Thread: OwenWentFullMGTOW

I suppose you're wondering why Owens posts are all edited down to Mickey giving us the finger. If you want to know who the dumbass responsible is, that would be me.

Owen and rookie Spooky had words. It was over nothing, but in the process Owens judgement of women was questioned. Now saying this to a Chad is like telling a Champion racer he can't drive. I wouldn't go there. But Spookys a rookie, and had no idea Owens a Chad or that he would take it as an insult. But he apparently did and pushed the button.

While Spooky could have been more brotherly, Owen's previous post wasn't exactly neighborly either. I didn't see it as either one really doing anything wrong.

Owen figures me letting Spooky slide as selective enforcement of the rules. Hell of it is, I don't blame him for looking at it that way. But I'm not busting a rookie for something he didn't know he was doing. Least not this time.

frog, you and I saw the referenced exchange between them the other day and there was nothing from either of them that rose to the level of a Principles violation. Someone wrote something that looked to me like it was not intended to be taken personally but that's what happened. Owen took it personally and messaged us with language trying to force us to make a choice between keeping only one of them as members.

Well, right there he's either still in the throes of being upset or is just flat out unfair to demand that. I don't know Owen to be either way, angry or unfair. We cannot honor such a demand on its face and especially from someone who is in the middle of being angry or is being unfair. We will first check out the situation.

As a result of not honoring his demand, I see that Owen has since chosen to leave the site and in an ungraceful way. He has updated his most recent 100 posts to place in them an identical message directed against the other member. That is an odd thing to do and a bit disturbing for the level of anger driving the time and effort involved to do that. Plus, he added that avatar of Mickey flipping the bird which appears in all of his 400+ posts, as avatars do. Whether that avatar is directed towards one member or towards all of us collectively, who can know for sure. All that in response to Spooky's message that, if anything, was ambiguous in its innocence. But with these actions, Owen crossed the line into trolling the site as well as unambiguously targeting a member. For these reasons I have perma-banned him and, btw, that will nicely remove his unfriendly avatar from view.

**

While I think Owen's reaction was excessive, I suppose it doesn't hurt to mention at this time to everybody reading this that with so many different personalities here, it is always good to keep in mind how we say the things we say to each other. Don't hard-tease someone with whom you have not already established a rapport (unless you know the skill of encasing your tease with the ameliorating emojis, LOLs, and buddy-up language). If comments intended for you sound ambiguous, know that words can be read in more than one way and give the benefit of the doubt as it is highly likely no harm was intended. Really. If someone responds negatively to anything you say, don't shove back but instead smooth it over. Occasionally, spats do happen that fall short of a Principles violation but they can iron out by themselves and without mod intervention.

A member can click the Report button anytime a Principles violation is seen.

If you knew Owen was a Chad and had said something like this, I figure that would be a warning for insulting other members. But being banned is unlikely.

If one can't shed insults like water off a duck in downpour, then they have no business on the internet!

Go ahead, call me stupid, say I'm dumb, abuse me all you want, get mad and punch out your LCD computer screen wishing it was me!

Well Tower, I reckon we all have something buried in the back of our minds that would best left alone, and Spooky found it. For the first time in Owens life, like as not. He sure lost it.

Spookys alright, I like him so far.

We have a Spooky?

Missed all of this but it's sad when a site that already has few members loses one over something silly like this.

What a crying shame. Owen was a shining star but temper tantrums can't be tolerated. I am of the mindset "The forum comes before any member ".

Owen acted childish by editing his posts to harass another member. Flame wars turn forums to shit. We are all welcome to voice our opinions within the rules of course and have other members debate us in a reasonable manner.
There are times I got super pissed but I willingly left the site for a few days to calm down.

I am sad to see Owen go but disrupting the forum can never be tolerated.

Originally Posted by Kryptic

We have a Spooky?

Missed all of this but it's sad when a site that already has few members loses one over something silly like this.

That's racist! Ha ha, just kidding, but really it is! Think about it...

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

He has updated his most recent 100 posts to place in them an identical message directed against the other member.

Wow.

Changing an avatar or a signature would reflect in all previous posts. It would take little time and effort, but to individually change 100 posts is… I’ll leave it there.

Like others I didn’t catch the spat and I still don’t really know what happened, nor do I care. I used to read every post on this site but my life has changed and I just don’t have the time now.

I trust the mods here; they do a fantastic job and do it with aplomb.

Originally Posted by mgtower

That's racist! Ha ha, just kidding, but really it is! Think about it...

No, that remark is racist cuz it racist to call another racist unless the racist being called out as a racist is actually being a racist.

Shit! I’m confused again!

What’s a racist again?

Originally Posted by Jackoff

No, that remark is racist cuz it racist to call another racist unless the racist being called out as a racist is actually being a racist.

Shit! I’m confused again!

What’s a racist again?

It's easy being a racist these days, even if you don't hate anyone, all you have to do is be white and you're automatically a racist!

See how that works?

Gee, now I'm confused...

Whoa that was unexpected... I've just came back from a trip and the very first thing I see is this. I've always considered his posts solid, especially the one regarding single mothers and their preadtory tactics.

I've made an extra effort to find the exact comment that lit the fuse. "I hate to burst your bubble, but she was looking to maximise her tip by feeding your ego.".

It reminds me an old buddhist tale about two monks that have made a sacred vow not to touch women. They travel towards a sacred mountain when halfway they meet a woman that needs help. She wants to cross a river but the current is too strong. The older monk without hesitation offers help and carries her to the other bank. Then they leave her there. After some time the younger monk can no longer suppress his anger and asks - "Why did you carry that woman? We've made a sacred vow that you've broken".

"I set the woman down two hours ago down the river. Why are you still carrying her?"

Idk if this is the right place and time but imo this is the handbook example of the very trap that any bachelor is prone to.
And this is making "being attractive to women" your identity.

What does it mean? Well, you are no longer bachelor if women don't want you. You subconsciously seek validation from women as your very identity depends on it. That's why you freak out if anyone undermines even in the slightest that women want you. I've seen many men fall into this trap. Most PUA's display such behaviour. They freak out when anyone tries to undermine that either women want them or that those women are valuable women.

The reality is that women are irrelevant. A man is judged not by his "attractiveness" but by the merit. His value is not defined by the ammount of women he is able to attract. The real value comes within. It is intrinsic.

We've all judged Owen by his merits. And they were truly impressive. That's why it's especially sad that he departed, and even more, that in such a manner.

Originally Posted by bazalgette

Well, you are no longer bachelor if women don't want you.

I'd never have considered this and it's a point well made.

A PUA transitioning to INCEL? That must be some kind of weird freakish hell for them.

Originally Posted by bazalgette

What does it mean? Well, you are no longer bachelor if women don't want you. You subconsciously seek validation from women as your very identity depends on it. That's why you freak out if anyone undermines even in the slightest that women want you. I've seen many men fall into this trap. Most PUA's display such behaviour. They freak out when anyone tries to undermine that either women want them or that those women are valuable women.

The reality is that women are irrelevant. A man is judged not by his "attractiveness" but by the merit. His value is not defined by the ammount of women he is able to attract. The real value comes within. It is intrinsic.

We've all judged Owen by his merits. And they were truly impressive. That's why it's especially sad that he departed, and even more, that in such a manner.

Women are relevant and literally decide your fate in the real world. If they don't want you then it's game over. Other women will HATE you and deem you beta and guys will harass you with no mercy. People look down on single men and think there is something wrong with them. I have mentioned my 60-something neighbor who constantly goes on about "smashing and pussy". We have gotten into arguments because he won't stop harassing me. Nobody is going to believe the "I like my freedom", "Mgtow monk/ghost", etc stuff. They will just consider you abnormal and/or gay. Personally I don't give a flying turkey. If you are not feeding me and paying my bills then you can F**K off.

I said it once and I will say it again on here. I have been a moderator at many sites through out the years. I have seen members come and go. Sometimes out of nowhere a member does a personality change and ends up getting banned. I don't know if it's something in their personal life or what but nobody needs to take what is said on here personally unless it's threats.

I wish Owen the best.

It reminds me an old buddhist tale about two monks that have made a sacred vow not to touch women. They travel towards a sacred mountain when halfway they meet a woman that needs help. She wants to cross a river but the current is too strong. The older monk without hesitation offers help and carries her to the other bank. Then they leave her there. After some time the younger monk can no longer suppress his anger and asks - "Why did you carry that woman? We've made a sacred vow that you've broken".

"I set the woman down two hours ago down the river. Why are you still carrying her?"

Yikes, that is one manipulative monk. Why make agreements if you can't talk about when they are broken?

Husband: "Why did you fuck that man? We've made a sacred vow that you've broken."

Wife: I stopped fucking him 2 weeks ago. Why are you still carrying on about it?

Husband: Oh, that's right. The monk parable. My bad."



I'd tell that monk, "Look, Kwai Chang, don't give me your bullshit play on words, like that's supposed to let you break your word. Fine. Tonight, I'm having some babes at the monastery along with a little toot I've been saving up so if you hear any noise tonight at our sacred mountain well you just had better keep your reaction in your robe or take it down to the river!"

Well, it is a very old tale about letting go - something that Owen wasn't able to do. My point was that he chose the way of younger monk even though said comment was not only valid observation but also not ill willed.

I agree with you point though - sometimes betrayal can't be forgiven. There are oaths written in sand and there are oaths written in blood - the sacred kind.
Betrayal doesn't warrant anger though.
Letting go doesn't mean forgiveness.
Foregiveness doesn't mean lack of consequences.

The point of this tale is the emotional response of the younger monk. Were not for his anger, the tale would probably have a different ending - the one where the act of betrayal is not overlooked.

"Bullshit" - you may say. Well, how many times have you seen such behavior from women? They try to trigger emotional response and upon succeeding, any of their wrongdoings are irrelevant.

If you look closely, the tale of two monks is a cautionary tale. Emotions make you prone to mainipulation. You make grave mistakes, irrational decisions just because you weren't able to supress your emotion.

YES - this is hella manipulative monk. And in this tale he probably won. Like many women that use the exact lines you've quoted, younger monk was probably roped back in.

He wouldn't though if he went his own way instead of succumbing to his anger.

Originally Posted by bazalgette

... imo this is the handbook example of the very trap that any bachelor is prone to.
And this is making "being attractive to women" your identity.

What does it mean? Well, you are no longer bachelor if women don't want you. You subconsciously seek validation from women as your very identity depends on it. That's why you freak out if anyone undermines even in the slightest that women want you. I've seen many men fall into this trap. Most PUA's display such behaviour. They freak out when anyone tries to undermine that either women want them or that those women are valuable women.

Yes, I agree. I've always thought that the essence of MGTOW -- the thing that differentiates it from every other position (trad-con, blue pill, PUA, etc.) is that we don't seek women's validation, or at least we seek it much less than other men. When you're MGTOW, women's validation (does she like me? does she find me attractive?) is fairly irrelevant.

I'm not saying it's a complete non-factor. The desire to be liked by people is a normal human motivation, and women are people, so wanting to be liked by them, at some level, is normal -- especially when it comes to female family members or friends. But in general, as a rule, MGTOW care much less about validation from women than do other men (trad-cons, PUAs, "blue pill," etc.).

So if you get rabidly triggered by the suggestion that you are not as well-liked by women as you imagine yourself to be -- as Owen apparently did -- then it points to a weakness in your MGTOW game. Why does it matter so much to you, whether women find you attractive and desirable? Why do you care so much what they think of you?

This is one of the downsides of being a Chad. Your identity and self-esteem get wrapped up in women's positive response to you. And if someone punctures that balloon, uh oh.

Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell

So if you get rabidly triggered by the suggestion that you are not as well-liked by women as you imagine yourself to be -- as Owen apparently did -- then it points to a weakness in your MGTOW game. Why does it matter so much to you, whether women find you attractive and desirable? Why do you care so much what they think of you?

This is one of the downsides of being a Chad. Your identity and self-esteem get wrapped up in women's positive response to you. And if someone punctures that balloon, uh oh.

At first, I thought it was just an expert having his judgement questioned. But that by itself don't seem like enough to get the reaction it did. You guys might be on to something, not that it matters anymore.

Most real-life Chads I've known had rather shallow personalities, much like the women they're constantly hustling. But Owen was different.

Originally Posted by frog

At first, I thought it was just an expert having his judgement questioned. But that by itself don't seem like enough to get the reaction it did. You guys might be on to something, not that it matters anymore.

Most real-life Chads I've known had rather shallow personalities, much like the women they're constantly hustling. But Owen was different.

Shallow personalities? The ones I've known have low IQ and were psychopaths! Their willingness to fuck doesn't stop at gender!