6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person

[monkfromhavana]

Typical self-pitying shit from another passive-aggressive beta loser.

A hungover passive-aggressive beta loser, if you don't mind.

Articles like this do nothing for anyone. If you're already self-conscious/low on self-confidence etc etc this type of shit will just make you feel worse. If you're already a cunt then it's not going to make one iota of difference anyway. It's not as if he really gives and pertinent advice on how to progress to the next level of human development other than calling people dicks and telling them to "do something". He's right, but on the most basic level possible, that doing something is, a lot of the time, better than doing nothing. But that's kind of simple no-value shit that he's rallying against in the article.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

It's from Cracked. Can we just remember this is not the lost wisdom of Ghandi.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Gandhi would've fucking been on it like nappy rash though.

[monkfromhavana]

It's from Cracked. Can we just remember this is not the lost wisdom of Ghandi.

Yeah but what the fuck did he ever achieve? He couldn't even afford a decent pair of Nikes.

[Danger Man]

Mixed race? YOU CROSSED THE STREAMS?! Did your parents remember to underlay the segue with a consistent kick beat to create a more seamless transition? I hope to fucking so.

Careful now. I'll start monitoring your posts and when I see a word I don't like I'll pretend to get upset and demand that your posts confirm to whatever words I find acceptable at the moment.

You big SPAZ!!!!!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Aww, you're a big spaz too!

[Danger Man]

Can we just remember this is not the lost wisdom of Ghandi.

It's Gandhi, you racist spaz.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

I was thinking of Mick Ghandi, who is dead clever and wise actually. That you assumed there can only be one wise person with a similar name makes you the racist spaz.

[TrenterPercenter]

Posting this again as i'm not sure whether it posted due to this malware malarky from the man (probably)

Firstly what is going with this site? Google malware warnings and unable to load pages galore....

Secondly, i thought Alec Baldwin made it abundantly clear that the article is a load of shit.

I mean it doesn't even make sense, but anyway, i rammed pack with MSG and procrastinating from getting started on preparing xmas dinner tomorrow so meh why not;

6 Harsh Truths about The 6 Harsh Truths

#6. The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You

No, the world doesn't care about anything because as far as we know it is not sentient, if in some way it was sentient it would probably give a more of a fuck about humans not destroying it.  Also the patient doesn't exist either it is just a shit metaphor that makes no sense.  Equally we could say how about a soldier that is in a trench being paid for the big push, if he goes over the top he will be shredded by machine gun fire if he stays the "world" will not get what it can from you.

It's meaningless - the man with pocket knife could say "i'm not a doctor, but I am a cunt, a go getter, a risk taker, i once fired my own brother etc....." His skills are in question not his character.

So in conclusion.  Bollocks the "world" is varied and un-uniform with some people valuing something's over others - there not so impressive now is it....

#5. The Hippies Were Wrong

Oh yes, because Alec Baldwin playing a character in a movie says so........at this point we have to ask ourselves who has been smoking here?  Were the hippies right? Who knows and in what context.  A hippies value system is different from a generalised right-wing perspective, just think if a hippy was actually happier than a banker then, then they wouldn't be wrong.  Who cares about happiness when you can have money i hear you sneer.....the answer is hippies.

Oh and also your "job" depends on society/culture not any innate "usefulness", that cheap tat made in china not "useful", that CEO commanding a large salary not "useful", to society at least.  Money has not intrinsic value to work and there is  no evidence that jobs are anything other than constructs.  That is not to say work isn't good it is but success measured in money and job titles does not make you a "good"(your good i.e. respected at large) person.

#4. What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People

Alec Baldwin playing a character says your a douchebag and stop basing your life philosophy on a 1992 movie you fucking loser.  This harsh point basically reads "I don't like nice guys, nice guys suck at getting chicks"  it doesn't even explain why what you produce just has to benefit people but i'll skip that for the bigger point. 

The partners we look to attract in life maybe into different things but having a nice personality is actually something that women and men like, that is not the same however as being apathetic, you can be passionate about good things in life and be a nice person and garner self-confidence from that making you desirable.  All this stuff anyway works on a idealised version of a woman who seems to be suggested that because she is pretty means that she will get/needs a good successful man, she doesn't.  Women are invariably idiots and so are men, and they attract and mingle in concordance with there tastes.

#3. You Hate Yourself Because You Don't Do Anything

Actually some good points here.  It's the journey not the finish line.  Well it's the staple of every positive psychology book for the last 30 years "where you been brotha!?".  The problem is of course, that it pisses all over your other points.  Life is hard not every attempt succeeds, and this isn't just confined to "dweebs trying to pick up chicks" it happens to all of us, and through this we empthaise and respect others for it.  So we respect Para-Olympians for percervering in adversity, we support our friends through tough times even when it is detrimental and "unproductive" to ourselves, and by extension we respect people that try and do GOOD THINGS FOR THE SAKE OF DOING GOOD THINGS! There it is nob-chops, actually ensuring a hierarchy does not become top heavy and destroy itself is useful by your terms and in the terms of so called "nice guys".

