Reminder: Normies lie to fit in

White people lie for a lot of reasons, but the thing to remember when you start getting black pilled is that 80% of the time it’s to fit in.

“But Aeoli, what did these people ever do to deserve your help?” What did your wife and kids ever do to deserve your help? It doesn’t matter, because they’re yours.

And since my people belong to me (and I, to a lesser extent, to them), they’re under my protection. Even if for no other reason, I’ll struggle on their account because it makes me look weak for other predators to encroach on my turf, and Mother Nature abhors weaklings. She’s a real bitch that way.

Fortunately, I’ve developed an autistic flowchart for how to behave toward bitches.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Reminder: Normies lie to fit in

  1. Obadiah says:

    “Ernest Scared Stupid” is unironically the most terrifying American film of the 1990s.

    Probably done deliberately by Hollywood Satanists to fuck with kids’ brains

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I’m more inclined to the Roald Dahl school of thought toward scaring children. People are generally tougher than we give them credit for, so long as they have a strong concept of loving safety to return to and rebuild their psyches stronger than before. AKA eustress.

  2. The Game Master says:

    Yes, they do. That being said, some spergs need to recalibrate their oversensitive lie detectors so that they can avoid confusing blunt, badly worded, subjective opinions for agenda-driven lies.

    Just the other day, some aggressive guy with severe assburgers, who read Curt Doolittle without wisdom or understanding, tried to prosecute me for lying when I was merely opinionated about some gay, pseudointellectual social activity, physically sick, and suffering from a bout of schizoid inarticulateness. Explaining my choice of words and trying to be conciliatory and understanding just made him angrier and more aggressive too, so I had to switch strategies. The whole thing was absolutely surreal.

    So my point is, like, there’s a difference between having an honest, non-operationally-worded opinion about something and lying for status reasons, OK? Maybe, after a while, some spergs start seeing filthy normie liars behind every bush.

    Also, some people just repeat things in order to gain status without ever really analyzing the content of the repeated words. So their “lies” are merely words whose true meaning is obscured, and only a fool would take their literal meaning seriously.

    • name says:

      If he got angry after your explanation it’s either a bad explanation or you didn’t properly understand why he was angry. I’d rather assume malice rather than stupidity in scenarios involving strangers anyway.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        >I’d rather assume malice rather than stupidity in scenarios involving strangers anyway.

        Spending your life on the edge of fight or flight anxiety will destroy all of your relationships.

        • name says:

          It makes it easier to understand that some people are simply malicious and I’m not the problem. Otherwise I think social interactions would be meaningfully more difficult to navigate if I assumed people were good but stupid, like I did when I was younger, rather than psychopathic and stupid. It hasn’t destroyed any of my relationships, since a stranger would be definition of being a stranger not be in any relationship with me. Acquaintance get different treatment depending on my judgement.

          I don’t understand why it would ruin any of my relationships. I don’t have any ability to handle malice in any other way than to acknowledgement and try deal with it within the boundaries of what is reasonable and socially acceptable.

      • The Game Master says:

        It was a bad explanation, so I failed to communicate clearly. I didn’t really feel like describing every inferential step that I took, and his mind-blindness prevented him from reconstructing those steps. He requested an explanation by saying something like, “How does your reply relate to what this guy said?” which rudely suggests that I’m too irrational to understand how irrelevant my observation was in the context of their unimpressive mind game. I don’t like to give information away, and I don’t like justifying my intuitive leaps to others. Still, jumping to conclusions about my motives and the extent of my knowledge feels unfair and unnecessarily hostile. That being said, I’ve harshly shut down manipulative normies using tactics very similar to the ones that this sperg used on me, so maybe I deserved it.

        Anyway, after a very unpleasant exchange, I finally managed to explain my position on Skepticism™, which is distinct from skepticism:

        “Can you provide a peer-reviewed source for that? Remember, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, asshole! You’re probably too clueless to know what I’m talking about, so here’s a Wikipedia link on the burden of proof.” = Bullshit pseudointellectual social game that gets in the way of honest communication

        “I’m not so sure about that. How did you come to that conclusion?” = Genuine human interaction

        Don’t conflate the two.

        • genius says:

          You sound like an arrogant prick.

        • genius says:

          That’s probably too aggressive.
          >I’m too irrational to understand how irrelevant my observation was
          If you knew you’ve made an irrational statement that wasn’t reasonably related to something, why would you assume that someone calling this out is in the wrong, especially over something so innocent as just asking how it relates? No conversation on the internet goes under the assumption of an accepted courtesy system. It sounds closer to you getting angry over someone not coddling you like an infant. I don’t see much of a difference between your technically second example and the third, either, other than one is funny. The same information is being asked for, there’s not a functional difference.
          You sound like an arrogant prick.

          • The Game Master says:

            I don’t believe that it was irrational. I simply believe that the connection wasn’t obvious, which was my fault. Being less arrogant would be easier if I weren’t always right about everything. You sound like a sperg. Anyway, I’m eager to see how well not coddling people pays off for you. You’ll let me know, won’t you?

            • genius says:

              Don’t complain about social mind games if that’s all you are. Honesty and genuine human contact starts at willingness to be wrong and be hurt, it doesn’t start at being incapable of taking any criticism. Your example of a sperg being over sensitive to lies portrays you in a bad light, even with all the hyperbolic nonsense you use to try to make yourself look slightly better.

            • The Game Master says:

              Forgive me for not liking it when someone requests information in a rude, one-sided, implicitly prosecutorial way, only to assume that I’m being malicious after I fail to answer eagerly with a detailed, verbally flawless response. Though, yes, I could have explained the connection better or just ignored him entirely. I could also do a better job of verbalizing my cognitive processes in certain situations.

              Regarding the reason for my (anti-)social mind games, I’m not willing to take such criticism from you, because, based on what you’ve said here, I don’t entirely trust you. So, the barrier stays up.

            • name says:

              Trust isn’t required to understand the hypocrisy in your expectations.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              This argument is five days old and nothing more edifying is going to come from it. Therefore further comments will be deleted.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Seeing all normies as liars is the same as seeing all women as liars. It’s true and an essential mental model for survival and reproduction. The problem is when you make that your only moral axis, because suddenly by virtue of being born with Asperger’s you’re this morally superior creature despite spending all your time masturbating in a treestump. But at least you aren’t lying!

      • bicebicebice says:

        your “associative horizon” seems extremely limited or maybe its a reflection of a kwanstanian or the country and mentalt state of kwanstania itself, this is also the extent of mynewpolitics and why it already failed because its the same cope blerg-spewn garbage as before, heres the deal-o; cool white dudes don’t read “blogs” nor do they use the “internet” any longer, there is nothing to gain from it except muh 2 moore weeks or muh redpills and spare me the pdf.
        Itz a fucking something that you truly believe you can trudge on here and show those blackpilled wankers how its done for real this time! I truly wish you good luck in that *spoiler* fruitless endeavor.

        No wonder tex permanently left the country and the bloggosphere

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          And LinkedIn, a couple of weeks ago.

          >Itz a fucking something that you truly believe you can trudge on here

          I’ve always blogged and always will. One doesn’t “always bet on neanderthal” because we’re sane, it’s the precise opposite.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s