Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

You don’t have to preface every generalization with “mostly”, when talking to men.

Posted by xsplat on July 12, 2013

Regarding the last post, respected peer and esteemed blogger YouSoWould admonished:

Do the vast majority of girls use “I was date raped” as an excuse for their irresponsible binge drinking? Yes.

Does this mean that no-one has, or will ever be drugged and sexually assaulted? No, of course not.

Not addressing you specifically here, but I think the manosphere would benefit from choosing its language carefully over this issue. “No-one has ever been date raped” is an unnecessarily inflammatory stance, and almost certainly not true.

The quotes were from a Rooshvforum discussion and Dailymail articles. No one claimed or even implied that “no-one has ever been date raped”. Did you read it that way?

What was said is that (chances are) if she claims that she has been given roofies as the means to date rape her, then she is lying and has a personality disorder.

The (chances are) part can be left unsaid and assumed, given the context of the arguments.

I can’t see how an honest reading could leave anyone to conclude that I believe that NO ONE has ever been given roofies. That’s not what the post was about.

There is no need to have tip-toe perfect all-clauses accounted for logic in every sentence. The obvious logical assumptions are assumed. We are not kindergarteners here. The readers of this blog are (nearly all) intelligent. See what I did there? The (nearly all) could be left out, as it would in normal conversation simply be implied and assumed.

You’ve probably noticed how women are fond of the NAWALT argument, and use it to dissimulate. Whenever a generalization is made, they try to refute it by pointing out how not ALL examples of that generalization are true.

There is no need to cater to such Not-All-Women-Are-Like-That arguments. Ordinary language with ordinary generalizations is understood by ordinary people.

Even if the PC police are watching over your shoulder, eager to correct every move your mouth makes, fuck em. There is no need to pre-edit our speech for them. We know what a generalization is, and we know when it is being made. We don’t have to preface every sentence with “in general” and “mostly”.

6 Responses to “You don’t have to preface every generalization with “mostly”, when talking to men.”

  1. Although I already replied to your comment on the original post, since you mention me specifically in this one I figured I’d use the opportunity to expand my point.

    First, I agree entirely that when dealing with reasonable people the conditional qualifier on a generalisation should not be required. And indeed, as you say, many of the people who read this blog should be credited with that level of intelligence.

    However, I also believe that any reasonable, intelligent man would have already come to the conclusions of your other post without requiring any additional evidence. I know that personally I have been rolling my eyes at such claims for many years, long before I even knew the manosphere existed.

    If we, as manosphere writers, only wish to appeal to those readers who have sufficient levels of intelligence and are already inclined towards our way of thinking, are we not guilty of preaching to choir?

    I don’t know if that is in fact your target audience – it might be. Myself, I hope that my writing reaches some other people who are perhaps sat on the fence, who are still in possession of a measure of blue pill thinking. For those people, seeing what appears to be a sweeping generalisation will cause them to reject out of hand what otherwise they may have been led to believe, by simple dint of indicating that a generalisation was being made.

    As you say, although it should not be necessary, unfortunately for those people who have lived their lives under a cloud of blue pill thinking, political correctness, and NAWALT, I believe it is.

    Always happy to debate though. Posting this up on my blog since I think it’s interesting.

  2. […] In fact, he then went to make a post out of his reply to my comment here – “You don’t have to preface every generalization with “mostly”, when talking to men.“. […]

  3. […] xsplat.wordpress.com […]

  4. fedrz said

    This is very old wisdom:

    “Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there’s worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)

  5. xsplat said

    Comments about this subject have been going on at http://yousowould.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/should-it-be-necessary-to-qualify-generalisations-when-speaking-to-men/

    I made a few over there, but I wanted to drag this one over from there:

    “Pure logic definitely has a place in arguments and discussions with other reasonable, rational, intelligent men.”

    Right. And reasonable men admit to the context surrounding a sentence. We don’t need to be hyper vigilant to say “in general” as a qualifier for each generalization in honest rational discussion.

    Women or those with an opposing agenda will nit pick and dissimulate, and qualifying every generalization is now a habit people use to get them the fuck off of our backs with the god damned NAWALT all the time. But these people are not trying to have honest and rational discussions. They are trying to find any small fault to nit pick in order to discount the relevant data, to discount the generalization.

    It’s really pointless to cow tow to that type of nit picking. I say fuck em. Why let them barge into every fucking sentence we write? And if they want to disagree, we can correct them and point out the context. And needless to say it would do no good whatsoever – more dissimulation would follow.

    Look, some people just want to be inflamed. They are keyed up and hyper aroused and jacked up looking for some all-men-are-rapists fault. I won’t let such people control my honest discussions among honest rational people. I don’t have to have them force me to tip toe around in hyper vigilance.

    Rational people are my audience. The rest are not my concern. And that’s my attitude to much of feminist and other irrational thinking that is pure agenda that discounts any reasonable discussion. Fuck em. It’s noise and I don’t care.

    They are only as powerful as the power I give them, and I give them no power.

    And also, let’s not forget that rhetoric is useful and persuasive even amongst the most rational and honest of men. Polemic is a tool used by some of the most respected and influential writers society has ever produced. Polemic forces a man to take intellectual sides. No wishy washy let’s all get along lack of boundaries.

  6. xsplat said

    I’m going to drone on. The contentious post title was “If she claims she’s ever been slipped a roofie, she has BPD and is lying.”

    We can all immediately see how this would inflame people cautious to never discount the real and tragic distress of a woman done wrong.

    And no one, I mean NO ONE, would ever read that sentence and then go on to believe that NO woman has ever been slipped a roofie and fucked. That will NEVER happen. There is no actual danger in making that statement. The only “danger” in it is pissing someone off who is vigilant about women being taken seriously.

    How about the benefit? Men will benefit. Even in the worst case scenario, if a retarded man takes that statement as meaning that 100% of women throughout history who have claimed roofie-rape are lying, then (chances are) that belief will do him a great deal of good, should he ever encounter a woman claiming roofie-rape.

    You see, the point is, that men SHOULD NOT give women the benefit of the doubt about this subject.

Leave a Reply

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers

%d bloggers like this: