helping anything by bashing and strawmanning entire, large ideas.

no it's literally the same thing, you're generalizing about a group of men being bad. so, if i, an incel started to generalize about only a subset of women, and had some standard for you girls to live up to (being a virgin perhaps?) that made you not crossing the line, i'd be in the clear with you guys?

why do assholes still get laid and married then

The "nice guys" criticism has become as trite and hackneyed as the "all women are whores" one by this point, but neither represents a "call to arms", it's just bitter griping.

question is, who comes first, the man who judges all women as whores or the woman who judges all nice guys as assholes?

>mean girls
I suppose it's a positive that you're not referring to all women, but I do find something a little simplistic in calling everyone who doesn't give you what they want "mean". Are people without children "mean" because they don't want their taxes going to people with too many kids? Basically I think it passes the criteria I already laid out, but is lacking in other areas.

This is a really interesting post so I'll break user at risk of >roast posting to engage with it better.

So I've been on the other side of this - a very bitter, angry woman resentful that "all men care about is looks and nothing else I do or am matters". I've basically been a female equivalent of a incel bitching about the fundamental failure of men as human beings.

It's hard for me to explain exactly how I got to that point. On one hand, I think you're right - constantly being told I was a mean, delusional person didn't help me. I wasn't vitriolic until my heart was broken severely. Being told that my anger - largely relocated to imageboards and chats with other women - was somehow a great moral failing made me feel that my emotions were being penalised. It was almost a form of thoughtcrime.

From that perspective, I can see how feminist discourse on "nice guys" can come off as the cold, stoic condescension of someone who doesn't know what love is or the damage it causes.

On the other hand, thoughts do and (in my case, did) translate into reality. Thoughts aren't crimes in themselves, bit it's foolish to say that thoughts aren't necessary for crimes... or morally dubious actions, to be less dramatic.

I agree with you that this dogpiling on "nice guys" is often hamfisted ans virtue signal-y, and, as a result, likely to fail. However, I think bitterness towards the opposite sex needs to be attacked directly, so how else does one do it? This comic attacks the central argument and makes no judgements based on looks (ex. Neckbeard), so I think it's fine.

Attached: 98E5AC4A-4E6F-4BBF-98DC-06E8634E3991.jpg (437x724, 75K)

>gamers rise up pic

kill yourself

>I suppose it's a positive that you're not referring to all women, but I do find something a little simplistic in calling everyone who doesn't give you what they want "mean".
and yet you see no irony in seeing every guy who complains about women as a generalizing asshole.

The best option : being neither a nice guy, nor an asshole. Most womens search someone who is not in the extreme ends of the spectrum.

The uncomfortable truth : if you want to find a woman, you have better chances if you're an asshole rather than if you're nice guy.

Damn, this is some high effort bait. Nicely done sir

IN A S O C I E T Y where your fucking spacing results in a permaban this board would be a better place

>literally the whole post was about the contradiction tendency of generalizations to entrench thinking while still needing to confront such ideas
>all you took from it is "u think men mean"
You're a brainlet.

I try, ma'am.

>You're a brainlet.
be that as it may, you didn't really negate what i said. you're making all the same arguments and some how think maybe acknowledging you're doing it while you're doing it makes your argument that nice guys can be generalized about but not women valid? explain to me what i missed.

all the same arguments as nice guys*

>didn't really negate what I said
You said "you think X" and my response was ">lol u actually thought I said X". That sounds like negation to me.

>same arguments
>literally used the past tense
>user thinks time is nonlinear
I mean, it's not, but like we gotta pretend it is. Anyway dude, you didn't get what I said and then got pissy that I pointed it out.

>you didn't really negate what i said.
It absolutely did, you gibbering brainlet.

What they really want is white knights, amirite m'ladies?

>"Let me tell you what you said."
Read my post nice and slow. Take as much time as you need. Find the place where I say "it's okay to generalise men but not women". It's alright.

>not being an asshole != being a great person

Elaborate please. It seems like everyone is a massive asshole.

Hell, it's practically preached by peoples actions that being a complete asshole is a perfectly fine way to go through your life in 2018 and you shouldn't be judged for that.

Gonna need this elaboration, OP.

okay literally,
>So I've been on the other side of this - a very bitter, angry woman resentful that "all men care about is looks and nothing else I do or am matters". I've basically been a female equivalent of a incel bitching about the fundamental failure of men as human beings.
the acknowledgement of what you're doing. even after,
>I suppose it's a positive that you're not referring to all women, but I do find something a little simplistic in calling everyone who doesn't give you what they want "mean". Are people without children "mean" because they don't want their taxes going to people with too many kids? Basically I think it passes the criteria I already laid out, but is lacking in other areas.
where you can't lie this exact logic can be applied to what you were saying about nice guys. but back on topic,
>On the other hand, thoughts do and (in my case, did) translate into reality. Thoughts aren't crimes in themselves, bit it's foolish to say that thoughts aren't necessary for crimes... or morally dubious actions, to be less dramatic.
>I agree with you that this dogpiling on "nice guys" is often hamfisted ans virtue signal-y, and, as a result, likely to fail. However, I think bitterness towards the opposite sex needs to be attacked directly, so how else does one do it? This comic attacks the central argument and makes no judgements based on looks (ex. Neckbeard), so I think it's fine.

so you're basically saying that when you do it it's okay, because you're actually right. that doesn't negate anything.

>"I've been"
>been, past tense of to be
>"what you're doing"
>doing, present tense of to do

>I say that people aren't mean for not giving others what they want
>you think this contradicts the idea that (1) thoughts affect reality and (2) thus negative, emotionally charged thoughts about the opposite sex should thus be challenged, (3) but how one should attempt to do so is fraught with complications and potential cobra effects
Literally how do these four ideas contradict? Just saying "omg this is a contradiction" isn't the same as proving it.

>"you're saying it's okay when you do it"
>my self characterization was of someone delusional, vitriolic, criminal, morally dubious and mean
>you think these are the positive self descriptors of someone defending past behaviours

I honestly think your problem is you don't understand tenses. Is English not your first language? You're not capitalising things properly either.

regardless of your tense you were defending your use of the term nice guy, in the end you most definitely branded yourself as a righteous crusader permitted to use the means you acknowledge are what you're fighting. just different words for it's okay when you do it. you can generalize nice guys because you're combating bitterness, we can't generalize any subset of women as whores because it's bitterness.

also there was a thread about this earlier, i'm too cool to capitalize.

can both of you sperglords stop fighting and answer my simple request:

Thank you.

Women have self-awareness?

>defending use of the term "nice guy"
Literally never discussed the term in the post you originay responded to. If you're talking about my earlier posts in the thread, then yeah, "nice guy" is a way more applicable term than "women" because it refers to a smaller population, however if you were smart enough you read my other post you'd recognize a full critique of such terms usability for the end goal of helping people. But you know, say I was defending it. Whatever helps you avoid engaging with threatening ideas.

>tfw I fucking knew as soon as I broke user all capacity to interact with me would be tarnished but I still hoped that there could be civil discourse on this board
>alas, newfaggotry

>bitterness
I literally referred to bitterness of both sexes. But assume I only mean men. Whatever helps.

>too cool to capitalise
Oh God, this is peak Tumblr. Please neck yourself.

Anyway dude, because was a halfway interesting post I was hoping to get some cool discussion but it's obvious I won't, so I'm out.

>full retard
>i want to use muh grammar on the user board
every anons vocabulary and grammar has a finger print
these finger prints can be tracked
>other posters see patterns
>algorithms used by PIs to track grammar patterns

i read all your posts, you can't nicely word what you're doing into something better than it is. you think you're justified to judge and we're not.

i would be flattered if someone noticed me desu

>sperglord
Ouchie. Anyway:

>being nice isn't good
Ever hear Sondheim's "Into the Woods"? "You're not good you're not bad you're just nice"? That's what it means.

