The title is a quote attributed to Frederich Nietzsche.
So this week I created a video having to do specifically in this case with idiots among Barbarossaa’s admirers taking issue with me responding on one of his videos asking for greater clarification over one of his claims made therein. Then Bar Bar and others went on the defense and completely misunderstood what I was getting at.
Since my attempt at explaining myself via video didn’t go over terribly well and it appears my point is still confusing to many, let me try to break this down here.
Copying from Bar Bar’s video comment thread in question, my original question posted 3 months ago was:
Just a thought. Assuming that all MGTOWs are 100% non-violent and non-coercive seems a bit of a stretch. How do you know this? Does the MGTOW banner have one specific philosophy that it prescribes to in terms of interaction with women? Because from what I read and watch that doesn’t seem to be the case. It differs depending on the man in question as to what his stance. Hence the idea of men going THEIR OWN ways. But perhaps I missed the memo.
Yes, there were typos and I very likely commented while tired late at night, but it doesn’t appear my typos obscured the point I was trying to convey, which is that MGTOW philosophy doesn’t appear capable of ensuring violent or non-violent outcomes in all who embrace that label. And that had been my first comment on that video comment thread.
Bar Bar replied with this:
I’ve come into contact with hundreds of mgtow, not a single one of them have advocated violence, the fact that as a woman, you come into this male space insinuating that we could be violent, makes you suspect.
And has since received 33 thumbs up on this comment.
To which I replied to Bar Bar:
No, you misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting that these men are or must be violent or coercive, just that the term MGTOW and that life strategy doesn’t exclude that possibility in individuals.
Nanthew Shandridan was a bit more open to comprehending what I was saying:
I understand what you are saying which is that “as MGTOW is self defined, then won’t their be some MGTOW who add violence to how they definite it.” The is that is possible, BUT as violence is not a fundamentally MGTOW concept preached by any MGTOW with any visibility it is pretty safe to assume that the number of such individuals is approaching that of the background level of humanity who are prone to violence whatever they believe in, so in the end MGTOW still has nothing to do with violence.
My reply to Nanthew Shandridan:
That was pretty much my point, that MGTOW has nothing to do with violence either way. Kind of like how atheism doesn’t determine whether someone is violent or not — their atheistic beliefs are a separate matter. MGTOW looks the same to me since it is such a loosely defined group of individuals who ultimately decide for themselves rather than embrace one particular ideology.
Baszar’s reply to Nanthew Shandridan’s reply to me:
Thomas Jefferson then jumped in to say to me: