You might just be a Red-pilled Deplorable 🙂

I have over the years invested some time in sitting in coffee shops, nose in book, or sometimes ostensibly wearing noise cancelling earbuds but actually listening to conversations going on around me. I’ve heard far more casual betrayal, callousness and moral depravity or just plain vacuity (general and moral) from chattering women there than I have in a wide variety of male environments — whether it be fighting over material spoils, women, or the kind of no holds barred exchanges of opinion and confidences that happen during a long night out on the town with friends or colleagues.

Bit backward to be listening in coffee shops: they boast about it on Instagram, Twitter, and FB these days.

Standard Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT) disclaimers apply. As always I like to think in terms of the good old Normal Distribution, and there is no doubt that the male and female populations skew differently.

Despite the standard woke fantasy that Evangelicals are Cross Burning Bubbas… as with many religious groups, they’re heavily female-driven. A lot of the men involved are just along for the ride on auto-pilot. What women get out of ‘religion’ is another story again… but suffice it to say that the public display of virtue is more important than self-abnegation in most cases. Now that public virtue has warped itself into something different, it’s hardly surprising that women and the cucks who sniff after them would drag supposedly based evangelical congregations in the same direction.

“This weekend, we’ll be visiting a couple where the wife is an orangemanbad, MEAN TWEETS person and I hope she doesn’t bring up politics. I anticipate the confused look when I bring up an actual policy. I dread it. She’s a nice person who’s had some lumps. A dozen or so guys, mostly who think as I do, went out of their way (I helped as well) over a couple of years in difficult circumstances. But she doesn’t get it. As with the pastors in the original story far above; how can they/she…..? Be so stupid.”

Have you ever heard anyone say something like: “I just don’t know how I could live [ fill in the blank with] ” … if that were true”; or ” … if the world was like that” or with regard to some other difficult or disconcerting fact unrelated to actual physical suffering?

As you say, they have a personal delicacy, or as MJR observes a paucity of alternative moral resources, that makes them that way.

So they tell lies. They are used to it. Lies have served them well; enhanced their bank accounts, padded their credentials, gained them esteem. Lies, are the very breath of life to them. They live in world based on a lie. It is critical to them that everyone around them repeat the lie.

Women, unfortunately, are as guilty of this as are men. Some of them in my experience, I again emphasize some, seemingly normal, are nonetheless among the most ardent narrative spinners one is likely to encounter this side of outright psychopaths.

It might be some kind of self-protection device, meant to comfort and console.

The only people I have ever personally encountered who outright cackled in derision at the words “truth” and “freedom” being mooted as among the highest human values were rather ordinary seeming females: one an office secretary, another a mail carrier … as I have described several times before.

They are not being fooled. They have made a choice. And for some of them, who would rather pretend not to have made that choice, that choice involves them in certain contortions and fictions.

I recall a massive zoning issue, huge exceptions far outside the actual regulations and the general tenor of previous decisions. It was seriously contentious with overflowing public meetings. The trustees just sat there listening to one opponent after another; technical, real estate, business, etc. Looking bored and blank and completely unreceptive.

They looked as if they’d been bought and were just going through the motions. So, to look as if they’d been bought for the rest of their lives in the city would be the downside. How much would they have to get to be ahead of the downside?

Wonder if these guys are in that position.

People are not gullible. A person can be gullible but when groups of people, particularly ones not connected by time and space, all adopt the same incorrect beliefs, it’s not because they all coincidentally possessed the same level of gullibility.

Joe Biden is pro-choice. Everyone on his campaign is pro-choice. The Democratic Party is pro-choice. All the major influence groups within the party are at least nominally pro-choice. The political media is pro-choice. And neither Biden nor his campaign ever once made any public statement that indicated any wiggle room on the issue of abortion.

If a group of people decided to ignore ALL of that and put their faith instead in some informal, behind-the-scenes, unofficial assurances or implications, it’s not because they were gullible. It’s not because they were stupid, either. It’s because they were motivated to believe an obvious lie over an obvious truth.

Mike

You are exactly correct about some people. I’d say among my friends who vote Democratic, though, it’s about half and half. Half are interested in new information and half get very angry if you try to give them any.

It’s not being misinformed. When information comes to them, it’s as if they’re brandishing a crucifix in the face of a pack of werewolves. They DO NOT want to be informed.

In your case, your positions were informed by information. The cases I am mentioning HATE information they find challenges their position they arrived at for some other reason. And it’s the other reason(s) that concern me.

As I said, I would think that your description is correct for some. I don’t think it’s correct for all that many, though.

I know some evangelicals and Christians, by the way. I actually do live in the actual world.

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph, by the way, but that’s not what you were saying earlier. You were saying that they were “Pretending to trust someone they know full well is untrustworthy.” I don’t think they were pretending; I think they were gullible, taking the easy way out, and did not realize that person was untrustworthy.

And even the motivations of rats are not fully revealed by experiments. We know far less about people.

neo on March 10, 2021 at 2:05 pm said:

DNW:

You do not have a window on their minds any more than anyone else does, except for the people involved. My knowledge of people – and I do have some knowledge of people – says that a lot of people really are gullible, although of course not all.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and hope leads to being gullible to con artists and tyrants. It’s an old story, not a new one.”

Fortunately, we don’t need a window into their minds as your college experiments with rats partially demonstrated. Motivation is more transparent under certain circumstances than we like to believe, though the web of internal justifications the subject may spin, will not be.

And as well as you know human beings, I think that you would readily grant that I probably have a much greater familiarity with Evangelical Christians and Protestants in general, with their theology, their culture, the attitudes of the pew sitters, and the strengths and weakness of it all, than you do.

And my knowledge of people in general – and I do have some though perhaps less than a clinician like yourself – says that historically many of them will profess to believe something merely because it is the thing to do, and will then abandon or compromise the belief at the drop of a hat if they can realize some material advantage or avoid a threat.

You do not have a window on their minds any more than anyone else does, except for the people involved. My knowledge of people – and I do have some knowledge of people – says that a lot of people really are gullible, although of course not all.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and hope leads to being gullible to con artists and tyrants. It’s an old story, not a new one.

“I’m puzzled by how anyone over the age of four can be so gullible. “

They are not gullible.

But they think you are. They think that you can easily be gulled into assuming they are men of principle and courage who were wronged; rather than weaklings complicit in tbeir own destruction. That way, they imagine they can be weaklings and still avoid your contempt.

Not being excluded is the most important thing for them.

They yielded because they are easily browbeaten herd animals looking for an exit from psychic stresses they find unbearable.

Pretending to trust someone they know full well is untrustworthy, gives them what they farcically imagine is a face saving way to cave.

They find being swindled is easier than being disliked.

In this case they get both.

“You will be hated by all for my name’s sake” is too tough a saying in a country where that possibility has become real.

This is their way of surrendering without supposedly surrendering.

Won’t do them any good. They will have to apostatize, dig up their ancestors’ bones and burn them, and send their children to be raised by drag queens before the progressives will relent; maybe, for a little while …