Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1. #21
    Junior Member Dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    8
    Reputation
    70
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by mgtower View Post
    I posted this thread for inspection and clarification of the "what's in it for me?" mindset to extrapolate its true meaning and most important, VALUE.

    Who has this mindset and which version do they, we, I, or you possess?

    Do you possess its narcissistic version or it's humility version?

    I'll explain simply by rephrasing it to it's kinder, gentler, and warmer side.

    The humble person asks?; "what am I in for?" meaning pragmatic assessments to avoid casting ones pears before the swine, and that I believe is the "what's in it for me" version most MGTOW possess, a cautionary yet optimistic approach to one's path in life and personal desire to avoid hardships with unnecessary and undue suffering.

    In the most sinister version; the sociopathic narcissist asks "what's in it for me", the way a shark smells blood in the water.



    Which "what's in it for me" version do you believe you follow in the annex and context of MGTOW, and which side of the line do you stand on, and where does one draw that line?

    I'll admit I've crossed the line of selfishness many times, however each time motivated by the cannibalistic nature of my surroundings and the suffering of losses in such an environment.

    Think about it, lemme know what you think? Personally, I'm tired of being considered "selfish" for a cautionary approach to the most wild of the wild animals, the human animal, but under social laws and constructs that oppress thee, relegating ye under the weaker of the species.
    We live in a pond of male sharks and female orcas. You can try to be humble outwardly for the purpose of machiavellism, i.e. keeping your image positive to others. But other than that there is negative incentive to be humble about anything.

    Humans in general are more emotional beings than rational, including all men.
    Men have the problem that they pride themselves on being able to reason. Women don't need reason, they have a rationality that is far more powerful within a civilized society, which is ME FIRST. Men who pride themselves on their ability to reason are essentially proud that they are able to cuck themselves better by working for the sake of others, like the family, woman, child, country, company and so on.

    If men thought more like women, i.e. more akin to economists and businessmen, they wouldn't be so prone to being taken advantage of by women, the state and also other men who use women as bait.

    (Toxic) Masculinity is a thing, except that it is women above all else who impose it on men. If another man doesn't have authority over you and few men except maybe your boss at work or some who work for the state do, then the only people on a mass scale who have any kind of leverage to impose a certain behavioral expectation on you as a man are the women. A man e.g. can call me gay, but he doesn't have leverage to make me change my behavior. He can shame me, but when he has nothing that I need from him, I don't have to react to the shaming. Whereas a woman can e.g. deny me access to sex and attention as leverage to actually enforce a change in behavior.

    The masculinity exercised by MGTOW is the same behavior women are constantly practicing already: To look out for yourself first and foremost. Gendering this behavior is what makes men so confused on how to behave. When men behave as they want, society tells them that they ought to behave more "masculine", meaning to cater to the interests of women and the state. That is what toxic masculinity is. Ironically since feminists are part of the state's propaganda and since women are feminists at heart, it is the feminists who impose toxic masculinity on men. But they reframed the term to mean that men are being toxic when they act masculine towards a woman. The definition of masculine not being set in stone, but rather something that can be twisted at any point to suit the whim of women.

    Trying to be humble for other reasons than to improve your image for some gains is not exactly the smartest move. I don't care about practicing machiavellism personally because I am already at direct odds with the state and the society I live in. If I was still trying to build social networks and integrate better into society, I would try to act much more like a woman i.e. maximize narcissistic and machiavellistic behavior because that's what the world runs on.

  2. #22

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    We seriously need to abide by morals and go to the opposite extreme of selflessness for the sake of all good. It's what's beneficial in the long run.

    Spread the word and wake up as many idiots as you can as fast as you can, even if it means compromising your social standing to some degree. EXPOSE the oppression of men and women's evil nature fearlessly. That's what will be beneficial in the long run.

    We need to make some sacrifices if we want to see anything change. Come on, men!
    I don't know. From my perspective, one of the fundamental problems is that men have been trained in an ethic of self-sacrifice -- of being a provider, of serving others (society generally, women and children specifically). That's what it means to be a "good man," according to society: give yourself for the sake of others and society. Be like Christ on the cross, says Christianity (other forms of religion have similar ethos). Put others first. Live for others. Sacrifice your own interests, needs, feelings, and preferences for others. The more selfless you are, the more of a hero you are.

