Norwood Vocal Tics
(06-17-2022, 05:21 AM)Fra Longino Wrote: Excessively talking about Demons. Calling everything one doesn't like "Demonic". Claiming to understand the designs of Demons as if they were villains from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's especially Norwood if the poster isn't part of the Trad-sphere. For example, one of my esteemed mutuals was called "Weird and Satanic" by a man who runs a Podcast that extols the artistic virtues of the most depraved Torture Pornography imaginable. But my mutual is the Demonic one because he's not a faggot, apparently.
Overuse of the term "demons" whether it's being ascribed to people or architecture or natural phenomena is retarded. I get your point that "it's especially Norwood if the poster isn't part of the Trad-sphere," but in some ways it makes me seethe even more when I see it being used by supposed Christians. The Bible itself does mention demons and it's very explicit in the instances it does so, Luke 8:2 is a good example. Anyone who supposedly has a belief in this faith should know that phones aren't demons, cities aren't demonic, anime isn't demonic, and so on. These people annoy me more because they're bastardizing a faith they pretending to represent online. Yes, "it's the hypocrisy for me," what can I do.

As for the non-Trad, secular people who invoke "demons," I have another theory. Essentially, even though a vast number of people in the Western world are atheists or at the very least highly-secularized, a lot of their moral language and their entire moral framework itself is influenced by Christianity. Christianity had been the dominant force in the West for over a thousand years, so it makes sense that these people would still hold onto cultural vestiges of it though they themselves are lacking in belief. When some libtard or communist calls something DEMONIC, they're not really referring to a spiritual being that takes possession of people. These people are, for the most part, total materialists. They don't believe in a soul or spirit, let alone evil spiritual entities. It's just a fallback to point out something they disdain. But because most of these people aren't very smart, they don't have the ability to actual explore an alternative ethical system by which to call out your actions, or things they don't like. They're too dumb to be utilitarians or virtue ethicists or deontologists. They likely don't have any kind of moral theory functioning in the back of their minds when you really get down to it. But nonetheless, what you do makes them FEEL BAD, and they have to call it out. So what do they do? Demons. They're too retarded to come up with anything else. Even midiwt libertarians will have some general notion of secular moral systems, and will bring up 'duh NAP!' when you ask them why you can't just bludgeon someone to death because you dislike them. But for many leftists, it's DEMONS. It's a shutdown argument in their eyes, they don't have to say anything else. Why is it bad to ship a bunch of niggers in the UK to Nigeria? Well, IT'S DEMONIC.  Why is X-figure so evil? DEMONS.

If someone invokes DEMONS in an argument, it's not worth responding to in a serious manner.
[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVPluiRXsAQQ...me=900x900]
Any mentions of a "timeline" i.e "We're in the worst timeline" when something wacky and quirky happens
(06-18-2022, 07:16 PM)Leverkühn Wrote:
(06-17-2022, 05:21 AM)Fra Longino Wrote: Excessively talking about Demons. Calling everything one doesn't like "Demonic". Claiming to understand the designs of Demons as if they were villains from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's especially Norwood if the poster isn't part of the Trad-sphere. For example, one of my esteemed mutuals was called "Weird and Satanic" by a man who runs a Podcast that extols the artistic virtues of the most depraved Torture Pornography imaginable. But my mutual is the Demonic one because he's not a faggot, apparently.
Overuse of the term "demons" whether it's being ascribed to people or architecture or natural phenomena is retarded. I get your point that "it's especially Norwood if the poster isn't part of the Trad-sphere," but in some ways it makes me seethe even more when I see it being used by supposed Christians. The Bible itself does mention demons and it's very explicit in the instances it does so, Luke 8:2 is a good example. Anyone who supposedly has a belief in this faith should know that phones aren't demons, cities aren't demonic, anime isn't demonic, and so on. These people annoy me more because they're bastardizing a faith they pretending to represent online. Yes, "it's the hypocrisy for me," what can I do.

As for the non-Trad, secular people who invoke "demons," I have another theory. Essentially, even though a vast number of people in the Western world are atheists or at the very least highly-secularized, a lot of their moral language and their entire moral framework itself is influenced by Christianity. Christianity had been the dominant force in the West for over a thousand years, so it makes sense that these people would still hold onto cultural vestiges of it though they themselves are lacking in belief. When some libtard or communist calls something DEMONIC, they're not really referring to a spiritual being that takes possession of people. These people are, for the most part, total materialists. They don't believe in a soul or spirit, let alone evil spiritual entities. It's just a fallback to point out something they disdain. But because most of these people aren't very smart, they don't have the ability to actual explore an alternative ethical system by which to call out your actions, or things they don't like. They're too dumb to be utilitarians or virtue ethicists or deontologists. They likely don't have any kind of moral theory functioning in the back of their minds when you really get down to it. But nonetheless, what you do makes them FEEL BAD, and they have to call it out. So what do they do? Demons. They're too retarded to come up with anything else. Even midiwt libertarians will have some general notion of secular moral systems, and will bring up 'duh NAP!' when you ask them why you can't just bludgeon someone to death because you dislike them. But for many leftists, it's DEMONS. It's a shutdown argument in their eyes, they don't have to say anything else. Why is it bad to ship a bunch of niggers in the UK to Nigeria? Well, IT'S DEMONIC.  Why is X-figure so evil? DEMONS.

If someone invokes DEMONS in an argument, it's not worth responding to in a serious manner.
[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVPluiRXsAQQ...me=900x900]

It's always the typical "tin-foil hat" classical skeptic type that makes futile attempts to tap into a nonexistent attractive mystery of normie esoterica. Such potent, visible norwood. 

"Oh it's the ANCIENT MESOAMERICAN CORN DEMONS, heh heh"
"It's the freaking ILLUMINATI and their UFO EXPERIMENTS!"
"Guys... the FREEMASONS... I'm going SCHIZO MODE!!!"

It's the silly quirky it's-all-real-but-simultaneously-we-all-know-it's-fake personality type that only ever attracts negative attention. This excludes stuff like campfire tales. I am talking about through-and-through nerds that will do anything they can to subvert any practical discussion. They catch wind of any sort of "conspiracy theory" being discussed and immediately inject as much crazy zany nonsense as possible. I don't know if any of you have encountered these freaks in the wild.
While it’s not a vocal tic, I find that having a sexual attraction towards “buff” women is a telltale sign. If you ask them about this they get mad and claim that you are somehow being “insecure” for calling them gay, despite most of the women looking like trannies
On a side note, I've noticed the rise of 'ironic' gayporn posting throughout the last few years, mostly in the form of memes on twitter and video edits on youtube. It's likely it has always been present, but without a doubt a rise in popularity has occurred; lately it's a common sight on social media in general. I find that trend somewhat disturbing, given how many people seem to find this kind of content entertaining, even those vaguely right-leaning from what I've seen. Wouldn't exclude that it is manufactured ot at least boosted, but it wouldn't have taken root that easily without the progressing bastardization of society.
Tangentially related, but the category of "Norwood" likely exists in the first place because calling someone a faggot does not have the same punch that it once used to. Almost all of the things described throughout the thread would get a guy called a faggot if they acted like this incessantly from a decade+ ago. A distinction has to be made of what kind of faggot someone is being.

They ape the snide passive-aggressiveness and faux detachment that is the behavioural habit of many homosexuals, who are cool to them and they evidently pick up some habits from. It is as if they are allergic to dropping the act and talking to you like a normal person without any ulterior objective, even if they accuse you of "having a normal one".

To me it looks as if "Norwood" is unconsciously similar in usage towards the now rarely-used and sometimes more neutral "metrosexual", with the implications being that said Norwood sees himself as cool and woke.
(07-10-2022, 10:05 PM)Youkai Wrote: Tangentially related, but the category of "Norwood" likely exists in the first place because calling someone a faggot does not have the same punch that it once used to. Almost all of the things described throughout the thread would get a guy called a faggot if they acted like this incessantly from a decade+ ago. A distinction has to be made of what kind of faggot someone is being.

They ape the snide passive-aggressiveness and faux detachment that is the behavioural habit of many homosexuals, who are cool to them and they evidently pick up some habits from. It is as if they are allergic to dropping the act and talking to you like a normal person without any ulterior objective, even if they accuse you of "having a normal one".

To me it looks as if "Norwood" is unconsciously similar in usage towards the now rarely-used and sometimes more neutral "metrosexual", with the implications being that said Norwood sees himself as cool and woke.

The Norwood's eel-like writhing and gnashing at the idea of "dropping the act" and "talking to you like a normal person" is the most personally offensive aspect to me. The Norwood puts forward a façade, as is well established, but the "façade" reveals so much more about him than would ever be unearthed normally. The "façade" is a roiling, stinking cocktail of all the things which have shaped him: he isn't "real" enough to fabricate a front through his own replication of others; there isn't a wire frame for the animatronic costume to attach to. He's been ritually draped in the niggertranny gestalt.
(07-07-2022, 07:15 PM)Guest Wrote: On a side note, I've noticed the rise of 'ironic' gayporn posting throughout the last few years, mostly in the form of memes on twitter and video edits on youtube. It's likely it has always been present, but without a doubt a rise in popularity has occurred; lately it's a common sight on social media in general. I find that trend somewhat disturbing, given how many people seem to find this kind of content entertaining, even those vaguely right-leaning from what I've seen. Wouldn't exclude that it is manufactured ot at least boosted, but it wouldn't have taken root that easily without the progressing bastardization of society.

What, you mean like Gachi? Or something else?
I haven't seen it for a while but I thought about it today. You've probably seen it.
Using the phrase 'Palestinian kids', usually about them getting bombed or something. It's a bit like during the Trump presidency when US libs were talking about 'kids in cages'.
Joe Rogan seems heavily Norwood to me. Weed, "based" liberalism, and the MMA thing.

In general, I think the MMA/BJJ thing is very 'wood. Many people who advocate for it generally also seem to have a disdain for just lifting weights and frown down upon it as it doesn't matter in a "street fight".

They also say how a man's "real" character is shown on the MMA mat and this is usually followed by some kind of story of how only shedding blood in this intimate way builds the bonds for friendship.
(09-08-2022, 05:57 AM)Guest Wrote: Joe Rogan seems heavily Norwood to me. Weed, "based" liberalism, and the MMA thing.

In general, I think the MMA/BJJ thing is very 'wood. Many people who advocate for it generally also seem to have a disdain for just lifting weights and frown down upon it as it doesn't matter in a "street fight".

They also say how a man's "real" character is shown on the MMA mat and this is usually followed by some kind of story of how only shedding blood in this intimate way builds the bonds for friendship.

Very adjacent to the flannel guy thing. Getting in touch with what's *real* in a way that conveniently avoids everything that's actually uncomfortable and wrong with our time.
please explain to me how learning an actually functional (as opposed to various "bullshido" self-defense courses for womyn) and physically demanding martial art constitutes "avoiding everything uncomfortable and wrong with our time". not even going to comment on the other guest's ramblings.
(09-08-2022, 07:43 AM)Guest Wrote: please explain to me how learning an actually functional (as opposed to various "bullshido" self-defense courses for womyn) and physically demanding martial art constitutes "avoiding everything uncomfortable and wrong with our time". not even going to comment on the other guest's ramblings.

Joe Rogan learns "actually functional" martial arts and blasts weird hormones until he can execute one of the most powerful kicks in the world. And then he abandons his home and flees to texas because neurotic women and jews were allowed to destroy it from desks and pulpits.
(09-08-2022, 07:43 AM)Guest Wrote: please explain to me how learning an actually functional (as opposed to various "bullshido" self-defense courses for womyn) and physically demanding martial art constitutes "avoiding everything uncomfortable and wrong with our time". not even going to comment on the other guest's ramblings.

Different strokes for different folks. You're free to learn functional martial arts, but if you obsess over how people who just like to lift weights are not "really" strong then you're a 'wood.

Also, I disagree in general that you NEED to learn martial arts. What's probably more important is learning how to properly use automatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons. I don't see many of the MMA/BJJ people advocating strongly that people need to be proficient with guns and weapons. Instead, the MMA/BJJ thing is some expression of faux masculinity to them. They can appear to be strong and masculine without doing any of the things an actually masculine person would do.

If the ancient Greeks or conquistadors were transported to our time, they wouldn't obsess over the fact that young men choose to lift weights rather than join some gay MMA club. They wouldn't obsess over learning obscure, pointless techniques when you could just train with guns and other weapons. They wouldn't tell you that you absolutely NEED to join some MMA club in order to "solve the masculinity crisis".
https://web.archive.org/web/200904120857...s_buffoon/

This might be of general interest to anybody interested in the above few posts. A very nice piece of work I won't quote in pieces.
(09-09-2022, 01:41 AM)Guest Wrote: If the ancient Greeks or conquistadors were transported to our time, they wouldn't obsess over the fact that young men choose to lift weights rather than join some gay MMA club. They wouldn't obsess over learning obscure, pointless techniques when you could just train with guns and other weapons.

I think both of these groups would be rather concerned (or amused) by the fact that someone would choose vanity bodybuilding over martial skills, since they had less leisure in their lives than we do. They didn't win their wars by having visually bigger muscles than the other side. Greeks didn't have guns, they had wrestling and pankration instead. The conquistadors had guns, but they were still impractical and very expensive, and everyone, including the gunners, learned conventional fighting skills - if you look into sword fighting you'll see it's a full-contact martial art that includes grappling and kicking. Nobles practiced fighting for sport and recreation, because they had the time and means, but also out of necessity as warrior class.

As to the argument that hand to hand fighting is obsolete - I don't know where you're from, but regardless, launching liveleak or twitter channels focused on the American cities will disprove it right away. In most of these places you're not allowed to own and carry a firearm. Even if you can legally carry one, using it in a self-defense situation will most likely cripple you financially, if just that, even if you're 100% in the right. Of course, when it comes to defending your life, firearms are the most effective means - but you won't be able to carry it everywhere - as opposed to your hands. Fighting skills are a definite advantage that might allow you to, at the very least, disengage and safely escape instead of falling victim to some deadbeat nigger.

Men have always fought for fun and for money, to deny it or demean it is complete idiocy. Similarly, there always have been dick-measuring contests, which seem to be your main issue here. Are there fags and sellouts in the MMA community? You bet. Are there fags in the bodybuilding scene? A lot, you don't have to look far. You'll see plenty in the firearm community too, since you brought it up. What's my point? Weightlifters will tell you that you NEED to go to the gym (and buy their merch). Martial artists will tell you that you NEED to learn their technique (and buy equipment with their brand on it). It's completely normal to advertise oneself and make others believe you're right - and solving the 'masculinity crisis' is a catchy phrase. You might as well ignore them and do both, or whatever else you want to do. For some men, driving fast cars or motorcycles is an expression of masculinity.
(09-09-2022, 05:00 AM)Guest Wrote: Men have always fought for fun and for money, to deny it or demean it is complete idiocy. Similarly, there always have been dick-measuring contests, which seem to be your main issue here. Are there fags and sellouts in the MMA community? You bet. Are there fags in the bodybuilding scene? A lot, you don't have to look far. You'll see plenty in the firearm community too, since you brought it up. What's my point? Weightlifters will tell you that you NEED to go to the gym (and buy their merch). Martial artists will tell you that you NEED to learn their technique (and buy equipment with their brand on it). It's completely normal to advertise oneself and make others believe you're right - and solving the 'masculinity crisis' is a catchy phrase. You might as well ignore them and do both, or whatever else you want to do. For some men, driving fast cars or motorcycles is an expression of masculinity.

I think you raise an extremely important point here that often gets lost when talking about force. There are also fags in the gun scene. There is no real power in physicality anymore, there is also not really power coming out of the barrel of a gun anymore in most of the world. It's as much of a show and pose as bodybuilding. I think from here we can get to the real heart of the issue, which is that there is simply no true flow of power left anywhere. Everything is some kind of performance and joke, and the power is in the hands of performers. You can defend property with a gun better than fists, but do it and then some showy jew/negro duo will get on tv and cry about how the KKK shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want in current year, and now a bomber full of napalm is flying over your house and swat teams are arresting you. And none of these characters are sovereign either, they're all at the mercy of each other. The whole world now runs on something comparable more comparable to court politics than anything else.
(09-09-2022, 05:00 AM)Guest Wrote:
(09-09-2022, 01:41 AM)Guest Wrote: If the ancient Greeks or conquistadors were transported to our time, they wouldn't obsess over the fact that young men choose to lift weights rather than join some gay MMA club. They wouldn't obsess over learning obscure, pointless techniques when you could just train with guns and other weapons.

I think both of these groups would be rather concerned (or amused) by the fact that someone would choose vanity bodybuilding over martial skills, since they had less leisure in their lives than we do. They didn't win their wars by having visually bigger muscles than the other side. Greeks didn't have guns, they had wrestling and pankration instead. The conquistadors had guns, but they were still impractical and very expensive, and everyone, including the gunners, learned conventional fighting skills - if you look into sword fighting you'll see it's a full-contact martial art that includes grappling and kicking. Nobles practiced fighting for sport and recreation, because they had the time and means, but also out of necessity as warrior class.

As to the argument that hand to hand fighting is obsolete - I don't know where you're from, but regardless, launching liveleak or twitter channels focused on the American cities will disprove it right away. In most of these places you're not allowed to own and carry a firearm. Even if you can legally carry one, using it in a self-defense situation will most likely cripple you financially, if just that, even if you're 100% in the right. Of course, when it comes to defending your life, firearms are the most effective means - but you won't be able to carry it everywhere - as opposed to your hands. Fighting skills are a definite advantage that might allow you to, at the very least, disengage and safely escape instead of falling victim to some deadbeat nigger.

Men have always fought for fun and for money, to deny it or demean it is complete idiocy. Similarly, there always have been dick-measuring contests, which seem to be your main issue here. Are there fags and sellouts in the MMA community? You bet. Are there fags in the bodybuilding scene? A lot, you don't have to look far. You'll see plenty in the firearm community too, since you brought it up. What's my point? Weightlifters will tell you that you NEED to go to the gym (and buy their merch). Martial artists will tell you that you NEED to learn their technique (and buy equipment with their brand on it). It's completely normal to advertise oneself and make others believe you're right - and solving the 'masculinity crisis' is a catchy phrase. You might as well ignore them and do both, or whatever else you want to do. For some men, driving fast cars or motorcycles is an expression of masculinity.

You're completely right in all those points of course. There's fags everywhere. I'm just pointing out that some peoples' obsession with MMA and BJJ over just lifting weights is norwood.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions against you or people who enjoy MMA or anything like that. But I think that if you believe everyone should do MMA and you play-act as somehow superior to people who just want a more aesthetic body, it's norwood. There's no real power to be gained anywhere, like @anthony said.
Photo 
that pretty sums up the norwood phenomenon


[Image: https://i.redd.it/6nj737jiobn91.jpg]
(09-30-2022, 07:14 PM)Guest Wrote: that pretty sums up the norwood phenomenon


[Image: https://i.redd.it/6nj737jiobn91.jpg]

This would be more of the dread "dirtbag leftist" - though easy mistake to make, seeing how similar 'woods are to those types.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)