6 definitions by bald_rick
There are nice guys, and there are "nice guys".
The latter believe that there are only 2 ways to be male: to be either a "macho man" (misogynistic, narcissistic, aggressive jerkoff) or a "nice guy" (misogynistic, narcissistic, passive-aggressive jerkoff, but also manipulative and spineless). They believe that talking to a woman for five seconds without saying "shut up bitch" means that they're a paragon of everything women want and are thus automatically owed pussy. When they're denied it, it's the woman's failing.
Although they see themselves as having no self-esteem, in reality they actually view themselves as better than "macho men" and when women reject them clearly said women have been lying when they say they want a "nice guy". They thus try and turn into the macho jerks they claim to despise because that's what women "actually want".
Never does it occur to them that 1) they're not actually very nice 2) by and large women don't want macho jerks, they're just less annoying than "nice guys" 3) there’s a third option: being an ACTUALLY nice guy. Someone who DOESN'T try and screw with women's heads, someone who has ACTUAL respect for women rather than just tries a different dishonest tactic to get laid, and someone who has the guts to be honest about what they want and the spine to suck it up when they don't get it rather than whining about how dreadful women are and getting gradually more bitter and hateful.
The latter believe that there are only 2 ways to be male: to be either a "macho man" (misogynistic, narcissistic, aggressive jerkoff) or a "nice guy" (misogynistic, narcissistic, passive-aggressive jerkoff, but also manipulative and spineless). They believe that talking to a woman for five seconds without saying "shut up bitch" means that they're a paragon of everything women want and are thus automatically owed pussy. When they're denied it, it's the woman's failing.
Although they see themselves as having no self-esteem, in reality they actually view themselves as better than "macho men" and when women reject them clearly said women have been lying when they say they want a "nice guy". They thus try and turn into the macho jerks they claim to despise because that's what women "actually want".
Never does it occur to them that 1) they're not actually very nice 2) by and large women don't want macho jerks, they're just less annoying than "nice guys" 3) there’s a third option: being an ACTUALLY nice guy. Someone who DOESN'T try and screw with women's heads, someone who has ACTUAL respect for women rather than just tries a different dishonest tactic to get laid, and someone who has the guts to be honest about what they want and the spine to suck it up when they don't get it rather than whining about how dreadful women are and getting gradually more bitter and hateful.
Nice guy: I'm such a nice guy, why don't girls want me? They say they want nice guys! But they go out with macho jerks! Or they dump me for them! They're all lying bitches who break your heart!
Actually nice guy: Arrogant, misogynistic, whiny - what woman WOULDN'T want you?
Actually nice guy: Arrogant, misogynistic, whiny - what woman WOULDN'T want you?
by bald_rick October 30, 2011
In a situation where there exists mutually exclusive positions A and B, a concern troll is someone who supports A but professes to support B around genuine supporters of B. However, they express their "concerns" about aspects of position B in order to sow doubt and uncertainty amongst genuine supporters of B.
Whilst this does genuinely happen, the term is used by some paranoid people to effectively mean "anyone who does not agree entirely with the standard dogma of position B, thus must actually covertly support position A", when said person does actually support B, just only 99%.
Thus: disagreeing *at all* with the standard dogma of B will get you branded by such people as The Enemy, and you will get generally treated with hostility and suspicion and, at worst, forcibly ejected from the B-supporter group. Result: everyone stops thinking about the issues, and discussion descends into not arriving at logical and interesting places but who can most furiously support B.
Whilst this does genuinely happen, the term is used by some paranoid people to effectively mean "anyone who does not agree entirely with the standard dogma of position B, thus must actually covertly support position A", when said person does actually support B, just only 99%.
Thus: disagreeing *at all* with the standard dogma of B will get you branded by such people as The Enemy, and you will get generally treated with hostility and suspicion and, at worst, forcibly ejected from the B-supporter group. Result: everyone stops thinking about the issues, and discussion descends into not arriving at logical and interesting places but who can most furiously support B.
1: "All Democrats should be hanged, drawn and quartered! Grrgrrrgrrrgr!"
2: "Uh.. that's a bit excessive. I mean, I don't agree with the Democrats, but maybe we shouldn't actually, like, KILL them.."
1: "CONCERN TROLL! CLEARLY YOU ARE 100% DEMOCRAT! BEGONE, SINNER!"
(everyone flings rotten fruit at 2 until he leaves)
2: "Uh.. that's a bit excessive. I mean, I don't agree with the Democrats, but maybe we shouldn't actually, like, KILL them.."
1: "CONCERN TROLL! CLEARLY YOU ARE 100% DEMOCRAT! BEGONE, SINNER!"
(everyone flings rotten fruit at 2 until he leaves)
by bald_rick December 22, 2011
A wonderful website with many functions:
1) Pretending you know who half the people on your friends list are when they message you, desperately hoping they give you a hint;
2) Providing a means of not having to actually having to properly talk to lots of people you don't give two shits about but it would cause drama not talking to, because it looks like you're in contact when you're actually not;
3) Providing a means for people who you've basically forgotten exist and you'd be quite happy never talking to again to find you and message you;
4) Informing the world about your tiny daily annoyances, diet, and drinking/socialising and/or bowel habits;
5) Posting little else but links to things and stupid witticisms.
6) Playing Scrabble.
Twitter is basically the same, except doesn't include 1-3 or 6.
1) Pretending you know who half the people on your friends list are when they message you, desperately hoping they give you a hint;
2) Providing a means of not having to actually having to properly talk to lots of people you don't give two shits about but it would cause drama not talking to, because it looks like you're in contact when you're actually not;
3) Providing a means for people who you've basically forgotten exist and you'd be quite happy never talking to again to find you and message you;
4) Informing the world about your tiny daily annoyances, diet, and drinking/socialising and/or bowel habits;
5) Posting little else but links to things and stupid witticisms.
6) Playing Scrabble.
Twitter is basically the same, except doesn't include 1-3 or 6.
by bald_rick December 14, 2011
Someone who uses a variety of underhand tactics to try and get laid because, having serious problems with misogyny, a roaring inadequacy complex, a deeply warped image of what constitutes being a worthy person, have never developed a healthy way of interacting with the other sex and seem to believe that the only way to get laid is to beat the other person into submission or trick them, they believe that this is somehow a reasonable way to behave.
By and large, so-called PUAs are inexperienced people talking scarily ignorant shit at each other to try and appear more experienced than they are, or have some degree of success - if it can be called that - which amounts to having sex with a string of women as ill, sociopathic and/or desperate as they are, or ones who are too stupid to realise what a scary manipulative misogynist the person edging ever-closer to them is.
In other words: they have the amount of sex they would otherwise have if they were just perfectly honest about their ends, minus all the people they've scared off by being clearly desperate and/or not very well in the head.
By and large, so-called PUAs are inexperienced people talking scarily ignorant shit at each other to try and appear more experienced than they are, or have some degree of success - if it can be called that - which amounts to having sex with a string of women as ill, sociopathic and/or desperate as they are, or ones who are too stupid to realise what a scary manipulative misogynist the person edging ever-closer to them is.
In other words: they have the amount of sex they would otherwise have if they were just perfectly honest about their ends, minus all the people they've scared off by being clearly desperate and/or not very well in the head.
Pick-up artists: the ironically named group who, as soon as any woman with an ounce of sense or sanity gets anywhere near them, will be dropped by them.
by bald_rick October 30, 2011
Where the Dunning-Kruger effect and the bedroom collide. An alleged sexual orientation for people whose assessment of their own intelligence is far in excess of that of any reasonably objective observer, with the added benefit of making one a soi-disant minority, presumably an oppressed one.
People who describe themselves as "sapiosexual" usually define "intelligent" as "sharing my biases" rather than, you know, "intelligent". Given the first paragraph, this invariably means they're attracted to people as arrogant as them, who they run off with and have a clutch of horrible, spoilt children with who grow up into horrible narcissistic adults.
Furthermore, all it means is they're attracted to people similar to them, making the term fairly tautological to begin with.
People who describe themselves as "sapiosexual" usually define "intelligent" as "sharing my biases" rather than, you know, "intelligent". Given the first paragraph, this invariably means they're attracted to people as arrogant as them, who they run off with and have a clutch of horrible, spoilt children with who grow up into horrible narcissistic adults.
Furthermore, all it means is they're attracted to people similar to them, making the term fairly tautological to begin with.
by bald_rick September 24, 2011
What humans of the female variety get when witnessing attractive humans of the male variety in a state of partial or full undress, either alone or in pairs, preferably whilst doing rude things. Or, to a somewhat less common degree, other attractive humans of the female variety.
Side effects include: blushing, grinning, squeeing, cackling and/or suspiciously lengthy showers.
Side effects include: blushing, grinning, squeeing, cackling and/or suspiciously lengthy showers.
by bald_rick May 27, 2012