    I just don't have much faith in that. I've tried to live that way, and although there are benefits to it (feeling like you're doing the right thing, being a good man or a good Christian, pleasing to God), there are also huge penalties and costs. To name just a few: life-draining self-deprivation, a hollow feeling that comes from feeling like you're living according to others' dictates rather than out of your own center, loss of your real self, depression, a constricted narrow life, lack of authenticity/integrity, etc.

    On the other hand, I don't believe in a narrow-minded selfishness, either. It's not all about me me me. That's just narcissism and egotism, and it ultimately leads to just as empty a place as the codependent self-sacrifice script does.

    It's a tricky balance. How much to live for self? How much to live for the sake of bettering society, leaving the world a little better than we found it? I don't think it's an either/or question, but something that's pretty complex -- especially when you start questioning what "self-interest" and "sacrifice for others" really is. A lot of what we call "service" or "doing for others" for instance (e.g., giving to a charity we believe in) is really upholding our core values, so it's not a sacrifice at all; it's a form of self-assertion. So the language itself can be confusing.

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    French Canada
    Posts
    26
    Reputation
    26
    Type
    Hybrid

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Before i was going my own i was trained like a dog. Where is my cookie. Being selfless, going to school, get a good job, work hard, alway finding time and ways to be helpfull to others. Where is my cookie. Obviously i was taken abvantage of and trust were broken. With that experience, my luggage and by observing surroundings i found out that the cookie was a lie.

    A good old friend of mine got maried 10 years ago and now he his literally treated like a slave by his wife. Can you do this or that for me. Always orders then followed by threats of divorce rape. So many example of divorce rape or slave around me.

    To me its much less of "whats in it for me" and rather "can i trust you" or "can i trust you to respect my individual freedom". Everytime the subject is brought up to me i segway by bringing back my experience with women and how i got trust issues from it. Generaly people are understanding and respectful. I also got women friends "to side with me" in that matter. If its a women requesting marriage or asking if i ever want to get married the same apply, i tell my story and then mention i need (more) time to trust my partner. If they are not pleased with that we eventually we go our separate ways mostly drama free.

    Today its much more self preservation, self respect. If i want cookie i go and treat myself. Me first. Im still helpfull and repectfull with the closest friends that i trust and when i do them service they are respectull to bring something in exchange without asking.

    Im being carefull of those that wants something from me without nothing in return. I dont bring up "whats in it for me" but if they dont offer anything in return i automatically decline.

  4. #24

    Re: What's in it for me?

    The only times I have been accused of being selfish has been by people who I had already worked out were completely vile but couldn't get away from at the time. My general disregard for them was interpreted as selfishness. In my head, I was thinking 'Yeah, I'm selfish - I can't wait to get myself away from you!"

    I try to be selfless with the right people. My family, a few certain friends and colleagues. Other than that, I look after myself. Nobody else will. One thing I have realised growing up is that society is at best, completely apathetic towards you and often, especially as a man, openly hostile. I'm in the UK and more so now than ever our culture is so fractured and upside-down.

    So-called 'anti-racist' protesters attacking statues of national heroes, people trying to make being morbidly obese a positive thing (of course, if you find it disgusting you're a misogynist obviously, not just someone with eyes who can see) and our national news broadcaster publishing stuff that clearly isn't news just to further a cultural agenda (recently an athlete who was asked to wear more appropriate running shorts by a stranger actually made national news with presenters blathering like it was someone blown up in an IED. Just tell him to fuck off and get on with your life.). A lot of people my age are completely indoctrinated culture warriors unfortunately. Honestly dealing with them sometimes I feel like Neo in the f*cking Matrix. I have a few of them on Facebook and everyday it is just outrage, cry, blame, <insert trendy slogan here> over and over again. What miserable lives.

    So for the most part, I find I couldn't care less about society at large (provided it keeps generally functioning and they leave me alone) just as long as I can forge the kind of life I enjoy and find meaningful (stimulating job, enough leisure time, enough money for a decent lifestyle, good friends etc.) And so far so good. I am hoping to retire by 40. One positive about all this is that most people these days barely have any work ethic so it's a pretty easy time to get ahead and make good money.

    Regarding 'waking people up', I just find in most cases the game is simply not worth the candle. Like the old Buddhist proverb about the cup overflowing, you can't get through to people who aren't open to new ideas. I normally assume complete naivety and instead ask questions, which I hope will make them think but go no further than that. Not my circus, not my monkeys as they say.

    (Apologies for a bit of a rant! )

  5. #25

    Re: What's in it for me?

    I'm unashamedly selfish. I work because I have to, to earn money like every one else. I do my job well but I am not passionate about it and although I have held management positions in the past I found them unsatisfying both from a work satisfaction point of view and from the reward aspect given the shit I had to put up with.

    So in that respect, I certainly did ask "What's in it for me?" and "Why am I doing this?" I didn't find any positive answers in that so I stepped away from that kind of high pressure work life.

    This is my other take on it. If I were to win enough money to pull away from society completely, I would. I don't necessarily mean living in a hut in the mountains, although it is tempting. I just mean, never working again, never dealing with anyone unless absolutely critical. I would probably be a very happy shut away, especially while CoVid lasts.

    So in that respect, I have never expected anything good of people or society.

  6. #26

    Re: What's in it for me?

    In this world, if you want to get ahead, you have to be a little selfish. I do a cost/benefit analysis on everything that I'm involved with in my life. If there is something that is not a net-benefit for myself, it goes on the cutting-room floor.
    In the future there will be robots.

  7. #27

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    But remember we own the land we do because of SACRIFICES. We enjoy liberties today because of SACRIFICES. So don't let the sacrifices of our ancestors (men) go in vain. They worked so hard for us.

    Sacrifice your energy
    Sacrifice your short-term happiness
    Sacrifice your time
    Sacrifice your social status
    Sacrifice your money
    OPTIONAL - Be prepared to sacrifice your life if needed

    Selflessness is probably the most important virtue or at least one of the most important virtues here. What's in it for you? The possibility of a society that changes for the better and adds to your long term security, status, happiness, money and children.
    We do for sure. I am a history buff and the men of the past did so much to advance humanity and their civilizations. That way of thinking seems to be dead now though. You no longer have people who are pushing to try and make something better and when it does happen they are betrayed in some way or everyone else sees that their efforts weren't really wanted.

    To have that kind of society where men push themselves and make sacrifices you need a unity. It is so divided now which is exactly what the powers that be want. It is pointless to want to push yourself so people who literally have said that you should die can benefit from your efforts.

  8. #28

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryptic View Post
    I am a history buff and the men of the past did so much to advance humanity and their civilizations. That way of thinking seems to be dead now though. You no longer have people who are pushing to try and make something better and when it does happen they are betrayed in some way or everyone else sees that their efforts weren't really wanted. To have that kind of society where men push themselves and make sacrifices you need a unity.
    What is required is a mindset of common-ground. No person can share the exact same values and mindset of another, not even identical twins who have been raised in the same household.

    If another person shares some common ground with another that should be good enough for there to be some form of co-operation and exchange between the two parties.

    That's is how modern civilisation advanced - we trade with others who do not share the same values and ideals; and it is not necessary that the values align perfectly - all that is necessary is that both parties generally share some common ground.

    MGTOW is a good example of this - men from various countries and backgrounds. Despite these differences, we share a common ground on our approach to relationships with women and because of it, we can form a community to share advice, knowledge and support.

    In Western society, households no longer raise children to seek common-ground. Rather, differences are emphasized. Children (especially women) are raised extremely selfish and self-centered.
    Last edited by johnsmith79; September 1, 2021 at 5:50 AM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Malinois's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Hellinois, USA
    Posts
    759
    Reputation
    3911
    Type
    GhostY-BacheloR

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    Thank you for admitting that. I don't know if that way of thinking is completely dead -- I mean, I think many liberals are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause. They're pretty united. That's probably why they're winning lol

    I think MGTOW, MRA, Incels, traditionalists, Proud Boys etc. combined have a pretty large population in the few millions now. Another decade of waking people up and we might be a hundred million people. Then we could do all kinds of things!!!

    That's why it's so important for us to continue to contribute and spread the word no matter what.


    Of course, the feminists are making it harder for us by banning/blocking almost every website lol. It's an information war we HAVE to fight!
    I can understand somebody confusing MRA and MGTOW, or even “traditionalists”-perhaps guys still choking on “The Purple Pill”, entering enlightenment. But, what I do not understand, is how you can lump “ProudBoys” and “incels” into the same compartment as you do MGTOW.

  10. #30

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    If people never sacrificed themselves we'd never be able to win wars/revolutions. I'm not talking about laying down your life - most of it has to do with not caring about yourself so much and just being a part of it in a productive way.

    If people mostly or only thought about their own benefit like women, we'd never be able to live in a lasting civilization. Sacrifice of all kinds is essential for the sake of all good.

    Besides if you believe that there is a God and life didn't come from non-living objects, there's reason to be a good, selfless person.
    Yes, I agree in general, although I want to come back again to the idea I ended with, which is the problem with the term, "self-sacrifice."

    I think the term is ambiguous. When I give up some social status or money for the sake of an ideal I believe strongly in (let's say, freedom of speech, or maybe freedom from tyranny), is that a "self-sacrifice"? Or is it self-assertion from a place of integrity ("integrity" meaning practicing what you preach, putting your values into action)?

    This is not vague philosophical hair-splitting. It goes to the heart of the matter. For example, you urge people to "sacrifice" things like time, social status, and short-term happiness, for the sake of greater ideals.

    But I would argue -- that is not a "sacrifice" at all. That is simply paying for what you want and value. Everyone pays for what they want and value. As the old proverb goes, ,"Take what you want and pay for it." Nothing is free. Everything has a cost.

    If we give our time, money, or our temporary comfort for the sake of something we want or value, that is not a "self-sacrifice." That is a payment -- a payment in order to obtain that which we want and value. I mean, that's why we are spending the time/energy/etc. doing it -- because we believe the thing we are "purchasing" with those resources is valuable to us and perhaps to others as well.

    To put it in the form of a crude analogy, it is like paying $200 for groceries, then calling that a "self-sacrifice." We are taking our time, energy, and resources, and we are enduring some short-term discomfort in order to procure food, because we value a full stomach over starvation. Are we "self-sacrificing" for the groceries? No of course not.

    Nor are we "self-sacrificing" when we give these things in order to procure (or work towards) greater values. We are just paying for what we want and value.


    True "self-sacrifice" is sacrifice of the SELF. The epitome of that is the codependent, who surrenders his/her very self (opinions, preferences, feelings, values) for the sake of others' approval and to avoid their censure. THAT is self-sacrifice.

    I'd argue that what we're talking about here is better understood as simply paying for what you value, not as "self-sacrifice," because it is not a sacrifice of the self at all, but an assertion of it (of your values, of what you want, of your ideals, etc.)

  11. #31

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Regarding this talk of sacrifice, I'm all for it if there is a cause that is great. Unfortunately, too many preach the virtues of altruism as a form of manipulation. They want you to sacrifice to suit their goals and not your own.
    In the future there will be robots.

  12. #32

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonobo Protocol View Post
    Regarding this talk of sacrifice, I'm all for it if there is a cause that is great. Unfortunately, too many preach the virtues of altruism as a form of manipulation. They want you to sacrifice to suit their goals and not your own.
    Right. And in that case, you would be doing something truly worthy of the label "self-sacrifice." You would be giving up your own core values, in order to appease or comply with someone else's values. That is self-sacrificial. AKA dependent, submissive, codependent, people-pleasing, conforming, etc.

    Now, if you were stand up for a value you truly believed in -- if you were to give something (time, money, energy, social standing, whatever) for the sake of a cause or a value you thought was great and noble -- that would not be self-sacrifice. That would be integrity. You would be standing up for values you believed in.

    I've got no argument against the latter. I think men have been trained in the former, though -- trained to put their interests second, please women, "happy wife happy life," being a provider mule, the hero going down with the Titanic, all of that rot. That's the "self-sacrifice" I'm pushing back against.

  13. #33

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    Thank you for admitting that. I don't know if that way of thinking is completely dead -- I mean, I think many liberals are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause. They're pretty united. That's probably why they're winning lol

    I think MGTOW, MRA, Incels, traditionalists, Proud Boys etc. combined have a pretty large population in the few millions now. Another decade of waking people up and we might be a hundred million people. Then we could do all kinds of things!!!

    That's why it's so important for us to continue to contribute and spread the word no matter what.


