SATF Smear Autopsy Report (part 1)

2-association-fallacy (1)
Comments (41)
  1. Lloygic says:

    Sweet. My first published article. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    1. Jessire Nagy says:

      ♂ On the top of caption-picture on right beneath title are 2 little symbols; the commenting bubble indicates comments for article, but does anyone know what the arrow symbol left of it indicate? ♂

    2. Jessire Nagy says:

      No, we’re not. This deflection is just another aspect of male disposability done by gynocentrists. These deflections are maintained by people who operate by mostly anecdotal/”experiential” living – “You’re wrong because I have good beer”, then devalue other real experiential anecdotes as just “bitter”. THEY’RE just like the feminists.

  2. Max Hydrogen says:

    MGTOW is a mind-junction and doesn’t need to answer allegations or prove anything. Who are we presenting this argument to? WE know MGTOW is not like Feminism so to whom are we talking?

    We need to produce material which will help us disengage from society physically, financially and mentally.

    1. Andy says:

      “We need to produce material which will help us disengage from society physically, financially and mentally.”
      I fully aggree with this statement.

      Yet, this does not happen. Why should MGTOWs also waste time on another self created acronym like SATF? For the same reason they spend all their time talking on “women do this, women do that, feminism blablabla”. Its an intellectual construct, not a physical one. Even if there is no woman in their life, they babble on about the non-factor, since its the very center of their ideology. And at this point the snake bites its tail, cause MGTOW defines itself as a group by differentiating from others, just like anti-feminist “SATF”s do somehow defining themselfs as non-MGTOWs.

    2. Lloygic says:

      That’s a good question, I’m presenting this argument to MGTOW for the sake of others adopting the easy way to destroy any SATF arguments that may be thrown their way. As for why I’d bother with something like that, I used to be pretty involved in the atheist movement about 8 years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed the clear, well-structured arguments that both sides would throw at each other. This was all entertainment for me until I had some Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my house about 4 years ago asking to talk to me about how evolution was “just a theory.” Under normal circumstances that would have resulted in shutting the door and them continuing their pattern of irritating neighbors and me periodically. Instead, I was able to crystallize all of the arguments that they were trying to use, and then destroy them right in front of them after having established something stronger than they could ever articulate. In addition to them getting emotional on me and going off-script (which I was also able to handily smack down), I’ve not been bothered by JW’s since (I’m pretty sure my house is blacklisted, I regret not trying to proselytize atheism to them when I had the chance).

      Taking the time to explore the structure of arguments serves as an education for those of us willing to engage those who would seek to acquire internet fame at our expense. Given the recent strawmanning debacle between Spinosauruskin and TL;DR, this would be a critical service to offer other MGTOW.

      1. Andy says:

        “I used to be pretty involved in the atheist movement about 8 years ago,”

        Oh come on! Why?? Atheism is about not believing, how is there a movement consuming 8 years about NOT doing something. Just to have some bullshit argument with some peddlers. You could have learned a language in that time.

        1. Lloygic says:

          You act as if I didn’t learn a language. A language of logic.

          You seem pretty dead-set against my explanation of why I think this argument is important, and seem to also want to rail against it, so I’m comfortable with accepting that you don’t like the piece and probably won’t read the next part. Thanks for the feedback regardless.

          1. Andy says:

            You argued with strangers about this logic, about what you are not instead of finding something you are and bound with your kind and kin.

            I understand everyone has some sort of rebellious phase about atheism and “religion is for idiots maaan”, but what fills in? Another ritual? What helps you bound with your people instead from differentiating yourself from others, from the ones who are outgroup anyway. No offence to you, but a good example where this atheism thing and “be about not-a-thing”-activism leads to is this “amazing atheist”, a fat guy who rants on the internet about what ,he is not’ and that is not be something is his identity. I’am not religious or something but rather give me something rather than making your identity about what youre not.

        2. sam says:

          Oh shit, this geezer is still alive. Still yapping about the 1950s.

