Sorge is either a Heideggerian or presocratic term, depending upon whether you love or hate Heidegger. (And there are only two ways to feel about that particular thinker.) Either way, sorge implies a general love for the world, a concern for society, or a similar general care. I think wimminz’ bad choices are indicative of a lack of it in the general female population.
Down below, Caspar writes:
Black Pill’s articles are almost always solid, so I have to hope that he’ll follow up his Space-Travel as Ghosting piece by expounding on these sentiments. Either way, he has so far missed his chance to talk about wimminz as they have historically existed: as the primary ecological pillagers. This facet of wimminz (mis)behavior transcends race, temporality or culture.
It is not that wimminz are uncaring. It is that they are actively engaging in sabotage of the environment, seemingly for its own sake.
copypasta from Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women” (Kindle edition, loc 1135)It is not merely their tendency to overpopulate the immediate area (with devastating results), but also their infantile obsession with disposable consumer goods, and their wasteful refusal of monogamy. All of these female traits became apparent in the late 19th century, and became dominant cultural aspects in the 20th.
Sheppard’s work is really quite good, and you guys ought to give the first release a look. The paperback is difficult to find, but the kindle version is easily accessible and cheap.
That’s why a man can never really succeed with women unless he, first and foremost, develops a contempt for them. This will be his “safety net,” allowing him to continually deal with their childish machinations and remain emotionally unscathed.
The kindle version is the second edition. Is there some particular reason why the first release is superior to the second? In any case, it’s only 46 pages and $3, so no big deal. I’d rather not give money to this drivel, but what sold me is this 1-star Amazon review:
Dear Mr. Ram Man:
So, yesterday you told me that I was being “illogical,” without making any arguments or commitments of your own (of course). Today you’re asking nonsensical questions about versions, and virtue signaling that you’re gonna boycott the book.
You’re welcome to continue to piss on the floor in your host’s house. I don’t really care, and you haven’t violated the comment policy. It makes you look petty and stupid, but there are several precedents. (Hi, Tamerlame!)
I’m a bit surprised, because I know you’re smarter than this. Like I told my nigga Artisanal Toad, you are welcome to submit a rebuttal, which I will publish unedited here, if you ever decide to become serious and explain what, if anything, you specifically disagree with.
Regards,
Boxer
Edit: lolled hard to realize that you dug around in the comments section at amazon, until you found a buried review by a feminist, which you attempt to use here as a credible source.
There appears to be a misunderstanding or two or three going on here.
First, regarding those “nonsensical questions about versions”:
The eBook is the second release of the book, not the first.
Second, regarding “you.re gonna boycott the book.” I’m not boycotting the book. It was that review that made me decide to buy it. I’m no fan of virtue signaling. It’s my fault that I failed to explain myself properly. I would never, intentionally, be disrespectful in your house.
I did make some small arguments to defend my criticism your post. I’m not sure how this is unclear. I didn’t spend more time defending those criticisms because I thought maybe, just maybe, it was satire, and refuting satire really would make me look silly. As you were apparently completely serious, I will now buy the book, read it, and comment accordingly.
My autism must be on the upswing today.
Anyway:
The link kicks you to the second edition of Sheppard’s first release. The second release is longer (and more boring, but still worth a gander). It’s called Sex and Power
This blog (like much of the rest of the www) is three equal parts: fun, serious, and nonsense.
I wasn’t joking when I told you I’d publish your rebuttal of me or Sheppard whenever you want to write one. Comments are for losers. Write me 500 words and I’ll post it as a bylined article. It’ll make you famous.
Well, I’ve finished the book. Alas, the book was not very funny at all. Now, I certainly won’t be able to rebut the dozens of errors in only 500 words, but I should be able to generally handle the overall problem(s) .
Fair enough.
Hilarious. You better watch out, you might lose all your readers if you actually publish something I write. Caveat emptor. Everyone would, I think, much rather read what earl has to say about the celibate lifestyle.
I’d like a dissenting review, and I know you can manage one. Make it as long as you like. I might break it up into two or three articles (as I did with Jason’s journey from escapism to sobriety) but otherwise I’ll publish it unedited.
I’ve shed two or three audiences. I care not. People who hate what I write should be motivated to start their own blogs (as you’ve done). I’ll promote them if they’re serious or entertaining. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as some old revolutionary once said…
Best,
Boxer
It’s in your mailbox. I can make a series. The conclusion of the central thesis does partially require that Earl write a post or two on Christian celibacy, since I can only speak intelligently on Christian marriage. IMO, both are required for a complete refutation of Simon Sheppard’s viewpoints.
I drafted up a fault-by-fault rebuttal, but I hit the word limit just on chapter one’s flaws. Perhaps more interesting is the follow-up question “where do we go from here?” This alluded to in this article series (with guest post by Dalrock), but without the insight I was hoping for (so far).