Post: #1

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/13-reaso...-the-worst

To summarize, it's typical stuff you would expect. But the comment section is full of feminist carousel-riders and their sullen white knights defending their bad choices.

Stuff like this makes me happy to be an ass. I bet for every article there is about guys like us who pump 'n dump, don't pander, etc, there are at least 3 articles shitting on "nice guys".

Post: #2

You forgot to use the new emoticon

Post: #3

Check out cat lady Desire Spinny D's comments.

To be fair, the article of beta bashing I found quite amusing.

Post: #4

(01-22-2013 09:59 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  You forgot to use the new emoticon

Edited! Haha I saw that earlier this week. Epic.

Post: #5

Post: #6

"you don't get brownie points for NOT raping me." LOLzzzzzzz

Post: #7

As a former "nice guy" myself, I read through that and saw a lot of the old teenage chump I used to be in the writing. I was guilty of a lot of those things and those processes of thought, and I'm not happy about it. I was pathetic and extraordinarily insecure.

A lot of those criticisms are not wrong. "Nice guy syndrome" is not a great condition to have. It took a lot of misery to kill my own inner "nice guy", but I'm glad I eventually did. He was a chump and wouldn't have lasted very long in the real world, which I'll be entering soon.

Not saying there wasn't some bullshit on that page, but by and large I'm not in disagreement. Don't be a "nice guy".

Post: #8

"Nice guy" = pop culture speak for "passive-aggressive"

Post: #9

(01-22-2013 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  "Nice guy" = pop culture speak for "passive-aggressive"

Yeah, I'd agree with that to an extent. A lot of the behavior I recognized there was definitely layered with subtle hostility.
I was ostensibly a "nice guy", but certain girls were bitches and whores whenever they predictably ran a mile away from my epic beta self.
All in all, "nice guy" as described in that article and by a lot of others like it is a highly passive aggressive state of being, and also a very dishonest one.

It is difficult to be honest with the girl you're into (too scared) or with yourself (you won't admit your own fault in your failures-"jerks" and "bitches" are to blame, not the fact that you're a mangina).

Post: #10

Here is a partial bio of the writer of that article:

"Heben (‘Heaven’) Nigatu is a writer and activist who blogs about race, gender, pop culture and their many intersections at thatneedstogo.tumblr.com. She is the founder of Radical CUNTS (College Undergraduates Not Tolerating Sexism), an organization dedicated to intersectional feminist activism."

Anyone see anything wrong there?

Whether anyone here realizes it or not, something is deeply amiss with these women who could be going off on any number of things but choose "nice guys" as their target. Girlwriteswhat did a perceptive video on this, which is on YouTube.

Post: #11

It all goes back to concept of being congruent. Time a women sniffs out incongruence on you, your goose is cooked.

Back when I was a nice guy as well I was all friendly on the outside and fuck those douchebags for being chosen over me on the inside. The 16 year old me would hate the 23 year old me.

Post: #12

Jesus effin' Christ! What is that? When did adults, many of them from the college-educated supposed elite, start communicating like that?

Post: #13

(01-22-2013 11:19 PM)j r Wrote:  Jesus effin' Christ! What is that? When did adults, many of them from the college-educated supposed elite, start communicating like that?

Since a devolution to idiocracy is clearly under way.

Post: #14

(01-22-2013 11:19 PM)j r Wrote:  Jesus effin' Christ! What is that? When did adults, many of them from the college-educated supposed elite, start communicating like that?

LOL. In other words, what about the menz? Wow. Just wow.

Post: #15

(01-22-2013 11:30 PM)NYJ Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 11:19 PM)j r Wrote:  Jesus effin' Christ! What is that? When did adults, many of them from the college-educated supposed elite, start communicating like that?

Since a devolution to idiocracy is clearly under way.

This is actually the reason that I am suspect of the whole Idiocracy idea. It is supposed to be the proliferation of idiot proles that drives devolution. And yet, it's the educated upper middle class types that I see who are obsessed with ridiculous ideologies like internet feminism, who re-post dumb shit from stupid tumblr sites, who treat politics like entertainment.

Just the other day I read an article claiming that women using vocal fry and that stupid valley girl diction are actually "linguistic innovators." It's almost enough to drive me into a cabin in the woods.

Post: #16

(01-22-2013 11:03 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Here is a partial bio of the writer of that article:

"Heben (‘Heaven’) Nigatu is a writer and activist who blogs about race, gender, pop culture and their many intersections at thatneedstogo.tumblr.com. She is the founder of Radical CUNTS (College Undergraduates Not Tolerating Sexism), an organization dedicated to intersectional feminist activism."

Anyone see anything wrong there?

Whether anyone here realizes it or not, something is deeply amiss with these women who could be going off on any number of things but choose "nice guys" as their target. Girlwriteswhat did a perceptive video on this, which is on YouTube.

Totally agreed about these pyscho feminazis going after "nice guys" when there are other issues they could be bitching & moaning about.

As for me, I used to be that overly nice guy as well but that sorta changed when I became 22 years old.

1) For some, being that overly nice guy was a means towards getting more "desirable results", which eventually lead to passive aggression & self-hate if one didn't get their shit together by a certain age in their lifetime (have seen it happen to an old friend of mine's).

2) For me & others, it probably had a lot more to do with just being naive, too nice by default, not knowing my limits, perceiving the world as black & white only, and just not being aware of social intricacies with regards to conducting myself overall or not knowing when to press the right buttons of others.

If and when I did get laid until that age 22 point, it had more to do with me being a dick while drunk, being around curious drunk college chicks, or having some exposure to overly forward experienced gals.

I can't exactly say that "learning game" was the turning point. It probably had more to do with me working harder to "hone my social skills," which entailed deeper thinking, putting myself out there, stepping out of my comfort zone, and pro-active experimenting, which entailed coming off as mistakenly awkward at times or at best capturing the attention of others. I also started telling myself "first impressions weren't everything, but they certainly do matter" while having fun in the process applying it to first my professional/academic and then eventually moreso social endeavors. I then balanced it out by just naturally conducting myself appropriately without really giving a flying flip about what the typical person thought. If others didn't care for my timely sarcasm or humorous politically incorrect comments, then eff em.

I think the big key is to really put in more effort towards developing as a social being in this world requiring courage & the humility to make mistakes without taking yourself too seriously when things don't work at times. Once you evolve as a "social being," then "game" should naturally evolve as a result too.

Post: #17

Post: #18

Lol, that Friend-zoner vs Nice guy comic is funny,

Post: #19

So much hamster in that comic...

Post: #20

"PLEASE TO BE MY WAIFU"
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

And that Dating Sim analogy is spot on as well, these types of guys were very common in high school and university.

Post: #21

Girl: Will you go out with me?
Man: No.
Girl: Why not?
Man: Because you don't wear makeup or sexy clothes and your hair is wrinkly and boring.
Girl: You mean like those skanky trashy girls who always wear heels, tight skirts, and black eyeshadow?
Man: That's what turns me on, yeah.
Girl: I thought you liked nice girls. All you care about is sex!
Man: I like nice girls but I also want a girl who turns me on.

Of course, many women will interpret this exchange as the guy being a pig. But he's just being frank. This scenario also presumes that the Man in question has no extra time or energy to dump a fuck into this girl who craves him.

This whole argument occurs because women refuse or are unable to admit or explain what turns them on, particularly in the college-age range where friend-zoning is most likely to happen. Chicks are unable to explain in frank terms why they are not willing to give the Nice Guy a chance, so they start spewing hamsterizations that only serve to confuse and frustrate the guy. The dialog escalates from there, egged on by the likes of Heartiste and his 'chicks dig jerks' meme.

NiceGuy: Will you go out with me?
Hamster: ...
NiceGuy: Why not?
Hamster: <list of bullshit reasons>
NiceGuy: But that doesn't make sense!
Hamster: Why are you doing this to me?
NiceGuy: Why can't you just give me a chance?
Girl: ARGH just leave me alone!
NiceGuy: Why do you always date such jerks?
Hamster: Because jerks are more honest and don't try to manipulate their way into my pants.

The only time the girl is able to overcome her hamster is to assert her will on the lesser beta that's giving her such a hard time. At no point will she give the NiceGuy any genuine, practical help or advice. In other words: she isn't a friend to him, either. At least, not in the way men think of friends.

Post: #22

Nice Guys are just a feminist creation. The problem is the nice guy listens to the feminist screech, "I want a guy who will understand me, be friends first, get to know me before we have sex, appreciate me for me, blah blah blah", then he follows this thinking it's want she wants, but is rejected.

I've also had the lurking suspicion that feminists want a more hyper-masculine man than normal non-feminist girls.

Post: #23

Post: #24

So now that I have a moment, let's dig a bit more into these articles. Of late, it has become fairly common to see nice guys being shamed, bashed and presented as not just undesirable, but also immoral. It is the most wicked form of hamster that the internet has seen so far.

To understand why, we have to go a bit into the past. In the past, not many men were wise to the real state of the sexual market, particularly who got girls and how they got girls. Occasionally someone would whine about being left out in the cold just for being nice, but it was widely understood that nice guys were still preferred for relationships and girls loved them after they matured.

With the rise of connectivity and sharing of stories, and particularly actual empirical data, it soon became apparent that the real situation was much worse. The gnawing feeling of those hordes of nice guys became more than a feeling - it began a reality. With this truth now impossible to hide, they became even more discontent and the whining increased. Some of them embraced the PUA skills; the others decided it was simply not worth it and retreated into their shells, similar to the herbivores of Japan. However, their outcry was now very public.

With this truth - that women don't go for nice guys at all, even though they mostly claim that they do - being now both confirmed and highly visible, the feminists and other asshole-digging women (The Kantian's observation is spot on here - feminists have much higher dominance thresholds, i.e. a more dominant or asshole-ish man is needed to make them wet than for the average girl) decided to adopt another tactic. No woman wants to be seen as responsible for her own poor mating choices, naturally. This is the basis of the hamster. But how to reconcile it with the reality? With hiding the truth now not being viable anymore, there was only one option left: present the nice guys as not really desirable - or 'not really "nice"'.

Herculean efforts by hamsters all around the world are needed to perform this ultimate vanishing act because the nice guy behaviour is so visible and plainly desirable to common sense, but fear not. The avalanche of articles bashing nice guys as manipulators, jerks, sexists and so on is now close to accomplishing the task.

You can see the results even here - not only does the general public now believe the bullshit that "nice guys are not really nice", but also some red-pill forum members are tacitly agreeing. Once you've spent years away from being a nice guy with no game, you tend to forget all that you've had to endure before. It becomes like an unpleasant dream which, in hindsight, seems completely avoidable - with our current knowledge! But most nice guys are still bombarded with too much bullshit to know the difference. It is a grave mistake to forget where many of us came from and join the bashing just because we understand the why of it now. However, most guys do not. With the amount of brainwashing, can you really blame them?

Of course, that brings us to the final point - is what these articles are saying just the hamster acting up, or is it true? In a sense, it is true. None of the nice guy behaviour is attractive, that we know. We also recognize that it is not congruent, although most of these guys don't know it - they have never been taught any other way. Genuinely believing that girls like you being nice and will (eventually) reward you with love and sex is not lying, it's just being in the wrong. And we all know how this wrong is formed: through the words of these women themselves and the mantra we are all familiar with: "I just want someone nice", and "Where have all the good men gone?" (commonly meant as "men who don't cheat, treat women like sexual objects etc - i.e. "being nice")

So women are still verbally making "being nice" extremely important to a man who doesn't know better. It is impossible to say that they aren't asking for niceness. The only thing left is - what actually represents being nice? The article rightly points out that just not raping someone is not nice, it's just normal. Same for waiting until the person opens up and finally recognizes and rewards your support. But what is nice then?

Is it not pressuring her into sex? We know that this sexual strategy is mostly a big piece of fail. Is it doing her favors, such as repairing her car, helping her with homework or walking her home in the rain? Apparently that isn't nice either, even though most of us would be delighted if a stranger of the same gender did that for us. What is being nice then? Is it financial support? Judging by how quickly women divorce boring Beta providers, I don't think that's it either. Maybe listening skills and willingness to offer support? Nope. Chivalry, Titanic-style? Hell no.

Conclusion: while these articles correctly point out that nice behaviour is not sexually attractive at all, and that some types of nice behaviour are not actually nice, it still fails to bridge the yawning chasm between the spoken desires of the female gender and the actual reality on the ground.

At best, while all women claim that they "just want someone nice", the threshold for what (to them) constitutes "niceness" is infinite - somewhere far above listening, helping, being respectful, offering financial aid and sacrificing your life for others.

And I thought that Mother Theresa was a nice person.

Post: #25

(01-24-2013 12:36 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  So now that I have a moment, let's dig a bit more into these articles. Of late, it has become fairly common to see nice guys being shamed, bashed and presented as not just undesirable, but also immoral. It is the most wicked form of hamster that the internet has seen so far.

To understand why, we have to go a bit into the past. In the past, not many men were wise to the real state of the sexual market, particularly who got girls and how they got girls. Occasionally someone would whine about being left out in the cold just for being nice, but it was widely understood that nice guys were still preferred for relationships and girls loved them after they matured.

With the rise of connectivity and sharing of stories, and particularly actual empirical data, it soon became apparent that the real situation was much worse. The gnawing feeling of those hordes of nice guys became more than a feeling - it began a reality. With this truth now impossible to hide, they became even more discontent and the whining increased. Some of them embraced the PUA skills; the others decided it was simply not worth it and retreated into their shells, similar to the herbivores of Japan. However, their outcry was now very public.

With this truth - that women don't go for nice guys at all, even though they mostly claim that they do - being now both confirmed and highly visible, the feminists and other asshole-digging women (The Kantian's observation is spot on here - feminists have much higher dominance thresholds, i.e. a more dominant or asshole-ish man is needed to make them wet than for the average girl) decided to adopt another tactic. No woman wants to be seen as responsible for her own poor mating choices, naturally. This is the basis of the hamster. But how to reconcile it with the reality? With hiding the truth now not being viable anymore, there was only one option left: present the nice guys as not really desirable - or 'not really "nice"'.

Herculean efforts by hamsters all around the world are needed to perform this ultimate vanishing act because the nice guy behaviour is so visible and plainly desirable to common sense, but fear not. The avalanche of articles bashing nice guys as manipulators, jerks, sexists and so on is now close to accomplishing the task.

You can see the results even here - not only does the general public now believe the bullshit that "nice guys are not really nice", but also some red-pill forum members are tacitly agreeing. Once you've spent years away from being a nice guy with no game, you tend to forget all that you've had to endure before. It becomes like an unpleasant dream which, in hindsight, seems completely avoidable - with our current knowledge! But most nice guys are still bombarded with too much bullshit to know the difference. It is a grave mistake to forget where many of us came from and join the bashing just because we understand the why of it now. However, most guys do not. With the amount of brainwashing, can you really blame them?

Of course, that brings us to the final point - is what these articles are saying just the hamster acting up, or is it true? In a sense, it is true. None of the nice guy behaviour is attractive, that we know. We also recognize that it is not congruent, although most of these guys don't know it - they have never been taught any other way. Genuinely believing that girls like you being nice and will (eventually) reward you with love and sex is not lying, it's just being in the wrong. And we all know how this wrong is formed: through the words of these women themselves and the mantra we are all familiar with: "I just want someone nice", and "Where have all the good men gone?" (commonly meant as "men who don't cheat, treat women like sexual objects etc - i.e. "being nice")

So women are still verbally making "being nice" extremely important to a man who doesn't know better. It is impossible to say that they aren't asking for niceness. The only thing left is - what actually represents being nice? The article rightly points out that just not raping someone is not nice, it's just normal. Same for waiting until the person opens up and finally recognizes and rewards your support. But what is nice then?

Is it not pressuring her into sex? We know that this sexual strategy is mostly a big piece of fail. Is it doing her favors, such as repairing her car, helping her with homework or walking her home in the rain? Apparently that isn't nice either, even though most of us would be delighted if a stranger of the same gender did that for us. What is being nice then? Is it financial support? Judging by how quickly women divorce boring Beta providers, I don't think that's it either. Maybe listening skills and willingness to offer support? Nope. Chivalry, Titanic-style? Hell no.

Conclusion: while these articles correctly point out that nice behaviour is not sexually attractive at all, and that some types of nice behaviour are not actually nice, it still fails to bridge the yawning chasm between the spoken desires of the female gender and the actual reality on the ground.

At best, while all women claim that they "just want someone nice", the threshold for what (to them) constitutes "niceness" is infinite - somewhere far above listening, helping, being respectful, offering financial aid and sacrificing your life for others.

And I thought that Mother Theresa was a nice person.

+1 and post is nominated for Everything Else Hall of fame