This post is mainly directed at those readers who are still in college and have to deal on a daily basis with fanatical ideologues on the hunt for crimethinking heretics to burn at the stake, though the wisdom here is applicable at any time of life. A typical PC police baiting tactic might go down like this:
CONFORMIST SUCKUP: “So what do you think of [controversial politically incorrect subject].”
YOU: “You first.”
CONFORMIST SUCKUP: “I think [politically correct answer].”
YOU: [smiling knowingly] “Then I agree with you.”
The beauty of this is twofold: one, you give them no rope with which to hang you, and two, you subtly send up the underlying inquisition-like mentality of them and their kind. It’s fun teaching very special lessons to sanctimonious shitholes that they’re no better than those to whom they feel superior.
This tactic even works on conformist suckups who were too cowardly to tell you their honest view. The pointed faux agreement will make both cowards and dogmatists feel the burn of disrespect.
Feel free to credit me in fliers stapled to kiosks all across America’s college campuses.
One of my professors this semester is a feminist.
It’s unbearable.
LikeLike
or…
LikeLike
Gonna try it, maybe it will make having to stand godless heathens that elevate filthy politicians to God-status more bereable.
Although I doubt it.
LikeLike
Thank you. I’m stealing this lock, stock, and barrel. In fact I don’t know why I didn’t start doing it earlier. Fits perfectly with my right-wing Leninism.
LikeLike
I am still in college and have never been asked such a question straight out.
LikeLike
kaikou, that’s because everyone assumes you’re orthodox because they’ll try to shame the fuck out of you if you hint otherwise.
LikeLike
Sadly (speaking as a university professor) one finds that the PC crowd are often like girls: they don’t think, they feel. Their mental processes are not rational. They cannot be shamed. The subleties of your approach will be lost on them. They live in their own fantasy world and reality has no impact on them.
This is why they thrive in government and academia; they can’t function in the real world.
LikeLike
One way to do the “in your face” is to clarify
the dialogue.
Them: I think (politically correct opinion)
Me: I agree. That is exactly what you think.
or even.
Me: I am glad that you think that. You are
SUPPOSED to think that.
Alternatives are endless, such as
“yes, that is part of your programming” etc etc.
Thor
LikeLike
Oh Southern Man, you are so intellectual. Why can’t you spell coincidence, then? Check your blog.
LikeLike
Shit like this should confuse the hell out of the SWPL crowd.
Now, do I approve of this because it points out racism, or do I disapprove, because it implies that women are asking for it?
OH SHIT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!!!
LikeLike
“Sadly (speaking as a university professor) one finds that the PC crowd are often like girls: they don’t think, they feel. Their mental processes are not rational. They cannot be shamed. The subleties of your approach will be lost on them. They live in their own fantasy world and reality has no impact on them.”
Very true, speaking as a university student.
LikeLike
I think it runs deeper than the surface.
One common way to create an in-group
is to require a belief that is ridiculous on
the face of it.
Membership requirement: Bow to the
magic totem, never mind that he looks
preposterous.
Thus, actual belief is not required
(but cognitive dissonance will drive some
of the weaker members to believe).
What is required is the CLAIM to
total belief.
Thor
LikeLike
Clarification:
It MUST be a ridiculous-on-its face belief.
Belief in something sensible would make the
in-group open to hoi polloi.
LikeLike
Love it.
Naturally enough.
LikeLike
Southern Man
Yes but so long as this line is said and otherwise delivered with the right touch of irony (ramped up for the oblivious who are in no good position to significantly hurt you) something will likely get through. Besides your golden should your actual views ever get back to said person and you’re confronted. Point out the irony they so obliviously missed. Or, just be more ironic at that juncture in agreeing w/them again. Your choice.
LikeLike
One ramping up of the irony:
LikeLike
Thor–
Good one.
Followed perhaps by:
Stress or not on the of course depending on the vehemence of your interlocutor, and how much he/she in a position to do you harm.
LikeLike
How about “I can’t disagree with you”. The irony is even sharper there, and you are not formally embracing the idiocy, even ironically.
LikeLike
Actually swpl people are very easily offended and I would not be surprised if this got you into trouble.
A convo with a member of the asian pacific law group:
Him: I am korean.
Me: oh? What is your favorite race in starcraft?
Him: that is so racist.
LikeLike
If someone’s trying to talk politics with you before they really know you, they’re a social retard. Always avoid talking politics and religion with people you don’t know well, and they will think you much cooler for it. To do so is to commit a classic social faux pas.
This tactic also works like gangbusters for any question a woman asks you that you don’t know the ‘right’ answer to. I saw my buddy use it on a recent number pick up he had been chatting back and forth with for a couple days. The exchange went something like this:
Her: Are you seeing anyone right now?
Him: I don’t know. Are you?
Her: Well I’m not seeing anyone.
Him: Then I’m not either.
He ended up banging her about a week later.
LikeLike
“If someone’s trying to talk politics with you before they really know you, they’re a social retard.”
There are a lot of social retards in DC then.
LikeLike
Heh. A girl asked me that same question a few days ago. Could have used that answer, but went with “I don’t know much about it, but I know a lot of people are angry.” Glad she didn’t push the subject.
LikeLike
Reminds me of a conversation I had when I was twenty-one and visiting my friends. One of them asked me what I loved most about a woman’s body.
If I were as smart as Roissy then I would have replied “you first” or “i don’t know,” but instead I said something like “her boobs” even though I put no thought into it.
And of course they both came up with much more cleaner stuff like “her hands.” Just to make me feel stupid.
Both of those dudes later turned out to be bisexuals, btw.
LikeLike
You could do an exaggerated caveman shtick.
Her: What do you think about [SWPL cause du jour]
Me: [Earnest straightfaced answer to the right of Attila the Hun.]
Her: [shocked expression]
Me: [point and laugh] Gosh, you’re an easy mark.
LikeLike
Another possibility: give the most rightwing answer possible, but framed in a conflicting SWPL hobby horse.
E.g.
Her: What do you think about Arizona’s illegal immigration law?
Me: It doesn’t go far enough. If we’re going to reduce our carbon footprint we need to execute as many illegals we catch as possible.
LikeLike
I agree with you.
LikeLike
I don’t like this method. It’s too passive-aggressive. Why not have a discussion? Or ignore them? Passive-aggressive games are for wimps, IMO.
LikeLike
JB
Love it. Said deadpan of course.
Classic “agree and amplify”.
(Which see for those that didn’t read that very useful post or don’t remember it, by doing a google site search on that term here at Chateau’s.)
LikeLike
CONFORMIST SUCKUP: “So what do you think of [controversial politically incorrect subject].”
YOU: [blunt truth, ideally in less than ten words].
CONFORMIST SUCKUP: “Wow. So you’re basically a huge racist?”
YOU: [smiling knowingly] “Basically.”
Onlooking girls may initially gasp and scold, but will later find themselves making out with you.
LikeLike
this ones easy if anyone enquires just tell them the fiat bankers, ben bernanke and the weekly standard are ruining the world with feminism and secretive tapings of tucker max buttsex reported by charlotte allen….
i don’t need to discuss politics with anyone but GBFM, i need his advice on who to vote for in the elections tomorrow here in uk, ever since iv’e been following his “teachings” all i see is fiat bankers here, there and everywhere.
LikeLike
Doug: Basic principle being “when they get serious, don’t take them seriously.”
LikeLike
@ JB
There’s a lot of social retards everywhere.
LikeLike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1272512/20-000-benefits-father-seven-children-video-games–pay-huge-booze-bill.html
LikeLike
That’s what I call a fucking alpha. Hopefully we’ll have players like that again in England. *spits on Beckham*
LikeLike
The UK is a bit better with the whole indiciduality thing.
Also, my professor in statistics and medical research education is supremely awesome.
The feminists in my year hate his guts, but he’s helped to debunk all sorts of sexual myths and the ’77 pence to a pound’ malarky, all in the name of demonstrating how moronic people are, and how manipulative the press is.
LikeLike
It’s not necessary to skirt the issue. I’ve never felt cockblocked by politics. I’m not political, and I don’t bring it up, but I don’t conceal it either. Just gotta hold your ground, and make a mockery of the opposition.
It’s happened several times, that I say something controversial, girl goes OMG, then I make a racist joke, and she laughs at it, and her guard disappears. It’s comforting, ’cause now she knows she doesn’t have to censor herself.
One time was talking to a girl who told me she wanted to be a doctor, and told her deadpan I’m not sure women can be doctors. Got bitchslapped and eventually a makeout, then parted ways.
Definitely with girls I’ve fucked, I’ve freely made racist and sexist jokes, had them make the bed, and they weren’t too concerned. Being a chauvinist actually makes them more likely to class you as lover rather than boyfriend material. Disagreement is exciting.
Me: (mocking Obama, someone mentioned him)
Drunk chick on street: OMG, you voted for McCain? Are you Republican???
Me: Nah, I’m a segregationist.
dislike A&A, except when it’s caustic…
(I’m at a liberal top college.)
LikeLike
Same thing works with hipster chicks in San Francisco – who are more sanctimonious than D.C. liberal chicks.
My conservative friends in D.C. say that you can get an occasional hate-fuck for the politically incorrect views; but mostly it’s better to pretend to be liberal.
When dealing with hipster chicks, you play non-status by mentioned how everything is “too commercial.” Liberal lawyer chicks like their Prada and D&G, so you can’t use that line. Instead, you can go far raving against the patriarchy that would hold them down by not allowing them to take dozens of cocks in their 20s.
LikeLike
CONFORMIST SUCKUP: “So what do you think of [controversial politically incorrect subject].”
ME: Politics was created to keep us apart, so that the power elite can loot us. It’s classic divide-and-conquer. Keeping up with that stuff is what people want us to do, so that they can exploit us.
CONFORMIST SUCKUP will either say, “What?! So you don’t have an opinion?!” Usually I’ll just say, “OK. Why don’t you tell me what your TV station of choice told you to think.” Bring on the hate-fuck.
Usually she’ll follow your lead and enter your We are One frame. That’s when I start talking about “energies” and “vibes,” and mention how I used to make fun of that stuff before I started taking Yoga. And now I totally can just “feel it,” with a person, you know.
Then gently rub your fingertips over her arm, saying: “You give off a really good energy.” Eye contact. Deep, intimate, eye contact. Draw her in…But don’t kiss close. Instead, look away, like you’re staring off into Infinity.
LikeLike
This is easy to do in conversation but what about in real academic work ? I simply cannot spend days on an essay parroting liberal lies just to appease my professors. It’s a fine line to tread in the humanities. I tend to take a purely aesthetic approach to most subjects and avoid topical themes to get through college. What does one do in those cases when one is forced to confront an issue that will red flag you to your professor ?
LikeLike
Americans were always like this.
In the Good Old Days, they would put an inane moral spin on their crazy lies. Or mention “freedom” somewhere.
Like:
“You can’t cheat and honest man.”
Unless you change the expiration dates on the bread your selling.
LikeLike
unrelated, but I know you guys love your dating science:
“High-Pitched Women Prefer Deep-Voiced Men”
http://www.livescience.com/culture/Deep-Voiced-Men-100505.html
LikeLike
How about totally agreeing with them for terribly un pc reasons.
“I agree with a womans right to abortion cause only women who are genetically predisposed to hate babies and want abortions will have them and they will have lots of them and breed themselves outta existance and abortion itself will vanish from existance for eternity as the baby loving women start to take over. ”
“I think that nonwhite immigration should be encouraged. Our wages will go to nothing, our women won’t be able walk the street at night, our “democratic” elections will become hopeless, our taxes will be spent subsidising our peoples enemies. But the worse this gets the more hostile the spirits of our people will become until one day when our hearts have become hard as iron through punishment as a sword becomes hard in the blacksmiths forge. On that day we will lay waste to the world and cleanse it through blood and iron. On that day this country will be ours again.
So yes I totally agree all of africa should come live here cause africa is so terrible.”
LikeLike
I like to give a flamboyantly non-PC answer.
Makes me feel like Robert Shaw in Jaws, dragging his nails across the chalkboard to silence the mindless droning bureaucrats.
Fuck it, I’m never going to be nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court, anyway, so why the hell not say what I really think?
LikeLike
As I’ve said before, if you can show either disagreement with or indifference to the preferred opinion so strongly that she will realize she’s not capable of arguing you out of your position, the cognitive dissonance of your being unembarrassed not to have the opinion all good people are supposed to have will get her juices flowing.
If the issue is not an opinion but support for a candidate, I like to turn the frame around.
“You’re asking me why I voted for McCain? I’m white, and most white people voted for McCain. You’re white but unlike most white people you voted for Obama — you’re the one who ought to be doing the explaining.”
“But it’s not about voting for someone of your color, that’s RAAAACIST. It’s about ISSUES.
“98% of Black people voted for Obama and only 55% of White people voted for McCain. WHICH of those groups are you saying was voting based on issues and not color?”
LikeLike
SUCKUP: So what do you think about … [I cease listening and look around the room]
ME: I don’t give a shit. [silence]. Cigarette?
LikeLike
@julian-
I’d probably write satire. Keep it emotional, avoid logic. Make it as extreme as you think you can without blowing your cover. If questioned by your professor, maintain a straight face. Make no statements. Agree (especially if agreeing makes no sense) or ask questions, preferrably tangential ones. After the final exam, perhaps in the professor’s first class of the next semester, make a public announcement and have a good laugh.
LikeLike
I like a lot of these, bur as far as advice I take home, gotta go with the original post, simple and effective.
I’ve never gotten laid by anything remotely attractive for winning an argument, pure fools gold right there.
LikeLike
I was always told to disagree or amplify when dealing with a potential rival. In the case of people who are ideologically wedded to the left or the right, I’ve found that it’s easier to either amplify or to criticize them from further to the left/right than they are.
I think agreeing with a sanctimonious asshole, even if being done with a smirk on your face, is letting them drive conversation and set the agenda.
If you can do it, criticizing a leftist from further left is lots of fun because it completely catches them off guard and they usually don’t have talking points mentally prepared to fend off a flanking attack. Same goes for people on the right. If you can get them to agree to something absurd, you’ve won.
LikeLike
This post is mainly directed at interacting with stupid males who don’t realize that when they defend the regime it’s like they’re taking a kabar to their own genitals. Instead of mealy-mouthed seeming agreement, and assuming you’re in the mood for an adrenaline rush and confrontation, first take a look around, and establish eye contact with the women nearby. Then return your gaze to your provocateur and say in a voice loud enough so that everyone can hear, but not quite loud enough to expect fisticuffs to ensue: “You’re an idiot”. Size him up. Those are fighting words but most men will back down. If he is a SWPL PC dweeb he won’t have the balls to confront you. Note that you never specified your politics so you can later claim that his particular understanding of some PC topic was amateurish and pedantic. Then in a flash, return your bolt-like gaze to the women to see what their reaction was. After all, you’re the leader aren’t you? BTW, don’t try this with anyone you know who is quick with his dukes.
Let’s return to a more interesting topic. How do you get smoke to come out of some female’s ears because your response doesn’t fit into an easy yes/no paradigm but requires her to think? Most female learning is by rote, so all you have to do is suffuse your response with PC rhetoric and feel-good words but have the result come out differently from the expected result, in a manner that benefits women, but in an unexpected way.
How about this: Her: How do you feel about feminism? You: Do you really want to talk about this, because I’ve had a genuine epiphany about feminism. Her: I want to hear your opinion. You: Are you sure? Her: Yes. You: I’m really reluctant to tell you this, but I’ve done some very diverse course work in cultural marxism and business studies. I’ve learned about how evil capitalists are, they’re just a bunch of old white guys that are out to screw everyone. From my cultural marxism studies I’ve learned about false consciousness. From my marketing studies I’ve also learned about focus groups and selling a product. Then one night I was surfing the web, and I learned that feminism was really hatched by the CIA and David Rockefeller, and that Gloria Steinem, HGB and Cosmo were selected to be the the prophets and bible of the new revolution. It was all focus-grouped on Madison Avenue to appeal to the most self-destructive strains in women. The powers that be are all snickering every time they hear a woman say how this or that feminist behavior empowers women when the ceo’s of major pharmaceuticals all laugh to themselves ‘her empowerment empowers my bank account!’ These ceos are all thinking the worst thoughts: ‘Ha Ha, when I screw one of these young hotties for the first time, its really the second time I’m screwing them – because I’ve already screwed them by encouraging them to make the worst life decisions.’ So, as you can see, I’m really reluctant to talk about feminism because all the smartest women hold it so dear, but it is really destroying them. I just want to hug all of you and protect you from those evil capitalists. Don’t you realize, feminism was hatched during the cold war to keep all of the adult population – including women – permanently mobilized? Feminism was hatched by the military-industrial complex! I warned you I didn’t want to talk about this!”
LikeLike
This is what I love about this blog…I’ve never read one that drills down deeper than this one. Examples of everyday occurances and how to get the upper hand out of the situation.
I appreciate it!
LikeLike
What’s the point here? To have a cheap laugh, to avoid an argument, or to try to embarrass? It sure ain’t to raise your standing.
To impress, try this. Read a lot and think deeply about these PC issues. Develop arguments and polemics against conformist nonsense. When a PC-bot opens a salvo, either reduce him or her to a blubbering fool, or cause them to quietly reconsider their positions, or at least show them who owns the superior mind.
A deeper technique in conflict resolution: The Rearden
LikeLike
@Dave; yeah, like you’re trying to do, except with real thoughts rather then a bunch of made-up nonsense.
LikeLike
Hey, ah, Joey, have you ever confronted another male in your life? I had an extremely well-educated women actually try to provoke a fight between me and another guy just to see who would back down. Her friends knew that she had done this before and intervened before fisticuffs ensued. The only criterion that matters where women are present is which male is perceived to be dominant. The moderator suggested one approach that deflects the issue, I suggested another that confronts the matter head on, only if you’re in the mood for it. If you’re bigger than the shit that’s asking the question, what do you have to be afraid of? Typically guys that ask such questions won’t be ones man enough to respond to you.
LikeLike
Dave,
You are probably far closer to the truth than is comfortable!
Do tell, what kind of reactions have you gotten from this? (I can almost smell the synapses frying from the cognitive dissonance overload…)
LikeLike
Dave, I’m 48 and yeah, I’m no stranger to confrontation. I don’t seek it. Any more.
I know what you mean; context matters. Roissy didn’t lay out any context in particular, hard to know what the point is.
If an attractive woman is trying to get me to lock horns with another guy and uses a hot-button political topic, my approach would depend on her and the guy. If I don’t respect the guy, I’ll walk away and say nothing, she’s not aware enough to be worth it. If he’s a credible opponent, I’ll go for it. If she’s just playing games, then I guess Roissy’s approach would be fun, letting the air out the balloon ( never mind the juice 🙂
“The only criterion that matters where women are present is which male is perceived to be dominant.”
No. It’s the most base criterion, not the only one.
Reading a lot of PUA-style evo-psych can lead to supposing that base nature is the only factor in every mating situation. It’s not.
My age is showing. I’ve got a big bag of deep arguments about PC issues. It’s not realistic to expect younger guys to have the same.
no offence intended.
LikeLike
The feminists in my year hate his guts, but he’s helped to debunk all sorts of sexual myths and the ’77 pence to a pound’ malarky
You mean they use the EXACT same bullshit line (in the U.S. it’s “77 cents on the dollar”, but the fraction is the same) about wages there too?
LikeLike
I would put your flier up around campus, but I am afraid my fiancee would leave me for you….
LikeLike
– YOU: [smiling knowingly] “Then I agree with you.”
It’s a clever reply, but is it too clever? Isn’t it possible that your irony would be wasted on the sort of joyless PC troglodyte that would ask this question. Such folks are not noted for their wit, rather they possess a studious mindlessness.
Perhaps a shocking, tasteless reply might be more effective, at least with women asking the questions.
Q “Are you pro-choice?”
A. “Sure am, on cluster bombs”
LikeLike
I doubt it will work against the most menacing ones, the higher status ones. These guys would rather be feared than loved.
LikeLike
My new line: I support Ron Jeremy for President. I think all politicians should go fuck themselves, so we may as well elect a guy who literally can.
LikeLike
I believe Socrates, when facing this situation (“What do you think about this subject” from a superficial person), would respond:
“Well, you seem to know a lot about this topic. Tell me more of your thoughts about it.”
After a few minutes of hearing them out, he would then take them apart, piece by piece, with his logical mind.
I have only done this once, with my daughter. It was devastating. This technique is just too powerful too use. It’s unfair, really. It’s like Feynman’s discovery about bedding girls (“All you have to do is ask.”) Takes all the fun out of it.
They did make Socrates take poison, didn’t they?
LikeLike
I’m a student at Bard College in New York. I can honestly say with damn near statistical significance that it is one of the most hopelessly pretentious and douchey establishments on the East Coast, and has been since the f*cking 20’s. On that note, the amount of heinous pontificating and egotistical masturbation that I, a fairly normal, modest, liberal-arts minded individual, have to put up with from high-wasted debutantes, suspender-ed Heidegger-ites and horn-rimmed humanitarians is unbearable. But, thanks to you, my Captain, I’ve had a large stock of psychological and sociological ammunition to use against the invasive hipster (and the overwhelming population of waif-y, gorgeous and damaged female matriculates). Watching the rusty cogs of the perplexed high-horseman turn, desperately in need of some lubricant in the form of common sense, testosterone, and a shave, has been my distinct pleasure and one of the few forms of entertainment out here in Bumblefuck-on-Hudson, NY. Thanks once again Roissy, I owe you.
LikeLike
Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice,
because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice.
Allan Bloom, American educator, author, (1930–1992)
This blog and its readers are slowly exhibiting all the signs of a cult. I just wanted to mark my prediction on the sands of time so to speak. You have all been warned.
LikeLike
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=298133
LikeLike
tp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1161398/ready_to_rumble_greatest_fistfights.html?cat=9
Stewie is thankful that us men have evolved to the point that male US politicians only attack each other with words!
LikeLike
Here’s the link:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1161398/ready_to_rumble_greatest_fistfights.html?cat=9
LikeLike
Interesting straw-woman various posters are knocking down here. If this mythical hot super PC bitch is truly a rampant phenomenon, then I suggest you all just move to a rural area, or the South/Middle America. Most PC uber-leftists around here are mainly the unattractive or dowdy girls who operate under the college version of Steve sailer’s law of female journalism.
LikeLike
Once again I am so very off-topic, but I suspect this sort of thing will appeal to Roissy and some of the regulars here; it’s about the very darkest and most ancient, savage aspects of our human selves that keep surfacing in polite conversation during unguarded moments:
Human Sacrifice: Still Effective After All These Years
As we all know, human sacrifice was hugely popular for thousands and thousands of years until humorless sourpusses finally succeeded in giving it a bad reputation. But from time to time, reasonable people perceive that the violent death of an innocent person or two can really be motivational and therapeutic….
Read the rest on my blog: http://ostronova.wordpress.com
LikeLike
– Unlearning Genius
“… all the signs of a cult?”
I’ll be worried when they start building Roissytown in the jungles of Guyana.
Until then, your worries are somewhat far-fetched.
LikeLike
Dwayne Wade’s ex-wife goes nuclear:
http://www.hoopsdaily.com/content/dwyane-wades-wife-sues-his-actress-girlfriend-over-emotional-distress
LikeLike
@ Grampa: Socrates was condemned to death at the age of 70 for the charge of corrupting the youth and inventing false gods. He sentence was carried out by him drinking hemlock.
LikeLike
This post is a fail. Bring back roissy!
LikeLike
This is subtle and delicious. I wonder if one could drag it out further with a fight-seeker still:
You: Then that’s what I think (evil half-smirk).
Him: That’s not really what you think!
You: (with just the most homeopathic dose of false sincerity and sarcasm) Oh, but it’s obviously right!
And so keep toying with the bastard.
LikeLike
julian
This is easy to do in conversation but what about in real academic work ? I simply cannot spend days on an essay parroting liberal lies just to appease my professors. It’s a fine line to tread in the humanities. I tend to take a purely aesthetic approach to most subjects and avoid topical themes to get through college. What does one do in those cases when one is forced to confront an issue that will red flag you to your professor ?
You have two choices
1) Shut up and get your diploma. Good advice since it’s just a certification mechanism designed by the fiat bankers.
2) Get in their face. I had a friend who very openly disagreed with feminist professors in class. It was brilliant because (a) he was extremely intelligent and put them on their ass and (b) he insulated himself against retaliation by publicly debating them. If they tanked his grade he could report them for doing so as a personal vendetta for disagreeing with them. To do this you gotta have balls of steel.
From personal experience, I can tell you that professors don’t want to be hassled. So if you give them shit in class, they will think twice about lowering your grade b/c they know a shitstorm of shit would come their way. Unless they have tenure I suppose.
LikeLike
I like to amplify things – if responding with along the suggested lines, I’d use
“It’s nice to see that you so thoroughly take the line your masters tell you to take. Original thought is just sooooo difficult.
But often I like to stake out the flamboyantly outrageous outlier response (either the ultra-anti-PC one or an obviously insincere uber-PC position).
LikeLike
@cheshirecat
Yeah, I think it was 78 pence. Somethink like that (was adapted from the bogus data from the US in the 70s)
The EU fucking paid for adverts in all major newspapers this year about ‘pay-equality’ and the ‘pay-gap’. I actually went into apoppletic rage on the bus over it.
As for my professor, he told that the data was techincally correct, but they didn’t correct for marital status (marriage equals more money for men [before kids], but less for women), child status (kids bring it down), part-time vs full-time (full time jobs pay more per hour) and also, because it was the 70s, there also failed to correct for more senior male roles.
Once you correct for it, it goes to 98 in a hundred, with + or – 5 in either direction [95% confidence interval]. Therefore there is no significant difference in wages.
LikeLike
@unlearning genius
Thanks captain save-a-ho. Now lick my balls.
LikeLike
I guess I’ve been out of college too long (and the ones I attended are known for their no-nonsense intellectual rigor) to give a damn about pissing off PC liberals and anyone else for that matter.
But I’m pretty confident in my opinions and I’m not afraid to voice them.
So when someone asks me what I think, I tell them. I’m polite and matter of fact and not rude or offensive.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Yes, they are times when, in order to get something from someone, I don’t reveal my real opinions.
But that’s rare.
LikeLike
Hughman
Well, the case for feminism fumbles and trips and starts to completely fall down if you
a) believe in the laws of supply and demand and the free market
and
b) believe that employers value the work of women less than men.
If employers are only willing to pay 77 cents on the dollar, it means the worth of a woman’s work doing a man’s job is 77 less valuable.
There is no other explanation. No employer would refuse to safe money. And employers are neither sexist, nor not sexist – they are all about the number.
So where women are as competent, the market values their work. Materials, labor and overhead are balanced against sales. It’s math.
***
As for me, I usually prefer to hire women, only because they usually have far less drive and ambition than a man, and so don’t consider stealing my business secrets and setting up a competing business.
If I were to hire on competency plus drive alone, I’d go with men. In some areas women are at least as competent – grunt financial work is fine. I even had one secretary with very problem solving skills and a who could self motivate to complete a big picture task who did not need to be micromanaged about what steps to do.
But if it’s creative thinking you need, if you require drive and resourcefullness, hire men. Young men, if you can manage them, or a combination of young and more experienced, if you can afford the management.
LikeLike
“Let’s You and Him Fight”
http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_LYAHF.htm
This may be a maneuver, a ritual or a game. In each case the psychology is essentially feminine. Because of its dramatic qualities, LYAHF is the basis of much of the world’s literature, both good and bad.
1. As a maneuver it is romantic. The woman maneuver or challenges two men into fighting, with the implication or promise that she will surrender herself to the winner. After the competition is decided, she fulfils her bargain. This is an honest transaction, and the presumption is that her and her mate live happily ever after.
2. As a ritual, it tends to be tragic. Custom demands that the two men fight for her, even if she does not want them to, and even if she has already made her choice. If the wrong man wins, she must nevertheless take him. In this case it is society and not the woman who sets up LYAHF. If she is unwilling, the transaction is an honest one. If she is unwilling or disappointed, the outcome may offer her considerable scope for playing games, such as ‘Let’s Pull A Fast one on Joey’.
3. As a game it is comic. The woman sets up the competition, and while the two men are fighting, she decamps with a third. The internal and external psychological advantages for her and her mate are derived from the position that honest competition is for suckers, and the comic story they have lived through forms the basis for the internal and external social advantages.
LikeLike
You> I agree with that
Her> Really?
You> No, to be frank, I dont give a shit, Im just tolerating your presence because you have a nice smile.
LikeLike
I don’t get this post by Roissy. Why is this a trumping? You’re just agreeing with him, and hinting that maybe you really disagree…what’s so great about that?
I say take these fuckers head-on…they can’t do anything to you.
LikeLike