Lol WBE definitely comes out more morally pure in this situation somehow. How can walt write what he writes about society, culture, and women, and then freak out when he realizes his sex pest friend that he INVITED INTO HIS LIFE might fuck a virgin instead of a girl with 8 bodies?
“Objective morality doesn’t exist. Morals are social constructs, fictional but necessary for a functioning society. They serve the interests of powerful parties — ultimately, winners determine what’s considered Good and Bad.” he claims.
Later, he states that “The purity of virginity must be upheld,”. I'm sure he can talk his way in Adderall-laden circles about how this is actually Based and Philosophically Consistent, but in reality, he just realized that he had accidentally given the so venerated virginity of a young woman he clearly wanted to fuck to another man, and then worked backwards from his anger at this to construct a moral reality where WBE is wrong. But how can he hold the moral high ground while his relationship history is E-lationships, prostitution-lite sugaring, and sourcing from Substack the same way WBE does?
Meanwhile, what is the moral analysis of WBE? He's a mentally ill hedonist. He acted like one. That's moral consistency.
I read it. I saw it earlier, but I read it properly this time. You're pretty good at anticipating critiques, impressive, even though doing so does not absolve yourself of them imo.
> Another thing often omitted is that Layla told me on the phone that night that she’d repeatedly told him She Doesn’t Want To Have Sex—that she wished he’d Just Leave, and also knows if they meet up they’re Definitely Having Sex, which she Doesn’t Want because she’s a devoted Catholic who values her virginity and Will Definitely Regret It.
Well, she ended up going. So, in some sense, she did want to do this, even if just to create the emotional turmoil she would later experience in some sort of death drive. You would claim she has no agency because she's too emotional. Have you ever considered she's trying to have her cake and eat it too? Get fucked by a guy she wants while simultaneously having you sympathize with her as the poor little agentless girl, and get away with both relationships intact (to her)? Perhaps she isn't as ignorant as you think.
>"Whereas taking the virginity of a chick who you know values it—who’s transparently a narrative thinker prone to rumination, is doing it out of a self-harm impulse, and will very definitely look back on it with a sour taste in her mouth—crossed a line for me."
Even with your claims of "women not having agency", why is this not her mistake to make? If she values it, and gives it up, and regrets it, that's unfortunate but ultimately her choice. Not only that, but it's also the end of unbroken chain of choices she consistently made, from the moment she messaged you both on Substack. Perhaps virgins should be restricted from responding to men's personal messages at all, because we all know where that leads and they'll regret it forever. At one point, she foresaw the end of this road and kept going. If she regrets it after, she does just as everyone else when conducting relations with other people. It's a part of life.
And since when are women the only ones guilty of making choices that they subconsciously or consciously know will lead to their own destruction? The author of this article himself posted articles on sex and gender he knew would be inflammatory under his own government name, which ended up destroying his life.
You self-select for the type of people that your seduction will actually work on (slustackers, Seeking girls, and groupies), who are led to these places by their own negative pathologies, and then claim that AWALT when you notice the negative pathologies that allowed you to seduce them in the first place.
In a sense, you were able to fuck 100 girls by finding a market niche and filling it. Admirable!
It all comes down to the fact that chicks don't have a stable diachronic sense of self in the same way men do, which means they can want X at a given point in time and then very genuinely look back on that desire as coerced or illegitimate if it doesn't cohere with their present-state emotional reality.
Essentially liberal consent norms don't comport with sexed asymmetries in phenomenology and it's basically always a written by the victors situation, with the woman's "consent" at any individual point in time during a seduction being fairly immaterial to how it will ultimately land in the history books.
There's no way to make this match the male experience of self and that ultimately means men can and will impose their will to power on women and attempt to bind them in a stable diachronic ontology. If it succeeds they're lionized; if not they're unpersoned and dehumanized. Either way it's literally never about "morality" so much as power and desire and dramaturgical acumen.
In this case it worked out against me but it's worked out in my favor plenty of times too. You just got to accept they're basically children at the end of the day.
re: self-selection--you're not wrong distributionally, but it's more the chicks I end up entangled with do this shit more acutely or in more interesting / mythic ways as opposed to e.g. sucking the stripper's cock in nash or deniably flirting with a coworker or keeping 20 implicit backup guys in her DMs, which basically all normalfag girls do to SOME extent. Also girls who get involved in sugaring are WAY more normie than you'd expect, frankly (though the ones who became my gf as opposed to a purely transactional thing were a lot more BPD on avg).
When I was at my most Nietzschean stage in my life, I held a similar take about a girl I was into who was a virgin at the time. Part of it was wanting it for myself (obviously) but there was also a moral weight to it that I felt somewhat responsible for.
Ofc things don't always happen the way you want.
Christians who try to be Nietzscheans turn into Nietzscheans who try to be Christian.
“Walt paused. Then he leaned forward imposingly, glasses slipping down, eyes both good and lazy fixed on mine.
“I’d go to war with you.” he said. “
Good writing Danny. I remember lurking when the whole debacle went down, and it was nice to get a level-headed journalistic take on this. Subscribing mang
I could tell walt was a fat fedora wearing incel from the first 5 paragraphs of his bullshit “there is no morality post” he hasn’t fucked anyone. Probably ever.
WBE is an autistic immoral retard, and you’re a fucking idiot if you think you can learn anything useful from either of these human train-wrecks. DM me and I’ll send you a free copy of Caveman Theory.
Nietzsche did not say might makes right at all. He said we should be aware when values we haven’t truly chosen for ourselves our adopted due to insecurity and acceptance of social norms. These are not the same thing.
Intersubjectivity=😁😁 also Good could be thought of as Alignment with All. Sin is long term inefficiency. Morality stems from the oneness of Existence itself. We all stuck here, what's it going to be like? Heaven and Hell are the same place and they're both Here.
"“Morality is downstream of status,” he explained, as a swan emptied its bowels onto the concrete." That sentence should be in a textbook somewhere..
Glad the young guys are having fun
Lol WBE definitely comes out more morally pure in this situation somehow. How can walt write what he writes about society, culture, and women, and then freak out when he realizes his sex pest friend that he INVITED INTO HIS LIFE might fuck a virgin instead of a girl with 8 bodies?
“Objective morality doesn’t exist. Morals are social constructs, fictional but necessary for a functioning society. They serve the interests of powerful parties — ultimately, winners determine what’s considered Good and Bad.” he claims.
Later, he states that “The purity of virginity must be upheld,”. I'm sure he can talk his way in Adderall-laden circles about how this is actually Based and Philosophically Consistent, but in reality, he just realized that he had accidentally given the so venerated virginity of a young woman he clearly wanted to fuck to another man, and then worked backwards from his anger at this to construct a moral reality where WBE is wrong. But how can he hold the moral high ground while his relationship history is E-lationships, prostitution-lite sugaring, and sourcing from Substack the same way WBE does?
Meanwhile, what is the moral analysis of WBE? He's a mentally ill hedonist. He acted like one. That's moral consistency.
I address this here:
https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/my-lunch-with-danny-li
I read it. I saw it earlier, but I read it properly this time. You're pretty good at anticipating critiques, impressive, even though doing so does not absolve yourself of them imo.
> Another thing often omitted is that Layla told me on the phone that night that she’d repeatedly told him She Doesn’t Want To Have Sex—that she wished he’d Just Leave, and also knows if they meet up they’re Definitely Having Sex, which she Doesn’t Want because she’s a devoted Catholic who values her virginity and Will Definitely Regret It.
Well, she ended up going. So, in some sense, she did want to do this, even if just to create the emotional turmoil she would later experience in some sort of death drive. You would claim she has no agency because she's too emotional. Have you ever considered she's trying to have her cake and eat it too? Get fucked by a guy she wants while simultaneously having you sympathize with her as the poor little agentless girl, and get away with both relationships intact (to her)? Perhaps she isn't as ignorant as you think.
>"Whereas taking the virginity of a chick who you know values it—who’s transparently a narrative thinker prone to rumination, is doing it out of a self-harm impulse, and will very definitely look back on it with a sour taste in her mouth—crossed a line for me."
Even with your claims of "women not having agency", why is this not her mistake to make? If she values it, and gives it up, and regrets it, that's unfortunate but ultimately her choice. Not only that, but it's also the end of unbroken chain of choices she consistently made, from the moment she messaged you both on Substack. Perhaps virgins should be restricted from responding to men's personal messages at all, because we all know where that leads and they'll regret it forever. At one point, she foresaw the end of this road and kept going. If she regrets it after, she does just as everyone else when conducting relations with other people. It's a part of life.
And since when are women the only ones guilty of making choices that they subconsciously or consciously know will lead to their own destruction? The author of this article himself posted articles on sex and gender he knew would be inflammatory under his own government name, which ended up destroying his life.
You self-select for the type of people that your seduction will actually work on (slustackers, Seeking girls, and groupies), who are led to these places by their own negative pathologies, and then claim that AWALT when you notice the negative pathologies that allowed you to seduce them in the first place.
In a sense, you were able to fuck 100 girls by finding a market niche and filling it. Admirable!
It all comes down to the fact that chicks don't have a stable diachronic sense of self in the same way men do, which means they can want X at a given point in time and then very genuinely look back on that desire as coerced or illegitimate if it doesn't cohere with their present-state emotional reality.
Essentially liberal consent norms don't comport with sexed asymmetries in phenomenology and it's basically always a written by the victors situation, with the woman's "consent" at any individual point in time during a seduction being fairly immaterial to how it will ultimately land in the history books.
There's no way to make this match the male experience of self and that ultimately means men can and will impose their will to power on women and attempt to bind them in a stable diachronic ontology. If it succeeds they're lionized; if not they're unpersoned and dehumanized. Either way it's literally never about "morality" so much as power and desire and dramaturgical acumen.
In this case it worked out against me but it's worked out in my favor plenty of times too. You just got to accept they're basically children at the end of the day.
Anyway you might find these interesting:
https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/the-girl-who-cried-incel
https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/all-sex-is-rape
https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/the-diner-incident
https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/i-am-sunshe-is-moon
https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/a-general-theory-for-the-gender-wars
re: self-selection--you're not wrong distributionally, but it's more the chicks I end up entangled with do this shit more acutely or in more interesting / mythic ways as opposed to e.g. sucking the stripper's cock in nash or deniably flirting with a coworker or keeping 20 implicit backup guys in her DMs, which basically all normalfag girls do to SOME extent. Also girls who get involved in sugaring are WAY more normie than you'd expect, frankly (though the ones who became my gf as opposed to a purely transactional thing were a lot more BPD on avg).
When I was at my most Nietzschean stage in my life, I held a similar take about a girl I was into who was a virgin at the time. Part of it was wanting it for myself (obviously) but there was also a moral weight to it that I felt somewhat responsible for.
Ofc things don't always happen the way you want.
Christians who try to be Nietzscheans turn into Nietzscheans who try to be Christian.
“Walt paused. Then he leaned forward imposingly, glasses slipping down, eyes both good and lazy fixed on mine.
“I’d go to war with you.” he said. “
Good writing Danny. I remember lurking when the whole debacle went down, and it was nice to get a level-headed journalistic take on this. Subscribing mang
imma meet you one day danny
I could tell walt was a fat fedora wearing incel from the first 5 paragraphs of his bullshit “there is no morality post” he hasn’t fucked anyone. Probably ever.
WBE is an autistic immoral retard, and you’re a fucking idiot if you think you can learn anything useful from either of these human train-wrecks. DM me and I’ll send you a free copy of Caveman Theory.
I think Walt just wanted to be the one to deflower Layla... Big beef over a little pink, and both overthink.
bars
Have you ackshully read my account?
Yes! I love it! I only put the claim in there to make the rhyme. It goes no deeper.
Nietzsche did not say might makes right at all. He said we should be aware when values we haven’t truly chosen for ourselves our adopted due to insecurity and acceptance of social norms. These are not the same thing.
Apparently writing about Walt can be just as entertaining as reading Walt.
Intersubjectivity=😁😁 also Good could be thought of as Alignment with All. Sin is long term inefficiency. Morality stems from the oneness of Existence itself. We all stuck here, what's it going to be like? Heaven and Hell are the same place and they're both Here.
…so… …is one gonna get married and one is an uncle now?
These guys are gay
Lol, Walt Bismarck is a Jewish Cuck.
I got exiled too.. welcome to the club. Love seeing the Substack character intersections.
what’s deerborne
what does this have to do with anything
when did i say that? work on ur reading comprehension skills