Of course people become disenfranchised to taking part because cunts like you make it harder for them, there is also very plausible arguments for enforcing this apathy in capitalist societies to control wages.  If you really want an economy where everyone "does" something then go for Marxism, problem is though that in those systems "usefulness" is planned so you would be digging fucking trenches rather than writing pop-psychology articles for a living (you'd still be getting paid the same as Alec Baldwin though).  How to get people into fulfilling work and improving their confidence is much harder than saying "Get confident stupid".

#2. What You Are Inside Only Matters Because of What It Makes You Do

Straight back to the bullshit I see.  So your a writer, you know about writing right? Because you do it right? You pour over it right? You care, it's in your "dirt" (eugh)?  Well what the fuck do you know about people? Degree in psychology no? sociology? studied any group of people in any scientific objective way ever?  No you just write your opinions based on shit that you think is relevant.  People are incredibly complicated things, its more complicated than rocket science, the equations more convoluted and permutated than theoretical physics. 

In short, we don't know "what" people are inside but we do know that they are very hard to predict in their behaviour, even cunts like yourself change "inside" and realise that they have devoted their life to some cock-swinging scene in a movie that even the actor (being a fucking animal rights activist) thinks is a pile contrived shit aimed at getting goons like yourself to pay up and live with the unicorns for as long as reality can be kept at bay.

It does matter what you are like "inside" because you have body that has to keep going, that means being strong in ways that are not on your radar.  People that we call type-A personality are more likely to get heart attacks that the chilled hippy-type-B wasters - there is dispute but less disputed than any bollocks you've written so far.  People that are uncomfortable inside themselves (through a variety of things but a large one being high expectations of themselves) are the people that mainly end up on the couch, fucked and messed up on years of unsatisfying adrenaline buzzes. 

But hey why do i care, your paying my wages so please continue.  Nice to be useful and all.

#1. Everything Inside You Will Fight Improvement


Hey Alec Baldwin called he said he wants his cut you fucking plagerising cock-boil, when are you actually going to do some proper fucking work and stop being one of those consumerist-hippy-types. Look at them smiling there with their "friends".  Yes resist to change is common but again that is a daily battle everyone has from making their child eat their greens to talking your friend out of harming themselves.  It takes energy and support.  Its hilarious how you in order to make this point come across as a whiny bitch douchebag that you previously shunned.  "

Oh why won't the people just stop shooting the messenger, it will make them a better person, i'm being nice! ME!"

Change is harder to do than not its true, toddlers get that fact, how this discovery in personal development arrived so late on your mental doorstep is a question i would seek an answer too, perhaps with a paid professional.  The problem is endeavors do not always pay of and hindsight is great for judging what was a worthy expense of energy and what wasn't.  So again we go back to why it is important to be nice to people to help them achieve their goals, lets not conflate nice with lazy or apathetic as you keep doing.  You can be nice, assertive, confident and successful still having time to help other people, just like you can be a massive cunt and still not rely on that to bring you anything but mental anguish and the vague sensation that people hate you.


Adaptation is the key to survival, but what "survival" is, is different for different people.



Right that is the world back in balance now where is that fat feckless turkey..

[Danger Man]

I was thinking of Mick Ghandi, who is dead clever and wise actually. That you assumed there can only be one wise person with a similar name makes you the racist spaz.

A namist spaz, to be technically correct.

Anyway, Gandhi was the real spaz, as this famous quote shows:

"What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea."

FUCK OFF GANDHI back to your poverty-ridden shithole of a caste-divided country where everybody poos in the same river they get their drinking water from. Come back in a few hundred years time when you've caught up.

And I can say that because my dad came from there. If anyone else says it they are wacist.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

"What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea."

There is no evidence he ever said that. IE he probably never did.

[biggytitbo]

Hmmm....I suppose I am, but being mixed-race and having spent so much of my adult life overseas I probably don't feel as British as most people.

I prefer the term international playboy.......

Methinks more international super spy, but of course you aren't allowed to say that.

[biggytitbo]

I bet gandh gets a knock from the jimmy Saville police before too long...didn't he used to go to bed with a 16 year old virgin every night?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I bet gandh gets a knock from the jimmy Saville police before too long...didn't he used to go to bed with a 16 year old virgin every night?

I think you're thinking about your teddy bear Rupert.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

[Kishi the Bad Lampshade]

Surely the bit about guys not being able to 'get' girls was specifically chosen as an example, rather than the whole point? It was pretty poorly related to the title of the point though. And yeah, people seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking he's saying HEY FAG GET SOME PUSSY, but that point does seem to tie in with point 2, in that it's the tendency of people (certainly me) to sometimes wander round thinking how creative and caring and ace we are without actually doing much to show for it. Louis CK puts it in a less obnoxious way in his bit about "believies" which I can't find on Youtube to show y'all.