Being nice is the bare minimim in society. Saying please and thank you, helping others, etc. This is typical behaviour. It's like the Dunning-Kruger complex, but with morality. If someone genuinely feels that they're a martyr for engaging in basic human decency (covering a coworker's shift in an emergency, helping a sick relative), then they probably have very low standards for morality period and thus are a crappy person.

Secondly, "niceness" is a behaviour used when someone doesn't have much else to contribute. When I first started my job, I knew fuck all, so I was super nice hoping that when I fucked up my supervisor would remember all the coffees I bought and show some mercy. Niceness is often the equivalent of showing your neck.

Now that I've been at my job for awhile, I'm less nice. My coworker asks me to stay super late at work several nights in a row because they're a Muslim and it's some religious thing and apparently I need to accommodate them? Yeah, no, fuck off. I would of done it three years ago but not now. I'll still help them get away for Eid or something, but I'm not grovelling because I know I have other things to contribute that make me valuable in the workplace besides being a cutesy mule doing grunt work.

Another thing is niceness =/ kindness or goodness. My favourite bosses were angry, gruff older dudes that called me a retard and told me to get my shit together. They weren't nice, but they were good in that they favoured my growth and the team's strength over my feefees.

>today everyone is an asshole
You make an excellent point. Nowadays, everyone is so fucking angry. See any political discussion. It's all screaming. On the flipside, I would say this SJW safe space culture is TOO nice.

Anyway, hope this was what you wanted.

lol k fag

> (You)
>lol k fag
the roasty retreats, unable to spew illogical babble anymore.

Hey, who wants to be a nice person when you can be an asshole?
If you call me "nice" you might as well be calling me your "just a friend."
Men don't want to be called nice guys precept when when women say that they want them.

>niceness is for incompetent pussies
Which is why women don't like it. There is some truth to the notion that women don't like "nice guys" - but that doesn't mean that all men who aren't nice are assholes. It is the false dichotomy (nice guys vs. assholes) that is a fallacy.

>Find the place where I say "it's okay to generalise men but not women". It's alright.
The entire post nigger. You said it in every part

I think "don't like it" is too strong - again, these are core elements to everyday behaviour. Someone who acts like a complete outlier isn't going to fare very well in any social setting. These things need to be in conjunction with other attributes to have value. And I think that's the key. It's easy to be nice when you want something, it's harder to be nice when you already have something over someone else. It's a matter of incentives that undermined the interaction.

Anyway, I'm sleepy.

You guys get "k" a lot from girls, don't you, lol

>We should not be surprised by marriages between people who would never have been friends: Love casts itself on people who, apart from sex, would be hateful, contemptible, and even abhorrent to us. But the will of the species is so much more powerful than that of individuals, that lovers overlook everything, misjudge everything, and bind themselves forever to an object of misery. - Schoppy

This stuck me when I first read it. Makes a good point: How can you say a bond is strong if it wouldn't hold under different circumstances? In media, there's a lot of friend-lover stuff and I think it's because it's a genuine ideal. And there are people who hold to this in reality, but it doesn't manifest as easily in reality. In the case of 'nice guys' and the scorning/scorned women, the men see the women as potential love interest but not truly as friends, and the women of course see the men as friends but not as potential love interests. Though people probably would prefer being such best friends with someone they're actually have romantic/sexual interest in.

I think the real question is what does = being a great person?

I want to read more about this, please suggest me Schoppy's writings relevant to this issue.

>
> (You)
>You guys get "k" a lot from girls, don't you, lol
k

Anyways, men are more virtuous than women. There's my generalization.

>You guys get "k" a lot from girls, don't you, lol
Yeah, because I intellectually checkmate them, as per usual, and they have nothing left to say but dumb textspeech.
This proved that you are either a woman or have the retarded mind of one.