    Of course, the feminists are making it harder for us by banning/blocking almost every website lol. It's an information war we HAVE to fight!
    The Left aren't that united though, the cracks have been appearing for a while. Their Diversity will kill them and they keep sub dividing themselves further. Feminists are threatened by Trans women and LGBTIQ just keep adding letters to their name. Meanwhile the Left keep importing very traditionally minded people who see Left wing anything as a disgrace.

    Look at Florida and the amount of Cubans who due to living under Castro voted for Trump! The Left didn't see that one coming because they are too blinded by their own ideology. They are zealots.

    It is an information war but oddly enough because they have so much control and because they claim to be so amazing, more and more start seeing them for the joke they are. Biden has already discredited himself with Afghanistan and I read recently that a majority of Americans don't think the Vice President is up to the job if Biden stepped down.

    In a lot of places the Left do the worst in elections AFTER they have already held power! People see them for what they are and realize their mistake for voting that way.

  14. #34

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryptic View Post
    The Left aren't that united though, the cracks have been appearing for a while. Their Diversity will kill them and they keep sub dividing themselves further. Feminists are threatened by Trans women and LGBTIQ just keep adding letters to their name.

    Honestly as someone without any skin in the game,it's very entertaining watching the feminists and trans-woman/LGBT cults tear each other to pieces.


    In the UK, Conservatives absolutely smashed the left-wing Labour party at the last election and it's been commonly speculated that a big factor was them embracing all of this identity politics nonsense (feminist whining, gender and diversity quotas etc.)


    For the record, I hate the Conservatives - they're useless - but it does signal that broadly people are able to see through alot of this bullshit.

  15. #35

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    I don't think I ever used the term "self-sacrifice" and if I did it was made a mistake because of the term's ambiguity. Of course we can have a linguistic debate about what it really means and whether it would be appropriate to use it in all circumstances.

    Nevertheless, it's good to know we're on the same page here. Sacrificing money, time, energy, status, short-term happiness etc. and possibly even our lives are all essential for speeding things up.
    Ah, okay, I didn't notice that you had said "sacrifice," rather than "self-sacrifice." My bad. The two terms are usually used interchangeably, but I don't want to misquote you.

    Even if we just say "sacrifice," though, rather than "self-sacrifice," I still have a problem with it. "Sacrifice" is a word that has been used throughout the ages to manipulate and control men -- to shame them into compliance, to enlist them in causes that are not their own, and to send them marching off to their deaths.

    So talk of "sacrifice" produces a knee-jerk resistance in me. I just don't like all the conceptual and historical baggage it carries. Men are constantly told that they must sacrifice for others. I'm tired of feeling obligated to live for other people or for society. I'm not a selfish person -- I believe in ideals that are bigger than just my narrow self-interests -- but when someone encourages me to "sacrifice," I immediately smell a rat. I'm not saying you are that rat. I'm just saying that's my instinctive response to the word, at this point.

    I prefer the language of trade or exchange. An example. Let's say a loved one is sick and cannot afford to pay for life-saving medical treatment. If I pony up the tens of thousands of dollars to purchase that treatment for him/her, have I made a "sacrifice"? No, I've given something I value (money) in exchange for something I value more (that person's life). That is not a "sacrifice." That is a trade. You could also think of it as a gift -- a gift that, in this case, benefits the giver just as much as the receiver.

    Anyhow, I'll stop banging on about how I dislike the word "sacrifice." Enough already!

    I agree that we should be willing to stand up for things we believe in, fight for positions we value, put our time/money where our mouths are, etc. Yes indeed.

  16. #36

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    Just fyi historically the word sacrifice always has been used when its time to defend one's land and one's rights or freedom

    Sacrificing time, money, happiness is commonly used even today.

    "Making sacrifices" is another one. So it's actually the correct term please don't be against it.
    No, sorry, I'm against it. I don't care if the term is used a lot or is Webster-approved. I don't like the term, because I know exactly how it has been used, and how often. You cite "historical uses," but that's exactly my point. Historically, the word "sacrifice" has has been used to manipulate and control men -- to get them to do what is not in their interest, but in the interests of women and children or "society." You think the word is inspiring and heroic. To my ears, it sounds manipulative and corrupt.

    I'll leave it there, though. I'm sacrificing a dead horse.
    Last edited by Eddie Haskell; September 5, 2021 at 1:19 AM.

  17. #37

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by patriarch View Post
    This is completely historically inaccurate.
    We have different readings of history, then.

