Slut Hate

I started having a large number of views from a site called Slut Hate, so thought to have a look. It is a forum for would-be PUAs.

“Pick-up artists”, in case you did not know. I did not understand the thread at first, but it seems Stirner is getting at a character called “Norwood Cemetery” by claiming that photos of me expressing myself female are photos of Norwood Cemetery, and also implying that the claim is as accurate as those of Norwood Cemetery about Stirner.

SlutHate is a vision of Hell: people being horrible and alone. They try to trick women and imagine the women are victims rather than playing their own games, and they bitch at each other. I thought of commenting, “Oh, you are such lovely boys! You must get laid so much that you have to join a web site to try and learn how to get laid!”

I joined, actually, and had a private message from someone: “chimp chump nigga”, which I think is insulting. I thanked him for his lovely welcome.

Then someone suggested that my features indicate I am a “Slayer”- an alpha male who gets laid a lot. They have a lot of jargon like that: hypergamy is dating above your league, and they give this insane explanation- note the mimicry of rationality: When women practice genetic hypergamy, this often leads to pregnancy. The good looking guy who impregnated the woman leaves her, so the woman now needs a source of income to care for her child, so she resorts to financial hypergamy. In other words, she marries the wealthiest man she can get. She then uses this beta provider’s money to care for her child she had from another man. Oh, do they? Really? Never marry, obviously: you would be being fooled and exploited, and get only illusions in return.

I suggested they look at another page of mine, which of course stopped their interest. They only look if they imagine they are being mean to someone.

Consider the names of the members on-line when I last looked:

Aristocracy, bennyb, Bing [Bot], Clare, gandytime, gold, Google [Bot], Icecutter101, Jack_the_raper, John Rambo, MiddleChild, Nightporter, OmegaKV, Perfectionist, PinV, Severe Aspie, ThereIsNoGame, thereturnofabulldog, Yahoo [Bot]

“Jack_the_raper”? Seriously? Some might be pitiable, some moderately clever with repartee, but some of these blokes are really nasty. Or just want to be seen that way, as a oneupmanship inexplicable to me.

Rules: Encouraging homicidal behaviour is prohibited
Any content that obviously and not out of jests advocates for suicide or the harming of another person. Saving for philosophically in depth thoughts on the subject
.

What do you think? Are they all as vile as they affect to be?

Ingres, Marie Marcotte

93 thoughts on “Slut Hate

    • I wonder how you eluded the spam filter. Oh well. Anyone giving a moment to wondering whether your description of me is other than insane need only consider any other page of this blog. My comment policy is, “Don’t bore me”, generally, but I have no problem with letting you show off your idiocy, now this post has had most of its views. Few people will get as far as your drivellings.

      Like

      • Clare, I have no problem with showing my intelligence as well if I am not censored. I am wondering how and if the idiot who made those accusations against me will respond. If he does you can bet dollars to doughnuts it will be something completely batshit.

        Like

        • Would that be the Krispy Kreme Original glazed doughnut, at 99c?

          “Intelligence”. Um. It has some value, I suppose, but in your case it gets in the way of you playing nicely, co-operating, having any chance of persuading anyone who was not entirely in agreement with you beforehand, or achieving anything beyond giving the kiwifarmers a good giggle.

          Like

            • You see, no-one is a “mental patient like them”. Every person is an individual. I have known people sectioned under the mental health act, and people living at home with schizophrenia: all were individuals. Some could have been convinced of some things, some not.

              Like

            • I think it is pretty obvious what I meant. My goal wasn’t to insult people with mental illness. It was to insults monsters so indoctrinated that they hate all but those who they were told not to hate.

              Like

            • I praised it that way for they are crazy, just in another way. As for your second sentence, I don’t agree. Most of them even here said the same mushy bullshit that meant nothing.

              Like

  1. @Anonymous Sumerian Monarch

    You never explain why I am what you claim I am.
    Incel is much more than sex in sane societies and to sane people. Not so to modern Western women, who see anything but being raped and their eyes cut out a crime.
    Need for relationships, sex and procreation is one the basic human needs. You have no empathy for that, you have no empathy for [offensive word removed] who’ll massacre women in thousands due to policies you support, and then you accuse incels of having no empathy for others based on what? Nothing.

    Like

  2. Also, Sumerian, regarding that nonsense about genetics – when I treated with with [sic; “women with”?] respect like my forefathers did I was hated by them.

    When I impregnated a schizophrenic woman, realized consent is a liberal lie and other things I was more successful. You do the math.

    [Oh God! This is a boast about raping someone! I had thought he could be no more repellant!]

    Like

    • Clare, raping? These people, including you, are supporting things like seduction and women’s suffrage. These are the greatest evils in the history of the world. Raping women, even chaste women, is like spitting on the sidewalk compared to that.

      [Again, YUCK. Rape is rape. That rape of “chaste” women might be worse than other rape- ]

      Like

          • “The British House of Commons was democratically elected”- in 1776? Such ignorance! 60% of men did not get the vote in GB until 1918!

            government law is primarily designed to govern men and to prohibit certain typical male behaviors. Typical bad female behavior is rarely if ever regulated by the government. So what governs women? My answer is primarily peer pressure and cultural norms. Women are more social than men are, and are more sensitive to social pressure. Social pressure is not enough to make men behave, men must face the threat of punishment to control their behavior. But for women, social shaming is enough to regulate most behavior. What of taxes, infrastructure, education, health…. Government is far more than criminal law.

            men evolved to have the right instincts for governing. In particular, men have a strong sense of fairness, of loyalty to a group, and an instinct to protect everyone, including women and children, in the group. Women have none of these instincts. Women developed instincts suited to their role in primitive tribes, which was primarily focused on the family and on personal connections. Women excel in these areas, none of which have anything to do with good governance. The extreme difference between men and women is obvious to anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed by feminism. Consider how a man reacts to a woman crying out in distress compared to how a woman would react to a man crying out in distress. With her nurturing instinct, perhaps, checking for injury, making sure he is alright?

            “Women will vote for men who they would date.” So what about female candidates? Perhaps they get the lesbian vote!

            BTW, I am not in favour of seduction, but of long term relationships.

            Like

  3. “Such ignorance! 60% of men did not get the vote in GB until 1918!”

    So your definition of democracy is that everybody gets to vote? Was Ancient Athens a democracy? You do know that large portions of the population there couldn’t vote for elected leaders?

    “What of taxes, infrastructure, education, health…. Government is far more than criminal law.”

    He is talking about criminal law there. Why would he need to speak about everything? Seems like a red herring, dear.

    “With her nurturing instinct, perhaps, checking for injury, making sure he is alright?”

    In the case of a grown man a woman permanently loses sexual interest for him in that case.

    “So what about female candidates? Perhaps they get the lesbian vote!”

    I don’t know, but they shouldn’t be in politics anyway.

    Like

    • Well, art is not evidence, but the plot of “Back to the Future” turns on a young woman being attracted to a man because she sees him the victim of an accident.

      Before the Reform Act 1867, only one million of the seven million adult males in England and Wales could vote. Before the Reform Act 1832, there were “pocket boroughs” where the local landowner could get the candidate he wanted elected, and “Rotten boroughs” where the population was small, so had a disproportionate influence.

      Women politicians? Margaret Thatcher?

      Like

      • Back to the Future is 80s cheese and certainly no evidence of anything but that 80s seem goofy now.

        I explained the voters thing above.

        As for Margaret Thatcher, I do like her, yes, but I don’t think women are generally good in politics . Best societies in history (coalpha societies) were ruled by a group of men.

        Like

        • You did not explain, merely denied. During the 4th century BC, there might well have been some 250,000–300,000 people in Attica. Citizen families could have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 would have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. So about a third of adult males. A better democracy than the oligarchies, of course, but talk to the slaves about how fair it was.

          Attracted to vulnerability.

          Like

          • “You did not explain, merely denied.”

            What is this pertaining to? This democracy thing? Ok, so you don’t see Ancient Athens as a real democracy. Or any democracy. fschmidt does.

            Is that it?

            Like

            • To summarise, the article you linked is ignorant and, to use your elegant phraseology, “batshit crazy”.

              No, Britain was not a democracy in 1776. With the franchise a tiny minority, pocket and rotten boroughs, the influence of the House of Lords and the King, restrictions on religious non-conformists, and sedition laws, Britain was not democratic.

              Women do not respond differently to male suffering from the male response to female suffering, sufficiently to deny women the vote.

              Women may not be so often punished by the criminal law, but (except for black men in America) a tiny minority of people are incarcerated. The democratic interest in criminal law is the protection we receive from it, as well as the restrictions we suffer. Women have an interest in all other activities of Government.

              By all means read rubbish like that, divorced from reality, and even contribute to it, refining the words expressing the idiocy, agreeing with other fuckwits. I let you comment here to exhibit your maladies, for the entertainment and derision of sane people. I begin to sympathise with the kiwifarmers.

              Like

            • Hi. I’ll reply to this a bit later since I gotta go now. Thank you for at least making some arguments instead of just insulting me, posting some bs doxx I set up years ago myself and lying about me.

              Like

Go on, you know you want to

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s