3 ms·
> sub5 / normie / chad > looksmaxx, moneymaxx, surgerymaxx > daygame, nightgame, warm approach The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in t
by Nav_Panel 4y ago
> sub5 / normie / chad
> looksmaxx, moneymaxx, surgerymaxx
> daygame, nightgame, warm approach
The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in terms of truths/untruths, from which the knowledge presented in the chart arises.
The problem isn't that it's ideology; the NYT is equally ideological (ironically I had a far more visceral negative response to the angle of the OP article than to the above chart). The problem isn't even necessarily that it's TRP/manosphere ideology, but that it's treated unreflexively.
The question that immediately comes to mind is "why are the only categories 'sub5', 'normie', and 'chad'? What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" Same goes for the proposed actions: what worldview must I assume so that these action-words "make sense", are coherent?
I can't speak for everyone, but when I personally dig into these questions, the answers I arrive at don't align with the other ways I elect to live in the world. I'm not saying the chart is "wrong", but rather that it's not relevant, for me at least.
- orangepurple 4y agoI stand corrected. However, the question "What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" has criteria WW outlines in "40 Differences in Treatment Between a Sub5, Normie & Chad." The theory isn't extremely rigorous and well defined.
- Nav_Panel 4y agoThe point isn't whether the criteria are knowable or not, the point is whether one is aligned with them, in terms of views/faiths/beliefs about how to live one's life. Better to think of it as a lens, perspective, frame, etc. which is neither true nor false, but instead accepted or rejected. In other words, it's a moral question.