I don't think it's to be read as "you can't get girls unless you have an impressive CV of your skills and hobbies to show her" so much as "you can't expect things to work out for you magically, solely on the basis that you're not openly horrible to everyone". And if you genuinely consider 'nice' to be one of your primary good qualities, you should be able to actually think of great positive things you did out of selfless kindness, not just a vague "well I'm not rude to people and I hold doors open and stuff" i.e. stuff most people do anyway out of a sense of not being a total dick. I can definitely recognise myself when I was younger in that thought process, and 4chan's full of the buggers.

(As for whether this tendency affects men more than women, I don't know. I remember one of Wong's other articles, the one about men being trained to hate women, which was generally pretty shite but had a fair point about how all media basically teaches men that they 'get' the girl in the end regardless of compatibility/chemistry/situation, so maybe he's basing the idea that men have this sense of entitlement more on that. Also I suppose you could argue that women get more pressured to base their self-worth on their looks, so if they get rejected they have more of a tendency to turn it on themselves and presume they weren't pretty enough (though of course some will always get bitter). But this is just spitballing and could well be wrong, so don't let it distract you from the rest of the post.)

[TrenterPercenter]

So what is the point then - don't rely on being nice because being nice isn't worth anything because everyone is nice (though in reality they aren't all that much).

No, it is bollocks and it is all about picking up girls - like they are all some collective hive-mind that is filtering out the evolutionary inferior from the big-dicks.

[Buelligan]

Truth #29

These pants[nb]All of the Baldwin brothers are rumoured to wear them.[/nb] (which I have actually seen IRL), will make you look intriguing.

[Kishi the Bad Lampshade]

So what is the point then - don't rely on being nice because being nice isn't worth anything because everyone is nice (though in reality they aren't all that much).

Well, exactly, they're not all that nice. That includes a lot of the people who think they are nice. Everyone likes to think they are nice. But look at your life and ask: am I genuinely kind, or generous, or selfless, and all that other stuff that goes under the vague collective of 'nice'? Or do you just presume your 'niceness' makes you worth your weight in gold just because you don't beat people up or cheat on them? Being 'nice' obviously isn't not worth anything, but you need more than that to make a relationship work. The key word is 'rely'.

No, it is bollocks and it is all about picking up girls - like they are all some collective hive-mind that is filtering out the evolutionary inferior from the big-dicks.

He never said in the article that you have to do the big-dick stuff - he actively said that presuming that is a tactic people will use to discredit what he says. Of course it depends on the individual, and even if you do the 'right' stuff to attract her sometimes things just won't work out, for a whole bunch of reasons. But you have to have some sort of quality beyond some vague 'niceness' - unless it's truly noticeable goodness of character - or no-one's ever going to stop long enough to get to know the 'inner you'. I agree he probably should have put in a caveat that said "doing thing X will not automatically get you bird Y".

[monkfromhavana]

Truth #29

These pants[nb]All of the Baldwin brothers are rumoured to wear them.[/nb] (which I have actually seen IRL), will make you look intriguing.

Dicks Scream underwear?

[Buelligan]

Yes.  They are real and in the shops right here.  And they'll make you look special as well as nice.

[The Βoston Crab]

As discussed in brief with Shoulders on an earlier page, the essence of 'being nice' is also a very subjective judgement. I don't think that being affable and non-confrontational at all times is worth very much at all. It might be handy to dip into reserves of polite semi-engagement in an awkward or heated situation but it's essentially the path of least resistance.

There are people I work with to whom I'm 'nice' but that's because I don't want either of us to live with the consequences of my telling them I've no real desire to speak to them again. In this instance, inaction is the best, most caring course of action. To people I actually give a shit about, or even love, all that tally-ho and toodle-pip bollocks is seldom the best way to communicate and develop a better understanding of each other or indeed to help each other.

If your friend is wearing very unflattering clothes for an interview and they ask you how they look, is it nice to lie to them via the path of least resistance? Equally, I don't think it's nice to tell them they look fucking shit. My point is: being 'nice' is not only subjective, it's the easiest characteristic to attribute to oneself, as Kishi suggests. 'Be good to each other' is as hollow a statement as 'God exists within you'; subjective experience and empirical practice ascribes meaning to these truisms.

[Thursday]

I stopped being one of those people that describes myself as "a nice guy" because I see the flaws in it. But I really hate this massive antipathy towards people that would describe themselves as such.

This isn't really the thread for this, but things like this and that "nice guys of okcupid" tumblr or that "nice guy fallacy" blog really paints an unfair picture. As if all people who would do this are basically just massive hypocrites and misogynists that only pretend to be friends with women in order to eventually have sex with them. There's also the bullying subtext of "Haha look at them, they're ugly and creepy as well!"

I don't think it's to be read as "you can't get girls unless you have an impressive CV of your skills and hobbies to show her" so much as "you can't expect things to work out for you magically, solely on the basis that you're not openly horrible to everyone".

Well... why not? I mean not so much magically work out but I think how most people feel is. "I don't ask for much in life, all I want is an okay job that's not too stressful and boring that pays enough for a space of my own, and someone nice to share it with. I've always been considerate of other people's feelings, I work quite hard, so why is this average lifestyle beyond me?"

And then they look at the people in the world who have so much more, people who aren't intelligent don't work hard and act like dicks to everyone, say horrible misogynistic things about women, but have no problem attracting them. Usually because they're more confident through a combination of good looks and lack of self-awareness. Hence a self-described "nice guy" who lacks confidence,  because they were weird looking and so got bullied by the above people at school, get very bitter and resentful about life, the people who succeed and the women who go out with them. That's not to defend the hypocrisy of some of these people, it's just they're not saying anything that even bigger, more harmful dicks would say. So aiming at them just kind of seems like punching down.

[Desi Dubs Dallas]

When it boils down to it nice is the default factory setting, it's about the lowest bar you should be aiming for,it's the foundation stone on which you build the rest of your life upon.
If you expect nice to give you a free pass to love riches and happiness then you probably didn't read the small print close enough[nb]this post was brought to you by the mixed metaphor corporation of America[/nb]

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

He did actually tie in Glengarry Glen Ross with how to be more successful at having relationships with women, so it was a bit...woah. No mate.

You probably noticed while reading how impersonal the advice was and how women weren't at any point personified, or qualified or discussed. It was all done through the alpha prism of obtaining, conquering, winning. Nothing about interactions, no discussions, nothing about the nitty gritty people struggle with or personal examples. Just How To Be Me. The whole framing of the advice as Harsh was to present what is hideously simplistic and sexist aggressively insulting 'advice' as just one plain speaking guy, rather than a hilarious priapic tosser on a coke-fuelled ego trip. He didn't actually talk about women did he, it was about personal accomplishment.

Learning how to project yourself as a winner to other people is still a conceit. All his advice was, was a conceit. He didn't acknowledge that actually, the amount of people some people actually meet in their life is very small, and just by plain maths, and social mathematics, the chances of a good fit are less as a result. One good bit of advice is to start doing things that involve meeting women and talking to women, and automatically things will improve. He didn't acknowledge that most relationships involve dysfunctional damaged people regardless of whatever qualities they have, whatever skills they have (I just kept thinking of Napoleon Dynamite every time he mentioned skills), and that's what makes or breaks a partnership, the combination of personalities, not their fucking retinue or a bow-hunting certificate.

Attractive things get your foot in the door, it's what's inside that keeps you in the room.

Targeting the single most inexperienced and physically and mentally pressurised group of people simply because they can get a bit whiny and annoying, is just a cheap shot, and probably one of the genuinely valid examples of a lazy target.

[TrenterPercenter]

Well, exactly, they're not all that nice. That includes a lot of the people who think they are nice. Everyone likes to think they are nice. But look at your life and ask: am I genuinely kind, or generous, or selfless, and all that other stuff that goes under the vague collective of 'nice'? Or do you just presume your 'niceness' makes you worth your weight in gold just because you don't beat people up or cheat on them? Being 'nice' obviously isn't not worth anything, but you need more than that to make a relationship work. The key word is 'rely'.

I don't presume anything.  In the niceness stakes I would say I am nicer than someone opening doors or just passively thinking that i am "right on" kinda guy.  I actively pursue and consciously chose to pursue a socially caring/improving career (i quit my less ethical position for a wage cut of 5k pa), I give to several charities via direct debit, i work voluntarily with vulnerable people, I work hard, I work out, I play piano, I take a keen interest in current and classical affairs. I care for my best friend that fell mentally ill when i was 18.

I am I king among men?  No.

Does this make me attractive to the opposite sex, well it depends on what they are into and whether my other qualities are in tune.

I said before that equating "Niceness" as you have just done with apathy i.e. not doing anything, not even actually being nice and being superficially nice. That is something completely different and not what this ill-educated shock-jock writer is saying as well.


Why don't you ask yourself why you are keen to believe what he says?

[TrenterPercenter]

You probably noticed while reading how impersonal the advice was and how women weren't at any point personified, or qualified or discussed.

Exactly.

[Desi Dubs Dallas]

I quite enjoyed how awful the article was it was like having a guided tour round the head of a psychopath.

[Danger Man]

Everyone likes to think they are nice.

Not everybody.

[biggytitbo]

That's right. PE teachers aren't very nice and they know it