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.
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.
Second comment: (also for reference about myself, I am apolitical and currently in high school)
The last comment was my initial reaction to Bismarck's post, and this is about his content. As someone in the comments had mentioned (which Danny also pointed out), Bismarck has conflicting beliefs as he thinks "Objective morality doesn’t exist. Morals are social constructs" while also saying "The purity of virginity must be upheld". Commenter privatepublicjournal claims Bismarck "worked backwards from his anger" to get to his conclusion which I believe is true.
I think Bismarck is using intellectualization as a defense mechanism. As Danny mentioned Bismarck really likes to think about different ideas and loves to have conversation and engage in philosophical discussions, but also takes bad care of himself (which he admits to himself, referring to himself as an "ugly guy"), is overweight, is poorly dressed, and is too lazy to exercise. Self neglect is often a sign of poor mental, but this is not a diss to Bismarck though. Everyone experiences pain, Bismarck, Danny, myself, and everyone reading these threads. Instead, I pointed this out because his mental doesn't seem all that great, and from the pain of seeing Layla getting romantically involved with WBE, I can definitely see why he would intellectualize.
He tries to frame BWE as a bad person claiming "He’s a cockroach and needs to be taken care of". And from here he justifies his belief system / position with "Men need to have a code of Honor" and "The purity of virginity must be upheld".
Although he claims
"My first comment is that one’s metaethical view on the truth-aptness of moral claims has precisely nothing to do with how his own moral intuitions manifest in practice." which is just a syntax bomb saying his beliefs on the objectivity of morals does not impact his own morals. This statement is true but from his statement on "truth-aptness of moral claims" being that "Objective morality doesn’t exist" the implication is that his own morals are not objectively true. Your critique and arguments are therefore also very subjective. By your own logic then men do NOT need to have a code of Honor and the purity of virginity does not need to be upheld.
Additionally,
"Rather the character of one’s moral intuitions is shaped by factors like salience to his material interests and status position" is true. We act on desire. But this makes sense in his context, his moral / intellectual critique of WBE is not objective and also motivated by desire.
His reasons are conflicting, and he even admits that he is "backsolving for shit... emotionally" and that "Reasons are frankly kind of gay". So what is the point of him making these claims about virginity and honor, when he knows that he is acting out of desire and emotion and also conflicts himself? As he has said men make their morals out of status and power and that we are "driven by hard material incentives". We are all just slaves to hedonism, to desire, and pleasure. He knows this, he acknowledges this, he tries to defend himself but fails to do so, he recognizes that, but he still continues pursuing this (as does everyone else). That's how life goes
First comment: I'm a follower of Danny so it's my first time getting exposed to this Bismarck guy (and also my first post on substack), but observing his introduction of meeting Danny seems strange to me. His first comments referring to Danny as
" a bit shorter than me but still quite tall for an Asian by my reckoning"
"I think will always be impressed by them not being five feet tall"
"But back to Danny—not wanting to seem racist I suppressed the urge to ask him if he was kin to Lana Li"
As an ABC I don't think it is racist and ofc I don't know the guy, each person is entitled to their internal thoughts and no one can control their first instincts. But, when I meet an Indian person (for example), my first instincts are not going to be
"I was really surprised by the fact that he did not stink of curry"...
Also the whole "not wanting to seem racist" is strange considering he openly uses the N-word later on in his post. His use of the N-word by him has no actual impact on black people compared to police brutality a hate crime would. I tend to view "good" and "bad" as their capacity to cause harm, so pointing out his usage of the N-word is not to say that he is a bad (as he is not harming anyone), instead it is just something that is conflicting because he does not want to seem racist yet also openly does something that many people would consider as such.
I think the reason I find it to be odd is that my belief is in thinking about what is necessary (when possible). The race stuff is not necessary. People belong in groups and groups follow trends, that's why statistics is a thing. If you're black you're more likely the play in the NBA or do athletics. If you're asian there's a higher chance you'll do well in STEM. It is necessary and can be helpful sometimes to think about people in terms of stereotypes / categorically, but I don't think it was necessary then.
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.
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.
People actually live in Orlando?
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.
Second comment: (also for reference about myself, I am apolitical and currently in high school)
The last comment was my initial reaction to Bismarck's post, and this is about his content. As someone in the comments had mentioned (which Danny also pointed out), Bismarck has conflicting beliefs as he thinks "Objective morality doesn’t exist. Morals are social constructs" while also saying "The purity of virginity must be upheld". Commenter privatepublicjournal claims Bismarck "worked backwards from his anger" to get to his conclusion which I believe is true.
I think Bismarck is using intellectualization as a defense mechanism. As Danny mentioned Bismarck really likes to think about different ideas and loves to have conversation and engage in philosophical discussions, but also takes bad care of himself (which he admits to himself, referring to himself as an "ugly guy"), is overweight, is poorly dressed, and is too lazy to exercise. Self neglect is often a sign of poor mental, but this is not a diss to Bismarck though. Everyone experiences pain, Bismarck, Danny, myself, and everyone reading these threads. Instead, I pointed this out because his mental doesn't seem all that great, and from the pain of seeing Layla getting romantically involved with WBE, I can definitely see why he would intellectualize.
He tries to frame BWE as a bad person claiming "He’s a cockroach and needs to be taken care of". And from here he justifies his belief system / position with "Men need to have a code of Honor" and "The purity of virginity must be upheld".
Although he claims
"My first comment is that one’s metaethical view on the truth-aptness of moral claims has precisely nothing to do with how his own moral intuitions manifest in practice." which is just a syntax bomb saying his beliefs on the objectivity of morals does not impact his own morals. This statement is true but from his statement on "truth-aptness of moral claims" being that "Objective morality doesn’t exist" the implication is that his own morals are not objectively true. Your critique and arguments are therefore also very subjective. By your own logic then men do NOT need to have a code of Honor and the purity of virginity does not need to be upheld.
Additionally,
"Rather the character of one’s moral intuitions is shaped by factors like salience to his material interests and status position" is true. We act on desire. But this makes sense in his context, his moral / intellectual critique of WBE is not objective and also motivated by desire.
His reasons are conflicting, and he even admits that he is "backsolving for shit... emotionally" and that "Reasons are frankly kind of gay". So what is the point of him making these claims about virginity and honor, when he knows that he is acting out of desire and emotion and also conflicts himself? As he has said men make their morals out of status and power and that we are "driven by hard material incentives". We are all just slaves to hedonism, to desire, and pleasure. He knows this, he acknowledges this, he tries to defend himself but fails to do so, he recognizes that, but he still continues pursuing this (as does everyone else). That's how life goes
First comment: I'm a follower of Danny so it's my first time getting exposed to this Bismarck guy (and also my first post on substack), but observing his introduction of meeting Danny seems strange to me. His first comments referring to Danny as
" a bit shorter than me but still quite tall for an Asian by my reckoning"
"I think will always be impressed by them not being five feet tall"
"But back to Danny—not wanting to seem racist I suppressed the urge to ask him if he was kin to Lana Li"
As an ABC I don't think it is racist and ofc I don't know the guy, each person is entitled to their internal thoughts and no one can control their first instincts. But, when I meet an Indian person (for example), my first instincts are not going to be
"I was really surprised by the fact that he did not stink of curry"...
Also the whole "not wanting to seem racist" is strange considering he openly uses the N-word later on in his post. His use of the N-word by him has no actual impact on black people compared to police brutality a hate crime would. I tend to view "good" and "bad" as their capacity to cause harm, so pointing out his usage of the N-word is not to say that he is a bad (as he is not harming anyone), instead it is just something that is conflicting because he does not want to seem racist yet also openly does something that many people would consider as such.
I think the reason I find it to be odd is that my belief is in thinking about what is necessary (when possible). The race stuff is not necessary. People belong in groups and groups follow trends, that's why statistics is a thing. If you're black you're more likely the play in the NBA or do athletics. If you're asian there's a higher chance you'll do well in STEM. It is necessary and can be helpful sometimes to think about people in terms of stereotypes / categorically, but I don't think it was necessary then.
Apparently writing about Walt can be just as entertaining as reading Walt.
They should fight wtf I wanna see these niggers fight with knives n shit
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 you’re fine with Deerborne
what’s deerborne
https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-islam-protesters-muslims-clash-dearborn-michigan-after-man-attempts-burn-quran.amp
what does this have to do with anything
You want majority conservative religious groups to be able to take over a city and set their own rules, no?
when did i say that? work on ur reading comprehension skills
…so… …is one gonna get married and one is an uncle now?
These guys are gay