It is so primitive and stupid. Not everything about a person is such that they can be correctly ranked on a single linear scale. Sloots seem to find dominant men attractive, but what do you do if you have like Einstein in a room vs prime Arnold vs Joseph Stalin vs Bill Gates or some chit? Who is the most dominant? Is it Stalin because he'd just have everyone killed? Is it Bill because he COULD have everyone killed? Is it Einstein because he could probably work out how to kill everyone in a ridiculous way? Is it Arnold because he could physically beat down and probably kill those other dudes 1v1? Who has the most power in that room? Or do sloots just fuk all of them and hope they get a baby?

It doesn't make sense. People can be dominant in one arena and pathetic in another. Who is the alpha in the above list? Or do you just have to be alpha at something?

If dominance is attained by personal challenges, it is not always clear a top alpha exists in those challenges. Example: Bob can beat Tom. Tom can beat Joe. Joe can beat Bob. Joe challenges Tom and loses. Tom challenges Bob and loses. Bob is declared alpha. But Bob still could lose to Joe.

Maybe even the most seemingly Chad person could get mogged by some random and appear less dominant in something. What the fuk is the point? We all survived damnit. We are all here now. And each of us, no matter our wealth, strength, intelligence, political power, etc is fully capable of defeating any other person in some contrived circumstance.

So, what the fuk is the point of the hierarchy? How can there even be a hierarchy?

Conclusion: All sloots are fuking retarded and will hop from dink to dink, comparing men pairwise against others in some contrived scenarios without realizing their comparisons are fuking stupid. It's impossible to justify yourself as "the best" man. You have strengths and weaknesses. These sloots can always find some weakness and compare you to another. They'll never be content that you are the most dominant man unless you voluntarily restrict yourself to arenas which make you look alpha. Ironically, this is the most beta chit ever because people like that never challenge themselves.

What a joke.

tldr

in on future killer thread

get help

Didn't read but seems like you're becoming a communist because you don't wanna compete with others op

Your problem is how differently you view women. If you didn’t look at them as some alien species maybe you wouldn’t be such a weird virgin fuk. You are obsessing over what women as a whole think or act like or want.

We’re all people boyo form some real connections with individuals instead of living in this world of greatest common factors.

wincel sig line

proud owner of a Kel Tec KSG-25 shotgun crew

Post your manifesto and get it over with

You take this chit wayyy tooo seriously dude.

OP....

stay away from guns please

I think competition can be a great thing, but I think today, we are too hung up on who wins and who loses. As I said, depending on the arena, you will get a different winner. And if it is something like sports, for example, it isn't always the best team that wins the finals due to seeding and pairwise matches.

Men compete mostly to establish dominance in a particular arena. But women are looking at men and trying to guess the most dominant man across all arenas somehow. I'm asking how one even judges such a thing. How do you determine who is the "best guy" if so many people are great at specific things, but suck at others? And what about the generalist who is okay at a lot of things, but not top in any of them? Is there no place for him?

And is there nothing to be said for people with the courage to compete in arenas they suck at just for the challenge? Can we respect Timothy the manlet for trying to play basketballl even if he sucks at it? Doesn't that itself demonstrate a kind of alpha trait?

lmao

You *******s know I am right. There is no hierarchy. There is only an illusion of it. People will select the arena they seem dominant in and pretend they are better. A rich man will brag about his wealth. A famous one will brag about his fame. A pious man will brag of his virtue. A strong man will brag about his strength. And all of them are both winners and losers depending on the arenas in which they compete.

There is no hierarchy. It's a fuking lie.

definitely the ultimate ladykiller vibes from this freak

This is what happens when someone spends too much time on the misc.

Women are just people brah...try.. idk, actually just talking to one like a person?

Are you guys just gonna pretend women don't assess the quality of men and try to judge them on some sort of dominance hierarchy? Are we really gonna pretend this isn't a thing? I am saying this hierarchy exists entirely in the minds of these dumb sloots. It is not real. There is no actual "highest status" male.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy

"Dominance hierarchy is a type of social hierarchy that arises when members of a social group interact, to create a ranking system. In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fighting each time they meet, relative rank is established between members of the same sex. Based on repetitive interactions a social order is created that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one."

My point is that depending on arena, a different individual will seem dominant. There is no true dominant man. I have noticed that many men who seem dominant in a given arena will tend to dismiss other arenas as irrelevant and only theirs as most important as well. This seems to be a way to keep them at the top.

OP you put way too much thought into this stuff. I had a roommate in college for a year who was about the same level of attractiveness as me but was a totally different type. He looked very young for his age and was 5'6" I looked older and am 6'2". Some girls liked him more than me and some girls liked me more than him. Women have different tastes. As long as your not ugly it doesn't matter if your a manlet or bald or whatever other hangups you might have there is an attractive girl out there who will either not care or prefer the quality you hate about yourself

this guy gonna go supreme gentlemen.

And you'll brag about intellect, omnipotence, enlightenment?

-30 year old virgin crew
-philosopher of women's inner thoughts, morality and sexual desires

pick one brah

Wait a minute, now you're blaming WOMEN for the male obsesion with ranking everything as "alpha" or "beta"?

You've got to be kidding me.

No. I'll brag about not playing anymore. This game is fuking stupid. I'm done trying to establish myself on some illusory hierarchy. I am done hoping to impress some female. Fuk this. Just gonna spend the remainder of my life rotting. Fuk the "hierarchy". So much of life revolves around trying to fuking 1up people in some bullchit competition for "dominance" when you can always be overthrown simply by setting foot into a new arena.

Society influences and shapes women into thinking certain arenas are important and it becomes so. It's a giant chitshow and I am done. I don't need wealth. I just need enough for what I want, and it's not much. I don't need to be jacked. I don't need to be smart. I don't need to be anything. I just need food, water, and a place to fuking sleep safely. That's literally it. The hierarchy can lick my balls.I think it's a primitive obsession by both genders because men used to historically fight in direct combat to establish dominance for mates. I am saying that entire structure is obsolete because anyone can kill anyone now and everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. It is ridiculous to try to judge who the "most dominant man" is. I gave a good example of 4 men who were each exceptional in their own arenas, but incompetent in the others'. Who is at the top of the hierarchy?

All you have to do to get women is not be a wierdo who types out all of that on an online forum.

I mean there's some form of hierarchy, but men do exactly the same with women, we judge women based on a set of factors, rank women we see in a hierarchy of preference, and choose our partners accordingly

Simple question to ask yourself is, what do you bring to the table? If you were a woman, would you be interested in you?

Women are people, and believe it or not they aren't some kind of hivemind, they DO have independent thought. You're massively over thinking and have a very self defeatist attitude.

Hey, not reading your chit, fuk yourself

Dude Stalin would have cucked all of them lol and he was 5'5"

Sorry too much to read wincel brah... But if you want to seem more "dominate" without being able to naturally display it, go get some tattoos like all the other cookie cutters.

Because if one person in the room is too dominant, then the rest will just gang up on him and kill him.


It appears stalin is having everyone killed. None of us can beat him by ourselves, we should gang up on him.


The person at the top of the hierarchy is the person who does the best for themselves while simultaneously doing what's best for the community.

Can't believe you spent time to write that novel lmao, seriously though seek help

No. It is completely normal to have this. What I am trying to understand is what the ranking system is. People talk about "social status" and the "dominance hierarchy" as important to women. I am asking how we can even define a person's social status since it varies from arena to arena. Bill Gates may be wealthy, for example. But he would have low status among men in an MMA arena or at the gym or at a conference of researchers...

We all have a hierarchy of preferences based on specific requirements we look for in mates. We seek people who meet those requirements as closely as we can and we settle after we don't expect to find "better" and/or become invested in the other person. The issue is that "social dominance" is widely considered to be extremely attractive to women and an important requirement for most women.

But I am saying it is highly contrived because you can appear socially dominant by remaining in your little arena and playing that up as representative of reality. If you pretend wealth is all that matters and you are very rich, you can make yourself seem very alpha if you selectively avoid any other arena of competition. Prime example of this is our President btw lol.

I suppose sloots just choose whoever seems dominant in arenas they are interested in and communities of which they are a part. It still feels so contrived and pointless to try to win that competition. Because that hierarchy exists mostly in the mind of the female evaluating you. You can objectively try to improve your wealth to get gold diggers or your knowledge to get brain diggers or your fame to get fame diggers or whatever else to get whatever other type of girl. But it's so contrived. We are like peacocks trying to 1up each other on displays.

Your mistake is thinking there is only one path to dominance and only one aspect of society/the world to dominate.