  3. Andy says:

    Funny how he starts this bro-down with the same monkey dance men always use to provoke each other. The joggs pick on the nerds, the chicks pick on the nerds, the feminists pick on the nerds: You are small, weak, full of pimples and don’t get chicks, you are not manly. What is just missing is calling them Cowards, but that would be pointless since no one dares to show his face around her, over all not BarBar himself.

    Personaly i don’t throw any “SAFT” darts out there to start arguments, since i don’t care about people on the internet disagreeing with me who i never will meet. I think many of those MGTOW boys are lonely, and they need some sort of community. But this online bullshit just makes it worse, just like internet scamers and hacks like Stefan Molyneux do with their online community driving people away from their real life community with people who wanna be with you to be with you and not to be just with someone.

    1. It’s good to see that there are still real men out there and the world hasn’t been overrun by PigTow extremists…

      Now mosey on over to my site and register.

      We’ve added a new verification feature to make sure you are not a troll. You must send a few timestamped nude selfies including close-ups of your penis. Don’t worry, it’s the Honey Badgers, not some gay guys who do the verification. And don’t worry about them snickering about you being too small, they only giggled at Esmay and he’s known as Mr. Peanut, hehe.

      Hillary 2016!

      1. Andy says:

        Nice Trolljob.

    2. Tungsten Thorax says:

      I disagree.

      1. Andy says:

        Pfff.. what do i care.

        1. Tungsten Thorax says:

          I’ve no idea. Why are you here again?

  4. The Reservoir says:

    Welcome Lloygic

    I think we should talk more about women because it really hurts tradcons and especially avfm manginas who are long known avfm commentors but after the creation of decided to spent rest of their lives trolling this website. Now you rarely see them on avfm and more often here. I enjoy and laugh at their butthurt reactions on every good article that shows them how much pussy whipped they are. Keep the dance going :-)

    1. Lloygic says:

      Thanks Reservoir!

    2. Tungsten Thorax says:

      Indeed. A certain amount of misogyny serves as a brake on mainstream acceptance and keeps the movement pure.

    3. Andy says:

      So you make your identity about trolling. About women who shouldn’t be a role in a MGTOWs life anyway. Just because it hurts strangers on the internet, letting this pissing contest define you.

      Yeah Kid, you sound like a real winner.

      1. Tungsten Thorax says:

        You know, that comment was actually meant ironically,but the more I think about it the more I think I’m onto something.

        Oh and BTW criticism is not ‘trolling’.

  5. necro panda says:

    When people use the SATF smear they are essentially using it as a cheep way of dismissing mgtow arguments and conclusions made on humanity by them. By using this method of dismantling their argument it is also encouraging them to think more about mgtow arguments to give their response. When this happens the original effect of the argument being a cheep way of not having to look at mgtow positions is dispelled. But of course this will not have the same effect if the person you are responding to is just a shit troll.

    1. Andy says:

      “Oh yeah they just don’t get our arguments maaan”

      Two persons can look at the very same argument and use it for total different reasons and can come to total diffrent conclusions each. This is the point where you think you find some overall truth of the universe and now everyone who doesn’t share you conclusions is wrong.

      Yeah society fucks you over, yeah the government is centered around womens needs, yeah school turns boys into emotional cripples, everything true and all but where does this get you?
      Whats your tomorrow look like? Sitting at home watching sandman videos becoming a loner feeling better about yourself? This shit turns young men into lone losers and lets them pay for it, just like this god damn hack Molyneux does with his “your parents are bad and oppress you, society is stupid just you know the truth”. Seriously, fuck this bullshit. This sandman guy even paints a picture of economic collapse and peak oil(total BS by the way) and at the same time isolates men from group and tribal concepts, turning them into wormfood if his own scenarios whould happen.( i think he doesn’t even believe his own shit and thats just a cashcow for him.)

      1. sam says:

        It still better than listening to some old fuck blabbing about how so much better it was back in the days of Eisenhower and how WWII veterans rule, bunch of dumb fuck getting their asses handed to them by the Axis.

        1. Andy says:

          You give the best trolljobs Sam.

          1. sam says:

            Thanks grandpa, that means a lot coming from an old fuck like you, it truly does.

      2. necro panda says:

        If you have a problem with sandman then you should go and take it up with him. Going on about that with me is going to do shit all.

        “Two persons can look at the very same argument and use it for total different reasons and can come to total diffrent conclusions each. This is the point where you think you find some overall truth of the universe and now everyone who doesn’t share you conclusions is wrong.”

        I never stated that it would lead to any of that. What I said is when they use it do dismiss MGTOW they will need to than consider MGTOW positions to continue after you dismantle the smear. By doing this you hinder the ability for it to be used as a way to dismiss.
        I have no delusions that It would lead to them seeing thing my way.

        1. Andy says:

          “I never stated that it would lead to any of that.”

          You do in the first sentence. You still think this is some kind of competition between ideological concepts, but its not. Its rather an existencial question for that MGTOW has no answer for, but pretends to do. That is sandman, that is a compulsory exercise of prayer.

          1. necro panda says:

            What answer am I pretending to have? Also what is up with you constantly talking about sandman to me? surly you could find a more appropriate place to talk about that.

      3. Tungsten Thorax says:

        Yeah worrying about truth is for losers, and it’s not worth arguing with people if you think they have misunderstood you in some way.

        Only someone with delusions of grandeur we even attempt such a thing.

        1. Andy says:

          “Yeah worrying about truth is for losers, ”

          In a way, it is. Overall it doesn’t change anything. Even if something like overall truth would exist, whats the point? For now i see just haggeling going in with that term, for example when Molyneux the Hack throws out all these BS videos with clickbait titles like “The truth about blabla” as we are all too stupid to make up our mind and we need some fucking hucksler to sell us truth as some sort of fucking lifestyle product. Truth will set you free says the bible, since it handles the term the same way like all of em.

          1. Tungsten Thorax says:

            OK so I guess that makes you a loser then doesn’t it fella?

            Any chance you can convert any of this hot air into logic or is that only for nerds?

          2. Andy says:

            No it does not. Why should it? Told you already in an upper post, two people can look at the same facts and come to diffrent opinions about them. If thats hot air for you, just dig out some podcast where someone tells you how it realy is and what you have to believe now.

          3. Tungsten Thorax says:

            ..because according to your reasoning, any statement in which one might assert something is a waste of time and for losers, soft lad.

  6. Tim says:

    Men don’t matter – until their deaths are needed to protect women’s rights.

  7. Tim says:

    Men’s rights don’t matter – until their deaths are needed to protect women’s rights. Only then do women acknowledge men’s value – but only through men’s deaths for women. That’s what makes women pure sociopaths.

  8. Tim says:

    It is truly this bitch that destroyed men’s love of women. Behold Satan’s daughter:

  9. Tim says:

    The woman the murdered boyfriend Travis Alexander:

  10. Catherine says:

    Wow, looks good, especially the conclusion. I was searching for
    that subject for a few times throughout the nest, however there was not anything precious.

    So pleased to achieve your post in the end. I’m excited about this subject, and I need to be constantly
    aware of the most recent news. That is a joy
    to read your post and finally clarify the issue myself.

  11. Susan Robinson says:

    You did a great job! This post sound really nice. I saw something similar a few weeks ago,
    something similar to this, but you did detailed study, and your post
    seems to be more compelling than others. I
    am amazed by the arguments you provided as well as the style of your post.
    I like when articles are both informative and interesting,
    when even boring facts are presented in an interactive way.

    Well, it’s definitely about your post.

  12. Jarvis-Phillips Caroline says:

    The brand new idea is here). I’ve read the post with great satisfaction and
    even could know something brand new I will use for my additional requirements.
    The article is bright and clear, with no further useless facts or else, it reminded me The speech
    is both brilliant and vivid, so the more I read, the more I do enjoy it!
    Anyway, the information is rather cutting edge, so just like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *