Is this an accurate description of the manosphere?

[PAG@]

I haven't really been following it as of late...

<link removed>

What is the Manosphere?
The manosphere is an informal network of US based blogs, forums and websites where commentators focus on issues relating to women, white supremacy, conspiracy theories and sex. It is characterized by angry rants and men pointing the finger at others, and away from themselves.
The manosphere can be effectively divided into two rivaling fractions: Right-wing male supremacist vs. left-wing male feminist. The thing that ties these groups together is their collective idiocy, obsession with females and mental illness. Most men, and most women do not listen to such gibberish. The ones who promote it and follow it are a lunatic fringe going to such lengths because they command no respect in the real world and the opposite gender wants nothing to do with them. In this post, we'll take a closer look at this black hole of idiocy.
Who are these people?
While most are heterosexual white males on the autism spectrum. You also have a small number of subservient Orientals, off-putting east Indians and self-hating blacks. Manosphere people are the lowest of the low in the sexual market. Unattractive, uneducated, mentally ill and basic. In their high school days they weren't getting the girl on the cheerleading squad or invited to socials by hot girls and they're pissed about it. Discussions are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, self-loathing, misogyny, racism and a sense of entitlement to sex.

 

[Modern Man Advice]

Haha nope. Technically that is not an accurate description of the "Manosphere". Far from it.

However, the OP is not wrong. He is simply writing his perspective and experience of the manosphere.

I get his sentiment, but to put it simply, his article is just a rant about the current state of the Manosphere.

 

[NoBiscuits]

No. This article is an upper middle class hit piece designed to associate something they dislike with established "bad people" keywords.

I knew from the first paragraph in that the article would just be another hand-waving and psychologizing away a decade's worth of conversations as a brand of "lesser people."

To see what I mean, see this from the article:

The bottom 20% of whites (in brains/looks/talent/character) are accustomed to being subsidized by the other 80% and now they face competition from other groups. That is all there is to WN i.e. limiting competition

Look at this language. The author claims:
1. Members of the manosphere are beneath him
2. The men in the manosphere need him and his class because 1.
3. They are losers. They are [bad keyword]. They have to cheat to survive. BadBadBad UglyUglyUgly because 1.
4. I, a superior and educated member of society, proclaim these men are justified to struggle because they are 3.

It's charged language designed to make you feel emotional. We've all seen this before. The author's background says he's Polish, but he is indistinguishable from any American yuppy, or woke Swede, or German feminist, or Jewish NGO founder. This article could have come from a Mongolian author in Oxford and still read exactly the same. Nothing new or worth engaging with.

What is always implied by the publisher but also left out of the audience reaction to these hit pieces is the presumption that the author is completely right. Let's look at this point again:

The bottom 20% of whites (in brains/looks/talent/character) are accustomed to being subsidized by the other 80% and now they face competition from other groups. That is all there is to WN i.e. limiting competition

Ok, What if we grant him the talking point and just accept his words as valid for a minute. One-fifth of his group have their resources under threat by other groups. Right. So now what? Are you going to prevent other groups from taking away their resources or not? What is the author's point here?

It's like feminists who say "A man doesn't feel secure in a relationship where he's not the breadwinner!"
Yes. That's correct. Men will feel inadequate and the relationship will fail. You know this. So... why are you encouraging women to out-earn their men?

Also. Why is this OP's first post? Are we about to get astroturfed? Why do I have the feeling that many of my posts are about to get toned policed and insulted by brand new accounts?

 

[obelisk]

New member who doesn't even provide his opinion on the article linked. Dubious at best.

This is yet another hit piece by the elitist who hold sway and power over the collective narrative. Why would you ever take anything that they say at face value and not seriously question their underlying motives? It is designed to further disenfranchise, denigrate and demean men at the expense of feminism and established liberal, progressive power structures. Their fear is the man who with clarity of mind steps out of the bucket of crabs and refuses to be pulled back into it.

Nobody wants men to follow a path of objective self-improvement based on observation (ie praxeology) rather than ideology.

 

[PAG@]

No. This article is an upper middle class hit piece designed to associate something they dislike with established "bad people" keywords.

I knew from the first paragraph in that the article would just be another hand-waving and psychologizing away a decade's worth of conversations as a brand of "lesser people."

To see what I mean, see this from the article:


Look at this language. The author claims:
1. Members of the manosphere are beneath him
2. The men in the manosphere need him and his class because 1.
3. They are losers. They are [bad keyword]. They have to cheat to survive. BadBadBad UglyUglyUgly because 1.
4. I, a superior and educated member of society, proclaim these men are justified to struggle because they are 3.

It's charged language designed to make you feel emotional. We've all seen this before. The author's background says he's Polish, but he is indistinguishable from any American yuppy, or woke Swede, or German feminist, or Jewish NGO founder. This article could have come from a Mongolian author in Oxford and still read exactly the same. Nothing new or worth engaging with.

What is always implied by the publisher but also left out of the audience reaction to these hit pieces is the presumption that the author is completely right. Let's look at this point again:


Ok, What if we grant him the talking point and just accept his words as valid for a minute. One-fifth of his group have their resources under threat by other groups. Right. So now what? Are you going to prevent other groups from taking away their resources or not? What is the author's point here?

It's like feminists who say "A man doesn't feel secure in a relationship where he's not the breadwinner!"
Yes. That's correct. Men will feel inadequate and the relationship will fail. You know this. So... why are you encouraging women to out-earn their men?

Also. Why is this OP's first post? Are we about to get astroturfed? Why do I have the feeling that many of my posts are about to get toned policed and insulted by brand new accounts?

I have yet to peruse your another posts

 

[NoBiscuits]

This is an astroturfed account who is now trying to dox me.

About Us from the website he linked
<link removed>


Another forum discussing how the founder, Shawn Blake, creates sock puppet accounts and astroturfs other forums.
https://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43931

Same forum referring to the founder as "PAG" in all caps, just like OP's username.
https://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=43879&start=60

OP threw multiple bait questions at me. I'm quoting the article but he claims I'm discussing, justifying, and identifying as "white supremacy." OP then says he will read my previous posts. OP doesn't appear to know anything about this forum or Manosphere talking points in general.

God, what an amateur.

Edit: He edited his post to remove it. The style of writing in his previous post does not match the writing style of the post he made below.

 

[PAG@]

It is designed to further disenfranchise, denigrate and demean men at the expense of feminism and established liberal, progressive power structures.

Very well, let us attempt this with you. Regrettably, it appears that the other individual is being persecuted by unknown forces or lacks significant cognitive abilities.

What is the reason behind the widespread criticism of feminism, liberal ideologies, and progressive power structures? It appears that they are equipping you for the future. It is anticipated that a considerable number of global governments will embrace Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a result of the extensive utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT. These advancements have the ability to devalue human labor. It is anticipated that the adoption of this technology will result in a substantial decrease in the amount of labor hours needed by humans, while also providing universal availability of vital resources like food, water, and electricity for no expense. ChatGPT and Large Language Models symbolize the preliminary indications of a significant event, akin to the early waves that precede the imminent approach of a tsunami. The emergence of superhuman artificial intelligence (AGI) is anticipated to catalyze a significant transformation in the course of human history. This critical juncture will symbolize the shift from humans being perceived as the most cognitively advanced species on the planet to a conceivable situation in which the preservation of human existence may be at risk. This phenomena is usually denoted as the *Singularity* within academic discourse.

What exactly does Singularity entail? You'll be able to change your sex, color, height, etc with just a shot of nano bots. I see a lot of people getting sex from robots or living out their days in synthetic virtual environments. We are approaching a point in time, likely within the next ten years, where computers will possess the capability to generate a synthetic virtual world that includes a DNA simulator for various organisms, including animals, viruses, bacteria, fungus, and the intricate interplay of genetic codes within them. It is possible that the development of a highly advanced simulator, comparable to the level depicted in the Matrix, may need a time frame of approximately twenty years, during which meticulous attention to detail and the incorporation of complex energy dynamics would be necessary.

It appears that many people in the manosphere are outdated dinosaurs, firmly entrenched in antiquated views?

 

[NoBiscuits]

My post to test it:


OP's last post:


Post OP linked to:

 

[PAG@]

I wonder why they keep editing my post here? It's pretty funny. I can write in many different styles It's called being educated:

---edited (moderator)

What is the basis for the widespread critique of feminism, liberal ideology, and progressive power structures? It looks they are preparing you for the future. It is expected that a large number of worldwide governments will support Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a result of the widespread use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT. These developments have the potential to devalue human labor. It is expected that the implementation of this technology will result in a significant reduction in the number of labor hours required by people, while also enabling universal access to critical resources such as food, water, and electricity for no cost. ChatGPT and Large Language Models represent the early signs of a significant occurrence, similar to the early waves that precede the arrival of a tsunami. The arrival of superhuman artificial intelligence (AGI) is expected to trigger a dramatic upheaval in human history. This key juncture will represent the transition from humans being regarded as the most cognitively advanced species on the planet to a possible scenario in which human survival is threatened. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the *Singularity* in academic discourse.

What does Singularity entail? You will be able to change your gender, color, height, and other characteristics with a single dose of nano bots. I see many people having sex with robots or spending their days in synthetic virtual settings. We are approaching a point in time, most likely within the next ten years, when computers will be able to generate a synthetic virtual world that includes a DNA simulator for various organisms such as animals, viruses, bacteria, and fungi, as well as the intricate interplay of genetic codes within them. It is feasible that the building of a highly advanced simulator, equal to the level shown in the Matrix, will take around twenty years, requiring great attention to detail and the addition of intricate energy dynamics.

It appears that many members in the manosphere are dinosaurs with archaic beliefs.

 

[PAG@]

Oh snap!

 

[Black Widow Void]

OP
Though the theories that you've expressed are not inconceivable, they currently remain inconclusive.

It would appear that on some level, you realize that you are giving blind allegiance to speculation. This would explain your blatant need to overcompensate (focusing more on veiled insults to forum members - than confidently defending your initial assertions).

Consider yourself fortunate. So far, your comments (the antagonistic parts) have only been edited. If you continue to violate forum rules, further measures will follow.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

If you continue to violate forum rules, further measures will follow.

 

[PAG@]

OP
Though the theories that you've expressed are not inconceivable, they currently remain inconclusive.

It would appear that on some level, you realize that you are giving blind allegiance to speculation. This would explain your blatant need to overcompensate (focusing more on veiled insults to forum members - than confidently defending your initial assertions).

Consider yourself fortunate. So far, your comments (the antagonistic parts) have only been edited. If you continue to violate forum rules, further measures will follow.

Dear Moderator, before I seriously reply to you, what is your educational background and income, again? I'm just a multimillionaire tech entrepreneur with a 180 IQ and male model good looks. Nothing unusual for forum like this...

I'm literally sitting here with one of my model girlfriends, drinking tea. I don't understand what you mean by overcompensating. I asked a question, and folks here are attempting to deflect.

 

[Black Widow Void]

I don't understand what you mean by overcompensating

While your below comments may have been an attempt to validate yourself, you actually supplied the examples to your above question.

I'm just a multimillionaire tech entrepreneur with a 180 IQ and male model good looks. Nothing unusual for forum like this...

I'm literally sitting here with one of my model girlfriends, drinking tea. .

 

[NoBiscuits]

Oh snap!

View attachment 12029

You altered the text until the tool showed it as mostly human. My post that used the original text can be read by everyone who wants to compare it to see which was the real post. Your original post with the unaltered text is still up. So is the post with the altered text...in the same thread. Like, right there. In front of everyone.

 

[PAG@]

While your below comments may have been an attempt to validate yourself, you actually supplied the examples to your above question.

This is merely an evasion tactic and a sloppy effort to gain an advantage. You asserted that my statement was an uncritical adherence to conjecture. What is your educational and experiential foundation that qualifies you to assert such a statement? What are your credentials? Have you amassed a fortune by investing in technology? Are you familiar with the concept of the law of accelerating returns? You claim that my confident defense of my arguments and my tendency to categorize nonsense while disregarding stupidity is an example of overcompensation. Really? The individual specifically discussed the section in the article that examined the mentality of white nationalists and constructed his entire case around it. Prior to making any assumptions, I inquired directly whether he identified as a white nationalist. In response, he became defensive, claiming that he was being doxed. I chose to disregard his remarks, much like I would ignore homeless individuals asking for spare change. Instead, I turned my attention to the other person involved. At this point, he began asserting that writing in a formal manner is equivalent to using chat GPT and proceeded to share images.

 

[PAG@]

You altered the text until the tool showed it as mostly human. My post that used the original text can be read by everyone who wants to compare it to see which was the real post. Your original post with the unaltered text is still up. So is the post with the altered text...in the same thread. Like, right there. In front of everyone.

Blah, the tool you utilized identifies the formal utilization of language as "potentially" content generated by artificial intelligence. English encompasses various writing styles, including formal, casual, academic, and business. It appears that you did not finish high school

 

[Millard Fillmore]

Who do you guys like in the Super Bowl? San Francisco seems pretty well rounded, but never count out Mahomes.

 

[Black Widow Void]

Hello forum members,

Just a heads up. I’ve said before that we have some forum members masquerading as something they aren’t.

If I (an internet stranger) can get the below quoted forum member into such a tizzy, then let this serve as an example.

This is merely an evasion tactic and a sloppy effort to gain an advantage. You asserted that my statement was an uncritical adherence to conjecture. What is your educational and experiential foundation that qualifies you to assert such a statement? What are your credentials? Have you amassed a fortune by investing in technology? Are you familiar with the concept of the law of accelerating returns? You claim that my confident defense of my arguments and my tendency to categorize nonsense while disregarding stupidity is an example of overcompensation. Really? The individual specifically discussed the section in the article that examined the mentality of white nationalists and constructed his entire case around it. Prior to making any assumptions, I inquired directly whether he identified as a white nationalist. In response, he became defensive, claiming that he was being doxed. I chose to disregard his remarks, much like I would ignore homeless individuals asking for spare change. Instead, I turned my attention to the other person involved. At this point, he began asserting that writing in a formal manner is equivalent to using chat GPT and proceeded to share images.