    The term "making sacrifices" and the word sacrifice has been used for time, money, energy, resources, happiness etc. since the late-middle English language has existed. This means since at least the 14th century. Most of the time the word has been used in this sense only, especially since the 18th century. Even the oldest English Bible says:
    You're missing my point. I've made it several times, but I'll try once more. I'll say it as plainly as I can, and then I'll give up, because we're just going in circles.

    There is a difference between a word/concept and the way that word/concept is used -- for what motives, for what purposes. A word like "sacrifice" (or rather, the concept) has been a very powerful instigator and motivator throughout history, to get hordes of men to do what the culture needs them to do. That is how the word/concept has been used -- to incentivize men to give up their time, energy, and resources for the sake of something that is not in their best interests. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. It is written all over the pages of history.

    You say "sacrifice" has been used to refer to time, money, energy, life itself. Yes, of course it has. Again, though, my point is not about the literal meaning of the word -- it is the about the motive for its use, the purposes to which it has been put. There is a big difference between the dictionary meaning of a term and why it is used. The "why" -- the motive, the purpose -- is what I'm getting at. That's where the problem comes in.

    Edit: I probably contributed to your confusion because I actually made two separate points: one important/indispensable (which I just reiterated above) and the other ancillary/semantic (wrangling about whether "sacrifice" is really a sacrifice or better thought of as exchange of values). I think you're getting hung up on my ancillary/unimportant point, but missing my big/important/indispensable point. And I probably contributed to that confusion by blending the points. So let me isolate what I'm really trying to say.

    My main objection is that the word "sacrifice" -- or rather, the concept, not just the word specifically -- has been used repeatedly throughout history to manipulate men into doing things that benefit others (culture in general, women and children in particular) to his own detriment. That is my main point and my main objection. The wrangling about whether the term "sacrifice" is appropriate for what I think is "really" an exchange of values is just a side-show. It's unimportant. You can ignore that if you don't resonate, for whatever reason.

    Focus on my main point -- which is that the word/concept has been used, historically, repeatedly, and ad infinitum, to manipulate men into doing things that are not in their own best interests. If you do not buy that -- if you cannot see that -- I don't know what to tell you. To me, that's not even disputable.


    This is from the early 15th century. The English language can't suddenly change after 600-700 years of staying more or less the same. You can also look up the oldest English dictionary for the meaning of the word. In a literary sense it is 100% correct.
    Right, the Bible has always been fond of sacrifice language. Sacrificing animals, sacrificing humans. It isn't alone in that, of course -- human and animal sacrifice is a part of most primitive cultures and so it's no surprise it pops up there, too.

    As I said, you are using the word correctly in a dictionary sense, and that's not where my objection lies. My concern is with the uses the word (or concept, rather) has been put to -- the motives and purposes for its use. We need to distinguish between the concept and the motives for using it.

    You're only thinking of one, very specific use of the word - which is taking the life of a living being.
    No, that's not accurate. I've referred to death, but I've given several other examples as well. I could list endless examples, but my time is limited, and I consider the case obvious and overwhelming, so I don't see the need to do that.

    I'm actually rather baffled that you cannot seem to see or acknowledge that the word "sacrifice" (or rather, the concept, not just the word itself) has been used against men, to motivate them to do a whole range of things that are against their self-interest. In a sense, the whole red pill world is a reaction against those sorts of imperatives.

    ****

    Anyhow, that will be it for me. If you don't understand what I'm saying after all this verbiage, I'm wasting my breath.

    Take it easy.
    Last edited by Eddie Haskell; September 5, 2021 at 2:17 PM.

  18. #38

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Very small minority of cases, lol. Yeah, right. NASALT!

  19. #39
    Senior Member happybachelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    North UK
    Posts
    548
    Reputation
    619
    Type
    Bachelor, Monk, Enigma

    Re: What's in it for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    We have different readings of history, then.



    You're missing my point. I've made it several times, but I'll try once more. I'll say it as plainly as I can, and then I'll give up, because we're just going in circles.

    There is a difference between a word/concept and the way that word/concept is used -- for what motives, for what purposes. A word like "sacrifice" (or rather, the concept) has been a very powerful instigator and motivator throughout history, to get hordes of men to do what the culture needs them to do. That is how the word/concept has been used -- to incentivize men to give up their time, energy, and resources for the sake of something that is not in their best interests. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. It is written all over the pages of history.

    You say "sacrifice" has been used to refer to time, money, energy, life itself. Yes, of course it has. Again, though, my point is not about the literal meaning of the word -- it is the about the motive for its use, the purposes to which it has been put. There is a big difference between the dictionary meaning of a term and why it is used. The "why" -- the motive, the purpose -- is what I'm getting at. That's where the problem comes in.

    Edit: I probably contributed to your confusion because I actually made two separate points: one important/indispensable (which I just reiterated above) and the other ancillary/semantic (wrangling about whether "sacrifice" is really a sacrifice or better thought of as exchange of values). I think you're getting hung up on my ancillary/unimportant point, but missing my big/important/indispensable point. And I probably contributed to that confusion by blending the points. So let me isolate what I'm really trying to say.

    My main objection is that the word "sacrifice" -- or rather, the concept, not just the word specifically -- has been used repeatedly throughout history to manipulate men into doing things that benefit others (culture in general, women and children in particular) to his own detriment. That is my main point and my main objection. The wrangling about whether the term "sacrifice" is appropriate for what I think is "really" an exchange of values is just a side-show. It's unimportant. You can ignore that if you don't resonate, for whatever reason.

    Focus on my main point -- which is that the word/concept has been used, historically, repeatedly, and ad infinitum, to manipulate men into doing things that are not in their own best interests. If you do not buy that -- if you cannot see that -- I don't know what to tell you. To me, that's not even disputable.




    Right, the Bible has always been fond of sacrifice language. Sacrificing animals, sacrificing humans. It isn't alone in that, of course -- human and animal sacrifice is a part of most primitive cultures and so it's no surprise it pops up there, too.

    As I said, you are using the word correctly in a dictionary sense, and that's not where my objection lies. My concern is with the uses the word (or concept, rather) has been put to -- the motives and purposes for its use. We need to distinguish between the concept and the motives for using it.



    No, that's not accurate. I've referred to death, but I've given several other examples as well. I could list endless examples, but my time is limited, and I consider the case obvious and overwhelming, so I don't see the need to do that.

    I'm actually rather baffled that you cannot seem to see or acknowledge that the word "sacrifice" (or rather, the concept, not just the word itself) has been used against men, to motivate them to do a whole range of things that are against their self-interest. In a sense, the whole red pill world is a reaction against those sorts of imperatives.

    ****

    Anyhow, that will be it for me. If you don't understand what I'm saying after all this verbiage, I'm wasting my breath.

    Take it easy.
    You seem to be getting triggered by the word sacrifice, because you know what most women mean when they say the words "men" and "sacrifice".

    I wonder if at root this is because you are immediately falling into a female frame. Otherwise why would you be triggered by the word. My advice is not to give a fuck what anyone else means by sacrifice. Decide what it means for you.

    For me it's simple, I know to achieve anything requires sacrifice. A very simple example would be gathering and drying wood, then somehow lighting it - to get fire. Results only come after time/effort.
    Last edited by happybachelor; September 6, 2021 at 8:41 AM.
    Alpha male with a warrior spirit.
    Follower of Christ.
    When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.


  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gizzard Gulch Or.
    Posts
    2,277
    Reputation
    8974
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: What's in it for me?

    I'm an awful salesman, always have been. Selling, I'd starve. I also have a thing about selling something for nothing. So when I didn't need my Harley no more, I gave it to the son of some hippies I used to run with. Figure I walked away from at least 5K, or so. But I had at least twice that in the dumb thing. So I decided I'd rather lose it all, than sell it for half price. At least someone I like owns it now, and that means more than getting a fraction of my money back. That was over five years ago and I've had zero for buyers remorse over the dough I lost.

    For the most part, mom's family were kind hearted types. But that's the minor reason I help people. I'm old, and what family I got live far away.
    So when my time comes and I'm about to check out, I know there's a couple hundred people, who if they knew, would say "that's too bad, the crazy bastard helped me once, and he didn't owe me a thing." It would be beyond awful to be dying and think that no one cares, or worse yet goes "ALRIGHT."

    It's sad that this modern world is the way it is. I've had people who were deeply moved over what was to me no big deal. Geeze people, didn't anyone ever do you a good turn? Too bad for a lot a people, it looks like no one has.
    Every day I make the world a little bit worse.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •