According to this link PUAs are everywhere preying on women. They’re in grocery stores, coffee shops, and even churches preying on women. PUAs are even in Panera preying on women, and apparently there’s some connection to carbs. I’m sure if I read enough of those links I would find someone talking about how PUAs are hiding under womens’ beds.
This is a lack of perspective that’s disturbing for even the so called manosphere. I have been to grocery stores, coffee shops, churches, and Panera. There were to PUAs there. The only way to think otherwise is to never leave your house which is typical for the so called manosphere. So what’s behind this (beyond that members of the so called manosphere never leave their homes)? It’s the fake anti-gamer problem. There’s a lot of people who want to sell game, but not red pill ideology or all of red pill ideology. There’s Dr.
NerdloveManginalove who peddles game to promote feminism. In the case of the links above, we have people wanting to promote “red pill Christianity”. Their problem is not with game. It’s with the supposed lifestyle of PUAs. (It’s an example of how moral arguments against game are useless since the “red pill Christians” don’t actually question game.)
If the “red pill Christians” were actually interested in opposing game, they would be pointing out how game is nothing but a scam started by known con artist, Eben Pagan, and how PUAs don’t leave their homes and aren’t getting laid. The most powerful argument against game is showing that gamers are liars who don’t produce results and that many are con artists trying to get your money. Even though I have made all this information easily accessible, the “red pill Christians” (and others like Dr. Manginalove) will never use that argument. That is because it destroys their use of game just as much. They can’t admit gamers outside of their ideology are liars. They have to believe those gamers are successful for their scam to be true. Their ideology requires the delusion that PUAs hiding under everyone’s bed successfully preying on women.
What we have here are game scams that aren’t about money, but ideology. For the so called manosphere, the “red pill Christians”, Dr. Manginalove, and many others, money is a secondary concern. (It’s still a concern since these people are likely to be unemployed or employed at marginal jobs that pay little.) Their primary concern is ideology. Dr. Manginalove is using the game scam to sell feminism. The “red pill Christians” are using the game scam to sell their perverted form of Christianity, and so forth for other groups. These groups use a bait and switch scam where they say they will help you get laid but really are trying to trick you into their ideology. (Even the “red pill Christians” who don’t believe in sex before marriage are doing this. They just replace getting laid with getting marriage which will get you laid “properly”.)
All of these groups using game to sell their respective ideologies really are the C team (as in cuckold). They are the ones who will be holding the bag when the game scam collapses. Eben Pagan did not make this mistake. Since the game scam for him was all about the money, he knew that he should get out eventually. And he did that and now is using a new age business consulting scam. Eben Pagan isn’t blinded by ideology like the current crop of game scammers. All of these groups are “true believers” so they will just keep on going until the collapse of the game scam destroys them.
Anytime you think that you have followed some dating advice and accomplished what the advice recommended, you will find that it’s not good enough. You won’t get what the dating advice promised. What will happen is that you will be given new dating advice that will supposedly deliver. Of course, that dating advice won’t produce results either, but there will be more dating advice you must follow waiting in the wings. Shifting the goalposts is common in dating advice, and it serves the purposes of the MDAD (Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction).
One of the reasons that the goalposts are constantly shifting in dating advice is to keep you on the MDAD treadmill. The last thing feminists and manginas want is for men to give up on women because avoiding women denies women their power. Instead what they want is for you to keep chasing women. They can’t actually give you dating advice that works because what they really want to keep you in a constant state of chasing women.
To justify their shifting of the goalposts women and manginas will use bullshit reasons like “self improvement is a continuous process” (ignoring that dating advice isn’t and can never be “self improvement”). Dr. Mangina love recently tried justify his goalpost shifting in his dating advice using that reason.
One of the things that people often complain about is feeling as though that there’s always more to do and to work on or improve. It’s like a race that can never be won because you keep realizing that what you thought was the finish line was another lap marker.
“Goddamn it, they moved the finish line back again!”
Alternately, to take it back to the mountain metaphor at the beginning, it’s like climbing to the top of the Matterhorn and realizing that the summit there is just the base of K-2. Believe it or not: that’s a good thing.
If there’s no end to dating advice then how do you measure progress? By definition nothing gets accomplished. Not being able to measure progress is part of the point. The last thing that dating advice pushers want is dating advice that is testable and measurable. They don’t want you realizing that their dating advice doesn’t work.
What feminists and manginas are doing is giving you dating advice that is “turtles all the way down” and hiding it by calling it “self improvement” and other things.
In the MDAD (Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction), anything and everything will be done to keep you in the MDAD. This includes giving you bad dating advice to keep you on the MDAD treadmill. A very long time ago I saw this exchange (which I’m greatly paraphrasing) on a dating advice forum.
Man Trying To Solve His Dating Woes: I have been completely unsuccessful in dating. I’m looking for new ideas to try to change that.
Man Serving the MDAD: You should get a job in sales.
Man Trying To Solve His Dating Woes: What? That makes no sense. Why should I have to completely change career paths? No one else has to do that.
Man Serving the MDAD: You’re just unwilling to do the work it takes to get a relationship with a woman. You just want to whine about it.
Man Trying To Solve His Dating Woes: Fuck this. I will try somewhere else.
I have actually seen “get a job in sales” and other things equally as absurd actually given as dating advice. Absurd dating advice is not a bug. It’s a feature of the MDAD designed to keep you on the MDAD treadmill looking for more and more dating advice. (There are also other aspects to this such as dating advice givers entrapping men into a lecture about self improvement and being a keyboard jockey.) Even absurd dating advice that pisses you off is designed to keep you looking for more and more dating advice because you figure that there has to be better dating advice out there. As long as you stay on the MDAD treadmill and don’t give up on women, they have done their job. If you are constantly searching for new dating advice, you won’t realize that your life is functioning just fine without women (and is probably better without women).
In the past I have written about how moral arguments against game are useless because they don’t attack the core of game and are really a debate about premarital sex. Moral arguments against game are extremely limited in criticizing game and really about separate ideological issues. Anyone who makes a moral argument against game just wants a Christianized form of game where game becomes a vehicle for promoting Christianity typically of the traditionalist variety. (Although in many cases it’s about promoting red pill Christianity which is a contradiction in terms and is a heresy as far orthodox Christianity goes.)
Feminists also only allow a limited form of criticism of game. With feminists it’s not about premarital sex, but “misogyny”. They are against any criticism of game that actually attacks the core of game instead of being about the supposed misogyny of its practitioners and have plenty of history of attacking anti-gamers. A good example of this can be found at this page on the blue pill reddit. (The blue pill reddit is supposed to be a parody of the red pill reddit.) The page on the blue pill reddit was supposed to be about how the Great DC Gamer Meetup of 2012 was an total disaster. The comments ended up being about my supposed misogyny, baseless attacks on Aaron Sleazy, baseless attacks on the MRM, and a defense of non-Roissyite gamers as practicing “natural pickup” (whatever that is). IOW, the comments were about anything but how game failed. The reason for that is because showing that game doesn’t work in no way helps their cause which is obsessing over supposed misogyny of (Roissyite) gamers. They aren’t against game at all. What they want is form of feminist game where game is used to force men to become feminists. A more succinct way of saying that is that they want gamers to all become like Dr.
Neither the Christians nor the feminists are actually interested in the facts on how game is a scam. They aren’t interested how game was created by a member of an online marketing scam group known as The Syndicate. These facts are dangerous to them because they show that various aspects of feminism and modern (traditionalist) Christianity are lies. Both ideologies say that women are perfect so pointing out that game (and dating advice in general) is a scam shatters the illusion of women being perfect.
Also, neither the Christians nor the feminists are actually interested in helping men get together with women (just as the so called manosphere has no use for a man actually trying to get with women). This is the reason for the attacks on Aaron Sleazy. Dating advice that works would by definition be free of all ideological bullshit. It couldn’t be used to promote (traditionalist or heretical red pill) Christianity or feminism. What the Christians and the feminists want to do is yell forever about the evils of premarital sex and “misogyny” respectively. Dating advice that works would deny them a vehicle for doing that.
If a person or a group is unwilling to call out game as a scam like how Christians and feminists, then they really aren’t against game. Only allowing a limited criticism of game is part of the Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction (MDAD) because groups that only allow a limited criticism of game are trying to distract you from the fraudulent nature of game and the rest of the dating advice industry.
Sunshinemary, a woman, showed up here and among other things made a comment about the morality of game.
In fact, I have for the past year questioned whether game as taught by pick up artists is moral and licit for Christians to use.
Even if Sunshinemary decided game was immoral (for Christians or in general), this would not be an anti-game argument. Moral arguments against game aren’t actually arguments against game, and they’re completely useless. To assume that game is immoral requires that you believe game works and is not a scam. There would be a moral argument against game if it was actually leading to promiscuity. However, We know that game doesn’t exist so that isn’t the case. Anyone doing game is just doing a strange pantomime near women which can have no moral argument for or against. The only moral arguments against game are related to it being a scam. First, promoting game is immoral because promoting a scam is immoral. Second, promoting feminism is immoral so using game to promote feminism is immoral. (This is done by people from Susan Walsh to Dr. Manginalove.) Third, using a scam as a gateway into other scams and immoral ideas is immoral. (Game is used as a gateway into the paleo diet, white vagina nationalism, etc.)
Moral arguments against game still buy into the game worldview instead of questioning it. Christians arguing against game typically just want a Christian sanitized version of it. They don’t want to learn if it actually works or not or where it came from. Pointing out that game is a scam started by known internet scammer, Eben Pagan, will only get you attacked by Christians and others who supposedly find game immoral. They need to believe game works to support their worldview. It also gives them a (fake) devil to fight in supposedly promiscuous gamers which allows them to pretend that they are moral crusaders for Christ.
What this means is that moral arguments against game are still a part of the MDAD (the Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction). Moral arguments about game do noting to actually free men from the worldview of game or of dating advice in general.
One thing you will hear when pointing out dating advice scams is the “defense” of, “It’s not a scam because I’m giving it away for free.” In some cases this is because they are generating enough free content as a loss leader to hook you into buying their books and DVDs. In many other cases, this is because the scam isn’t about money. It’s about ideology. In this type of scam they aren’t trying to steal your money, but your time and you.
This is the case for a lot of the so called manosphere. Most men aren’t as successful as they would like to be with women so the so called manosphere preys on that so suck men in not just into game but other forms of rubbish like the paleo diet and conspiracy theory. (They fake being against feminism for similar reasons.) While a lot of them want to make money off their scams, for the rest of them they just want more people to indulge their delusions of being persecuted by the government and to add to the Paleo-Game Cult.
Ideological dating advice scams aren’t limited to the so called manosphere. Feminists do the same thing. Just like the so called manosphere, feminists will use dating advice as a scam to trick men into becoming feminists. One of the best examples of this is Dr.
Nerdlove ManginaloveNerdhate. Most of his articles attack the group he is supposed to be helping, nerds. He is preying on them to turn them into feminist manginas like him. For obvious reasons, the most despicable scams are probably those that target the elderly. In terms of dating advice scams, targeting nerds is equivalent to targeting the elderly in other scams.
One advantage we have in dealing with ideological dating advice scams is that the scammers will screw up. Eben Pagan, a pure monetary dating advice scammer, was much smarter than these people. He kept himself focused on making money and knew that he needed to get out of the dating advice scam while he was ahead (which he did). Since the ideological scammers are zealots, they are blinded by their devotion to their ideologies won’t be able to see where they are going to screw up like how an Eben Pagan could. This makes it easier for us to fight the ideological dating advice scammers and expose their real agendas.
There’s a fallacy called The Just World Fallacy where it is believed that “human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately, noble actions are duly rewarded and evil actions are duly punished”. This is a common fallacy in dating advice because dating advice fails pretty easily. Rather than admit that their advice was a failure, purveyors of dating advice will attack the men who tried to use their dating advice. The attacks on these men will include everything from accusations of “entitlement” to “misogyny”. The idea is that the dating advice wasn’t wrong or a scam, but the men using it were so odious to women that the men deserved to be rejected by women. Why this is a logical fallacy is obvious. Just because a woman rejects a man doesn’t mean that he’s defective, guilty of “entitlement”, or guilty of “misogyny”. Saying that men who get rejected by women must have something wrong with them is like saying homeless people are homeless because something is defective about them. Both concepts are wrong.
The Just World Fallacy can only go so far in defending dating advice from men discovering it’s a scam. Even if a man actually is “entitled” or a “misogynist” now (even though that’s unlikely), that wasn’t the case most of the time he was rejected by women. Even if said man accepts the Just World Fallacy as true with respect to dating advice, the problem is that man will realize that he still got rejected when he shouldn’t have. This creates a problem for the purveyors of dating advice so they will end up invoking the Feminist Time machine.
What happens with the feminist time machine is that a man who realizes that according to the Just World Fallacy should have not been rejected by women in the past will be accused of being “entitled” and/or a “misogynist” in the past even though he didn’t realize it. The feminist time machine says that women could practically see into the future to know that a man would be an “entitled misogynist” in the future so women preemptively rejected him and were right to do so. (This is similar to the plot of the short story and move, Minority Report.) This turns the Just World Fallacy into the Just All of Space and Time Fallacy.
The problem with the feminist time machine is that it is a paradox. The only way it can be made to make sense is if women were intentionally trying to turn a man into a misogynist. Since that is absurd, the feminist time machine is also absurd, but despite being a fallacy it will be used to attack men whose only crime is being unlucky with women.
This post is an exact copy of this page. I have disabled comments here so that all comments will end up on the page and not on this post. If you want to comment, leave your comments here. If you want to link to this be sure to link to the page and not this post.
Last year, I wrote about how feminists were attacking PUAHate.com. At first, feminists attacking PUAHate doesn’t make sense, especially since they often consider gamers to be misogynist. The most powerful argument against game is how its a scam started by a known scam organization, The Syndicate. When you consider how revealing game to be a scam threatens the entire Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction (MDAD) that feminists use against their opponents, it makes sense. Thus it’s no surprise that Manboobz recently attacked PUAHate as a bunch of misogynists even though he supposedly agrees with PUAHate about gamers. Manboobz made a critical error in revealing why he’s attacking PUAHate.
A site for debunking the ridiculous claims and shitty behavior of Pickup Artists? Sounds great – at least until you realize that the denizens are mostly dudes who hate PUAs for all the wrong reasons. That is, they hate PUAs not so much for being manipulative scumbags but for being ineffective manipulative scumbags — whose alleged magic formulas for bedding the hot babes don’t really work.
What’s wrong with showing that game doesn’t work? If you think that gamers make ridiculous claims, engage in shitty behavior, and are misogynists, the best argument against gamers would be that game is a scam and that gamers are charlatans. It’s an argument that could actually eradicate game permanently. Manboobz should be writing about how Eben Pagan and The Syndicate (along with the C team of the so called manosphere) are bamboozling men. Instead Manboobz attacks PUAHate for pointing out that game is a scam! So why did Manboobz (and Jezebel a year ago) attack PUAHate?
- Game is feminist despite the supposed anti-feminism of some of its (pseudo) practitioners. Feminists from Dr.
NerdManginalove to Susan Walsh are busy presenting an explicitly feminist version of game. Showing that game is a scam threatens feminists who want to use game for explicitly feminist purposes and other forms of dating advice which are also feminist.
- Feminists want a devil to eternally fight. If (the manosphere) gamers were successful with women, then feminists could constantly scream about how they are misogynists and predators of women. Showing that game is a scam means that (manosphere) gamers can’t be predators of women, since game doesn’t work. Feminists can no longer seriously say that (manosphere) gamers are a threat to women. In other words, feminists need (manosphere) gamers to be successful, so feminists are willing to go along with (manosphere) gamer lies about being successful with women!
It isn’t only feminists that say they are anti-game, but are afraid of the fact that game is a scam. A similar phenomena can be found among the “Christian” portion of the so called manosphere. The Christian manospherians that oppose game do so for “moral reasons”. Thus you would think they would welcome knowledge that game is scam to boost their moral opposition to game, but they don’t. The Christian manospherians have a similar problem as the feminists. They want to present a Christian/Biblical version of game (which is impossible) around “Biblical masculinity” (which is also impossible since the modern Christian Church is hideously feminized) so showing that game is a scam threatens this task. They also want a devil to fight. In their case, it’s fornicating gamers who prey on women. Just like with the feminists, this requires gamers to be successful with women. If they were to admit that gamers were unsuccessful with women (and thus not fornicating with them), the worse thing the Christian manosphere could say about them was that gamers were lying about being successful with women. It doesn’t have the same impact as fornicating gamers preying on women. Plus, gamers often end up admitting the truth, so the Christian manosphere can’t even accuse them of lying in a lot of cases.
These two groups are examples of fake anti-gamers. They can’t admit the fact that game is a scam created by known scammers which a true anti-gamer does.
I saw a comment on another blog about whether (Roissyite) game does better than a placebo. This is a very good question. Comparisons to placebo are done because taking a placebo is doing something. It creates an apples to apples comparison to see if whatever you’re testing actually works or if the results you are getting just come from the act of doing something regardless of that thing is.
What happens when you compare (Roissyite) game to taking a placebo? It’s worse, a lot worse. We all know how (Roissyite) gamers fail to get laid. Their rates of success are so low that is would be well below taking a placebo. That means that they would get laid more by taking placebos than game. Anything other than game is more likely to get you laid than game.
This is also why (Roissyite) gamers refuse to experimentally test game and reject science in general. An actual scientific experiment testing (Roissyite) game would show that it doesn’t work and is worse than taking a placebo.
This isn’t limited to (Roissyite) game either. All dating advice would should the same result of being worse than taking a placebo if tested in a scientific experiment. This should not shock anyone since all dating advice is a vehicle for misandry and not actually improving your results in dating and relationships.
One of the top ways that the MDAD (Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction) tricks men is by deceiving men into thinking women have it just as bad as them in some different but equal way. This is the case with the “men can get relationships easier” myth. With that myth, what happens is that men notice women can get laid easier, but women try to trick men into thinking that men can get relationships easier. However, if you aren’t having sex then you aren’t having a relationship (i.e. there is no such thing as a sexless relationship if you’re neither young nor a religious fundamentalist) so since it’s harder for men to get laid, it is also harder for men to get relationships.
We see something similar when it comes to rejection. Men will point out how they have to deal with most of all the rejection that happens. (This is because men are in the position of having to initiate with women instead of the other way around.) In response to this, women will try to trick men by pointing out that women have to “wait” to get asked out, making “not getting asked out” a form of “rejection”. In other words, men and women are equally rejected just in different ways. Even if you buy that (and you shouldn’t), it still falls apart for women. If “not getting asked out” is a form of rejection, then men are still getting rejected more, even more so than if that wasn’t considered “rejection”. Since women don’t ask out men for the most part, this means that most men are getting even more rejection than the explicit rejections than they already get.
No matter how women try to apply mental gymnastics to the idea of “rejection”, reality has the last word. The reality of the situation is that men have to deal with rejection way more than women do. No matter how the definition of “rejection” is changed, it still ends up being true.
I wish I could take credit for this idea, but I can’t. I found it of all places at The Castrated Men Project. (Even at The Castrated Men Project where you wouldn’t expect men to fight back against feminism, there are men disagreeing with the feminist agenda. This example of male commentors standing up to gynocentric thinking isn’t unique at the site.)